- Case
Possible breach of reviewer confidentiality
…reviewers and knew that the person who asked the question was not one of the reviewers. The authors are concerned that one of the reviewers may be a colleague or collaborator with the person who asked the question. After receiving the author’s letter, I emailed the two reviewers to inform them of our concern about confidentiality and to ask if they shared the manuscript or its contents and, if so,… - Guidelines
A short guide to ethical editing for new editors
…to complaints, and cases of possible misconduct/inappropriate behaviour. Follow discussions on new publishing models, new models of peer review and changing practices, and be continuously thinking about ways your journal might develop. Related resources Ethics toolkit for a successful… - Seminars and webinars
Post-publication corrections
…taxonomy of correction notes and comments, and making it easier for readers to raise concerns. Mandating pre-registration of studies could also be helpful in establishing whether research takes place on a trustworthy time-scale. Open research and greater transparency in peer review are all worthy aims, but there is also a need to address the root causes of some of the problems like paper mills. The… Subcommittees and working groups
…advise the Trustee Board on specific areas of COPE's operations. Each subcommittee consists of a Chair, usually at least four other Council members and, ex-officio, the Executive Officer. Additional individuals may be recruited as needed to complete specific tasks. The Trustee Board has delegated authority to the subcommittees to implement their objectives. Its decisions are reported to the…- Translated resources
El autor solicita que ciertos expertos no participen en el proceso editorial: caso
…editorial de la revista: «Nos reservamos el derecho de enviar los manuscritos a los revisores de nuestra elección». Basado en el caso 16-08 Author requests for certain experts not to be included in the editorial process Related resources - Case
A(uthor) vs C(omplainant) authorship dispute
…journal T, A strongly refuted its key points. Journal T’s position has been to ask institute X to investigate fully the above allegations (including communicating with A) and to make an official statement linked to the case. However, we seek COPE’s recommendation whether this should be our position or whether they would advise a different approach.… - Case
HIV homeopathy
The Forum questioned whether in fact there was a local ethics committee, which may be a reason why the authors obtained approval in their own country. However, the Forum was unanimous in their view that the authors had behaved unethically. All agreed that the editor had done all he could and there is little more action that he can take, although some advised contacting the ethics committee or… - Case
Inadequate reporting of a trial, despite earlier rejection from a different journal
…author to the journal (ie, the protocol) should not be sent to another journal, as this is privileged/confidential information. It is up to the second journal to contact the author and ask for this material. If the author does not respond, then the journal that had actually published his work (journal 2) should contact the author’s institution.… - Case
Ethics approval for survey design
…would be approved. But most universities require researchers to wait for that approval—there is no right of retrospective approval. The Forum believed that the journal took the correct decision in rejecting the article and should not seriously consider an appeal. However, a suggestion was to consider contacting the original IRB to ask if they had a policy about retrospective data collection and if… - Research
Editing of reviewer comments: a COPE survey 2020
…thoughtful, unbiased, thorough reviews of the work in question and to not be subjected to hostile or personal attacks. In 2020 COPE shared a survey with members and non-members asking for views from editors and publishers on an editor's ability to alter the contents of a submitted peer review. The questions we asked include: Is it acceptable to make changes to the contents of a peer… - Seminars and webinars
Good Publication Practice 2022
…research institutes, have in creating a positive research environment, culture, and climate. The key message was that the shared common goal should be to move away from the traditional punitive ‘Publish or perish’ culture, and also the newer but still researcher-centred and metrics-based ‘Publish and flourish’ culture, towards a ‘Publish and nourish’ culture that values quality over quantity and… - News
Authorship and Contributorship focus: an editor view and research institution view
…Two perspectives COPE Education Subcommittee focus—what does it mean to be an author? COPE’s Core practice #2 on authorship and contributorship recommends that members… - Event
COPE North American Seminar and Forum 2011
…wishing to attend the Forum should contact the administrator for details on how to join COPE.COPE members are invited to submit cases for the Forum on 31 October. Members can submit cases to the Forum whether or not they are attending the Seminar on 31st October, but anyone presenting a case should be present at the Forum Meeting on the 31st, either in person or by telephone. Please submit cases… - News
In the news: September 2020
…/new-policy-will-allow-authors-easy-route-to-change-names-on-previous-publications.html" target="_blank">update their name on previous publications with the American Chemical Society (ACS). ACS has published a new policy which allows this without treating it as a formal correction. Unwelcome acknowledgments, where someone is listed as author without their consent, can often be used to imply endorsement of… - Discussion documents
Diversity and inclusivity
…knowledge. Shared characteristics between author and reviewer has an impact on peer review and publication outcomes. English language requirements of indexing databases may be catalysing and sustaining biased, discriminatory and disproportionate publication behaviours globally. Commitment to ethical principles of diversity, equity and inclusivity should include the development and… - Case
Duplicate publication?
As the papers in question were not from the editor’s own journal, the Forum reasoned that really the editor is in the position of whistleblower. The advice from the Forum was to submit a letter detailing the issues. In this way, even if it is rejected for publication, the editor will have to respond in some way and the matter will be in the editorial system. If the letter is rejected, then the… Diversity policy
…the Executive Officer or to a COPE Officer. Please refer to the grievance policy (being reviewed) for details. Related content Other COPE policies Page history First published 10 September 2022 Back to top…- Case
Possible peer review manipulation
A journal received a complaint by one of the co-authors of an article submitted by a research team, stating that one of the reviewers suggested by the corresponding author sent an email to corresponding author asking them to tell them what comments they should insert in their review. In response, the corresponding author asked the co-authors to propose comments to be sent to the reviewer. One… - News
In the news: September 2018 Digest
…review can be improved? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-018-0230-x