Filter by content type

Filter by topic

Search results for '投资交易所源码包【TG电报:@EK7676】平台包网搭建投资交易所源码包【TG电报:@EK7676】平台包网搭建GDn18kNSVM'

Showing 121–140 of 150 results
  • News

    When the peer review process goes sideways

    …href="https://publicationethics.org/case/editor-and-reviewers-requiring-authors-cite-their-own-work" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">Case 18-03 describes a case in which a handling editor and a group of reviewers he or she frequently invited, regularly requested that authors added citations during revision to papers that the handling editor had co-authored.  The editor and editorial board reviewed these cases and found that in many cases, the suggested citations did not…
  • Case

    Compromised peer review (unpublished)

    …issue. Further advice: The case was also discussed at the North American Forum (18 October 2012). Additional advice was to require an institutional email address in addition to a webmail address for any suggested reviewers and for editors to send correspondence to both addresses. Another suggestion was to verify the webmail address with an IP address route trace, which the…
  • Case

    Inconclusive institutional investigation into authorship dispute

    After publication of an article, Author A contacted the journal asking to correct their surname. Author A’s name consists of two parts, but only one was included in the publication. The editor accepted this request but asked all authors to agree to publication of an erratum. Author B (the corresponding author) immediately replied, disagreeing with publication of such an erratum. Author A inform…
  • News

    In the news: December Digest

    …perhaps being fuelled in part by fraud but importantly also by the variability in living systems, changes in analytic methods, or poorly documented methods in prior work. Jeffries argues that individual labs should include processes to promote reproducibility.
  • Outcomes of editors' attempts to investigate research misconduct

    …Unethical research There were 18 cases of unethical research, of which two were still open. Five authors provided a satisfactory explanation; in one case, the editor looked at it further, and realised that the author had already been struck off for similar behaviour. But in four, the editors reached an impasse.   Fraud/fabrication
  • News

    In the news: February 2021

    …the President's Cabinet clearly signals the administration's intent to involve scientific expertise in every policy discussion,” AAAS said in a statement. Peer review The Journal of Nanoparticle Research accepted a thorough proposal for a
  • Case

    Possible fabricated data: a conspiracy of silence?

    I became involved in this issue after reports from doctors in a developing country that three papers in a systematic review published by my company may have been fabricated. The papers in question had co-authors in two other countries and so I contacted them. One co-author replied that he had concerns, but as none of the studies was conducted in his country, he had no data. He sai…
  • Case

    Claim of plagiarism in published article

    Author A of a 2008 review article in our journal claims her article was used as the "framework" for a 2013 review article on the same subject in an open access journal by a former student of hers, author B. There was no verbatim overlap but the format (comparison of two common conditions) was indeed similar (differential diagnosis, management, pharmacotherapy, and implications for practice).
  • Case

    Undisclosed conflict of interest

    We published two peer-reviewed articles—one protocol and one paper with the results of a comparative analysis comparing a group of people associated with a specific “complementary medicine health care organization” (CMG), with the general population, which concludes that the group has “unusual health indicators” (more favourable than the general population). The papers originally contain…
  • Case

    Scientific misconduct claim from a whistleblower where the institution will not investigate

    A journal received an allegation of scientific misconduct from an anonymous individual stating they were from the group that had written the paper (Institution-1, there are two institutions involved in this research). The email stated that the scientific bases of the article were unreliable. The paper was currently with the authors who were revising the paper after the first round of review, an…
  • Case

    Misrepresentation of journal decision on social media

    An author submitted an invited paper to a journal and, after a double anonymous peer review, the decision on the paper was to request ‘major revision’. The author decided not to revise the paper, and therefore effectively withdrew the paper, based on disagreements with the reviewers. These disagreements were not discussed with the editor prior to withdrawing the paper. The editor replied to the…
  • Presentations

    …Responsible? Download PDF (88 kb) Presented by Jeremy Theobald At the US National Academy of Sciences and PNAS E-Journal Summit Washington, DC, USA 18 March 2008   2007 Dual use: editorial freedom and how editors will COPE Download PDF (660 kb)…
  • News

    In the news: November 2020

    …tepid reviews. Here is a link to the Lancet’s commentary on this topic, outlining their plans.   The database of over 18,000 retracted papers and conference abstracts from Retraction Watch was analysed. 
  • News

    In the news: June 2021

    …issue and it taking action, and the issue of retracted articles continuing to be cited after retraction. After the publication of the Guidelines on Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & journal Editors on research integrity cases (CLUE), which were mentioned in last month’s news, Sabine Kleinert and Liz Wager
  • Case

    Reader concerns about ethics approval and consent from a vulnerable population

    A reader raised concerns on social media about whether informed consent for research reported in a published article was obtained. An investigation by the journal resulted in the publication of a correction explaining that written, informed consent was obtained from the research participants.   A separate, small group of researchers followed up and raised further questions regarding…
  • Case

    Author retracts request to be removed from author list

    An author of a coauthored article published in our journal ten years ago contacted the outgoing editors with a request to have their name removed. The author in question is Dr A of University 1 and they are the paper’s first author. Their stated reason for doing so was that they had recently discovered errors in a table in the paper. The second author on the paper, Dr B, provided the original d…
  • Resources and further reading

    …Commons Select Committee, Science and Technology  Committee - Eigth Report: Peer review in scientific publications. 18 July 2011http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/85602.htm Hames, I. COPE's new Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers: background, issues, and…
  • News

    In the news: June 2018 Digest

    …href="http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2018/04/11/1078-0432.CCR-18-0227" target="_blank">http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2018/04/11/1078-0432.CCR-18-0227 The XPhi Replicabilty project will seek to replicate about 40 studies in experimental philosophy to estimate the replicability in this field that has methods similar to social psychology. In…
  • News

    Case Discussion: Inconclusive institutional investigation into authorship dispute - university perspective comment

    The case we are highlighting this month involves an escalating authorship dispute as well as management of the post publication correction process Inconclusive institutional investigation into authorship dispute: 18-07. Cases brought to the COPE Forum are often complex and involve…
  • The COPE Case Taxonomy

    In 2013, it became apparent that the publication ethics cases being brought to COPE for discussion and advice were becoming more complex.  A new and more comprehensive classification scheme was therefore developed to make it easier to code cases, to aid searching, and to provide a finer level of detail for analysis. The resulting COPE Case Taxonomy comprises 18 main classification categories…

Pages