- Case
Authorship issue
…felt that it was clear that relationships between Drs A and B and Dr C were poor, and a number of subsidiary points had been made in the letters. However, the journal considered that the issue revolved essentially around whether or not Drs A and B met the criteria for authorship. The journal website clearly states that the journal follows the guidelines of the International Committee of… - Case
Lack of trial registration leads to new concerns about study conduct and ethical review/approval
…named in the article did not seem to give approval. Is it adequate to proceed to retract the article on the basis of the concerns raised and the lack of an adequate response from the authors, given that we have been unable to establish whether the trial did or did not receive ethical approval? We also propose to submit a formal request for investigation to co-chair B of the institution (who… - Seminars and webinars
Seminar 2021: Trustworthy AI for the future of publishing
…document on AI in decision making. Marie defined AI and its characteristics, and its relationship to machine learning (ML) and natural language processing (NLP). Marie gave examples of the value of AI in editorial processes, in helping to solve problems that would be difficult or impossible… COPE Governance
…COPE website. Conflicts of interest statements are required to be declared on a yearly basis. In addition, potential or actual conflicts of interests are required to be declared at the beginning of each Trustee Board and Council meeting. These declarations are minuted and the member must remove themselves from discussions on items where they have a competing interest. Trustees are…- Case
Sanitising a misleading statement
…having the contradictory evidence exposed. When authors attempt to mislead readers and are found to have done so during the review process, do editors have any right or duty to publicise such attempts in their journals? When authors withdraw a paper, do editors have any right to override that withdrawal? Should the editors’ duty go beyond taking the matter up… - Case
Authorship dispute
…co-author has a joint appointment at two institutes, and so both directors will need to be involved in the process. Is the way in which the putative referee obtained confidential information objectionable? Have the authors acted improperly in not sending the paper to the complainant? How best can we now balance the interests of the authors, complainant (the complaint may be genuine or… - Case
An attempt to publish data already published elsewhere
The committee wondered if it was possible that this was a misunderstanding, or that perhaps junior authors were involved who were unfamiliar with publication practices. The editor however thought that this was unlikely. The advice was to contact the authors a third time to give them the opportunity to present a legitimate reason. The authors should be given a deadline in which to respond, and… - Case
Author requests permission to publish review comments
…authors regarding the confidential treatment of reviews. We currently offer no such guidance to authors but we do link to our publisher’s guidelines on publication ethics on the submission site for the journal which states: “If discussions between an author, editor, and peer reviewer have taken place in confidence they should remain in confidence unless explicit consent has been given by all parties, or… - Case
Unethical withdrawal after acceptance to maximize the 'impact factor'?
…games. Question(s) for the COPE Forum • What does the Forum think about the ethics of withdrawing a paper during or after peer review in order to publish in a higher impact factor journal? • If the Forum agrees with the assessment that the authors acted in an unethical fashion, are the sanctions proposed by the editor in this case reasonable? • Is there… - Case
Duplicate submission and authorship dispute
…the authors on journal Y’s publication include the two authors removed from our journal version, plus one additional co-author who is present on both author lists. This third co-author has since requested to be removed from journal Y’s publication. He was included as a co-author without his consent or knowledge. We contacted the Research Integrity Office of the author’s institution to request… - Event
6th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI), Hong Kong, 2019
…and Edanz Group, Fukuoka 15:45 – 17:15 Symposium (SY3) Preprints: Beneficial or harmful for research integrity and publication ethics? A debate (Grand Hall) Sabine Kleinert, The Lancet and Chris Graf, COPE Past co-Chair (Conveners) John Inglis, bioRxiv; and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York Heather Tierney, COPE Council; and American Chemical… - Event
COPE Forum: December 2022
…COPE Forum with a discussion on the topic of Author behavioural misconduct. Whether or not you attend the Forum we welcome your comments to add to the discussion. 3. New… - Case
The overlapping papers with conflicting data
…seem to be any justification for publishing three papers rather than one or two. 2. The authors of the papers had not disclosed the existence of the other papers to any of the editors. 3. The three papers all had different sets of authors, and it seemed most unlikely that all authors met the definition of authorship devised by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. It also… - Case
Duplicate submission of a paper
…would not happen. Does COPE have any views on how this sort of situation should be prevented and what action should be taken when it does arise? The journal’s advice to authors is clear about the importance of advising if there are previous related papers that have been published or submitted.… - Case
Duplicate submission to two journals and previous duplicate publication uncovered
_ The dean or head of the institution should be informed. _ Although the author had offended on a previous occasion, he/she was continuing to attempt to secure dual publication. _ The editor had a duty to take the matter further, particularly as he was a member of COPE. _ The editor must tell the other editor what he intends to do. _ He should recommend that the institution not only look at… - Case
Dual publication
…editor stated—peer reviewed, how could the authors not know about this? _ However, the publication of society abstracts can occasionally lead to inadvertent publication. Peer review can simply mean a panel reviewing the abstracts or posters for proceedings. Some societies record and print everything presented at their meetings. _ The high degree of overlap between the two papers suggested poor practice… - Case
Competing interest issue
…would like to ask COPE: (1) Would you have taken a different course of action? (2) Would you feel differently if the competing interest was that he/she was the peer reviewer? (3) This is a form of consensus paper; therefore, it would be hard to find any expert/evaluator who was not involved in some way (it is very difficult to find anyone who hasn't been involved or consulted… - Case
Provenance of a correction: undisclosed court case involvement
…witness in a trial relating to the drug in question (the LTTE was shown to the drug company’s counsel during the trial). The LTTE does not mention this. The drug company also claims that the letter’s corrections are based on its work and cross examination in court (again not stated in the LTTE). It also claims the author does not disclose or correct all the errors and downplays others. The company says… - Case
Seeking retrospective ethics approval
As mentioned many times at the COPE Forum, just because a study has been approved by an institutional review board does not mean that the editor has to consider it to be ethical or to publish it. Also, institutional review board approval does not guarantee that the study is not flawed. Some questioned what kind of an institution would approve such a study in vulnerable patients. Others… - Case
Retraction update?
…information than that provided in the original retraction. Questions(1) What form should this update take to ensure that it is properly indexed and recognized?(2) Should it be published as an ‘update’, as a ‘corrigendum’ or as a new version of the retraction?…