- Case
Inadequately supervised research?
Neither the lead author nor one of the supervisors accepted that there was any problem with the research. The case was referred to the journal’s ethics committee. All the authors denied there was a problem with the research. The supervisor expressed concern that (1) the editorial committee felt it had a remit to question the adequacy of the PhD supervision; (2) that by writing directly to… - Case
Duplicate submission to two journals and previous duplicate publication uncovered
An identical paper was submitted simultaneously to two journals. Both editors had received a signed statement from the authors declaring that their paper had not been submitted elsewhere. Duplicate submission became evident only when the associate editor of one of the journals was sent the paper to review by the editor of the other journal. The author also cited two papers within this… - Case
Attempts to draw attention to potential duplicate publication
- Good practice would be for all journals involved to publish a notice of duplicate publication. - The journal editors’ actions were inadequate. The options were: (a) seek to publish the story of the duplicate publication—this is difficult as it is effectively trial by media; (b) contact the owners of the journals; (c) go directly to the authors’ institutions. - Draw the journal editors and… - Case
Plagiarism of a PhD thesis
The Forum were unanimous in their assertion that the PhD thesis should be cited. Even if the PhD thesis is unpublished, it should still be cited. It counts as a type of publication. The intellectual property belongs to the authors, so their rights may have been violated. However, the editor raised another issue. The Forum were told by the editor that one of the authors of the paper is… - Discussion documents
Responding to anonymous whistleblowers, January 2013
…anonymous including fear of a loss of position (especially for more junior participants in a research or clinical project) should their name come to light. More recently, however, a new phenomenon has arisen – that of individuals using the anonymity provided by the web to provide tip offs on a range of issues relating to publication ethics. This document suggests how editors should respond. We welcome… - Case
Unable to contact authors
The Forum advised not publishing the paper if the editor does not have final consent from the authors. A suggestion was to contact the authors and the authors’ institutions with a specific deadline, stating that if no response is received within this time frame, the paper will be withdrawn. The editor may wish to also send a registered letter by post to ensure the authors have received the… - Flowcharts
Handling of post-publication critiques
A journal receives a critique, or commentary, of an article previously published in the journal. The flowchart offers editors a step by step guide on how to handle this process. Handling of post publication critiques The ethics of audit and research
…Derek's contention is not served by saying that only research merits formal ethical approval and everything else is exempt. Levels of scrutiny Every investigation should be scrutinised to some extent in respect of the degree of change in local clinical practice associated with the study, particularly the: additional burden…- News
Allegations of Misconduct webinar summary, April 2019
…from this same data set. That is not salami slicing. In contrast, in a example by Smolčić, a research group studied three different blood tests in two groups of patients with kidney disease. In one paper, they reported the results of 2 of these blood tests (Let’s say test A and B) on both groups of patients and in another paper, they reported the results of Tests B and C on the same… - Guidelines
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
…scholarly merit. They should not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Journals should ensure no policies create an exclusionary environment for anyone wanting to engage with the journal and should regularly assess their policies for inclusivity. Back to top Principles of… - News
Comments please: framework for editors when requesting patient consent for publication in small cohort studies
…cohort studies Created by: Shehnaz Ahmed on behalf of the International Rheumatology Editors’ Group The International Rheumatology Editors’ Group propose a working policy with the aim that all rheumatology or specialty journals adopt the common principles of patient confidentiality and data anonymity for small cohort studies with n<20. We hope that this will… - News
Intellectual property focus
…those rights while obtaining permission to publish an author's work. Commonly journals require authors to sign agreements transferring copyright to the publisher. In open access publishing (sometimes mandated by funders), journals may allow authors to retain copyright and instead grant a publishing licence and/or one of several types of Creative Commons licence for reuse. Some journals permit authors… - News
Diversity in Peer Review: Survey Results
…Diversity Survey in Peer Review Week. Thank you to the 391 respondents who took part in the anonymous survey, most of whom were editors (66%) or publishers (19%). Here is a summary of the replies, including some that were written in by respondents in the “other” category: • 77% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that diversity and inclusion are important in peer review • - Case
Self-plagiarism of review article
…journal X has three authors; journal Y has two of these authors plus a further two; and journal Z has all three authors from the first paper, plus one from the second journal and a further two new authors. The editor-in-chief and the publisher reviewed the two review articles from journal X and journal Y side by side and identified that significant portions of the text from the 2003 journal… - Case
Data manipulation and institute’s internal review
…question. The editor checked the spectra in close detail and verified that the discrepancies that the reader had identified were a reasonable cause for concern. The editor also checked the author’s related papers in the journal and identified a total of four papers that were affected by similar discrepancies in the spectra. When the editor contacted the lead author to discuss the concerns, they… - Case
Reviewer requesting addition of multiple citations of their own work
A handling editor noticed a reviewer report where the reviewer instructed the author to cite multiple publications by the same reviewer in their manuscript. The handling editor noted a similar instance involving this reviewer from the past and requested the editorial office to look into his reviewing history. This uncovered a concerning pattern of behaviour where the reviewer habitually asked… - Case
Duplicate submission or self plagiarism. Is the author to blame?
…Should the journal reject the article and close the file? Should some action be taken against the authors although they are claiming to be unaware of the previous publication? What further action should be taken by the journal? … - Case
An ambiguous plagiarism case
A paper was published in journal A. The plagiarism check tool did not show any similarity during the peer review process. Some time after publication of the paper, the editor-in-chief was contacted by an author who had published a paper in journal B. They claimed that the paper published in journal A was plagiarised from their MSc research project thesis and asked journal A to… Become a member
Becoming a member of COPE shows that you, your journal, publisher, organisation, university or research institute intends to follow the highest standards of publication ethics and to apply COPE principles of publication ethics outlined in the Core Practices. By joining COPE you will help support our work in promoting publication…- Forum discussion topics
Ethical considerations around watchlists
…2024 NOTE, comments do not imply formal COPE advice or consensus Introduction Watchlists have been used informally and principally privately by journals and publishers as quality control tools to identify individuals who have engaged in unethical behaviour. There have also been publicly available watchlists of individuals, journals, or publishers, such as