Filter by content type

Filter by topic

Search results for 'review*'

Showing 1541–1560 of 1776 results
  • Case

    Are copyrighted conference audiotapes considered "prior publication"?

    …example, journals can decide to publish papers arising out of a dissertation or an audit that has been circulated internally in an institution, but they should be transparent and disclose previous publication or copyright of any portion of the material. One view from the Forum was that copyright issues support paternalistic ideas of protecting people from something that has not been peer reviewed, and…
  • Case

    Change of author affiliation

    The Journal received an article for possible publication with three coauthors listed. The article was initially reviewed and accepted by the editorial committee. Then it was processed under double-anonymous peer review policy. Minor changes were requested which the authors implemented, and the article was accepted for publication. Before final printing, one of the authors (third author,…
  • Case

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

    …to reject the paper based on remaining concerns of misconduct and the heavy criticism of the fourth reviewer. The authors from Institution-1 requested a meeting with the editors. At this meeting the authors: expressly denied misconduct; showed the editors pages of data from the experiments of concern; and provided the editor with a copy of an email from an anonymous whistleblower that the…
  • Case

    Author withdraws manuscript upon payment request

    We occasionally come across a situation when an author withdraws a manuscript upon receiving a payment request. We consider this irresponsible, when much of the publication process has been completed by editors and reviewers. We request authors to provide payment details after the manuscript has been accepted for publication. The fees policy is published on our website and we require that the…
  • 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…
  • Case

    Controversy surrounding ethics approval

    …department level, institution level or external board approval is needed. After funding is granted, the funding normally would not be released without checking approvals were obtained. If the research were to directly involve the other authors’ institutions, an administrative review by those other sites would be needed as a formality.    Here, however, if the journal is satisfied with the court…
  • Case

    A pre-submission inquiry with a bribe

    …potentially interesting in submitting papers to our journal and wondered whether we might be interested in publishing 1–2 articles in each issue of the journal. The author also asked for a swift peer review process and even for me to help with making the revisions to the paper in order to enhance the chances of publication. Finally, the author concluded by saying they would pay me $1100 US dollars to…
  • Case

    Victim of article theft wants correction to list their name, not retraction

    …to publisher B. We contacted publisher B who confirmed the details of the submission to them by author A in 2017. Author B is listed publicly as a reviewer for publisher B's journal, but publisher B could not confirm that they had direct access to this particular submission. Author B said their PhD advisor, now apparently deceased, had given them the article but they recently had doubts that…
  • Forum discussion topics

    COPE Forum 5 November 2018: Predatory Publishing

    Predatory publishing is generally defined as for-profit open access journal publication of scholarly articles without the benefit of peer review by experts in the field or the usual editorial oversight of the journals in question. The journals have no standards and no quality control and frequently publish within a very brief period of time while claiming that articles are peer-reviewed. There…
  • Case

    Suspected plagiarism

    …the percentage similarity that should raise concerns? This varies widely—by discipline, even by editors within the same discipline. The similarity index needs to be reviewed carefully, and experienced editors will look at all aspects of the article and the sources when deciding if there is significant overlap. Is there a minimum cut-off score below which there is no need to check for plagiarism? One…
  • Case

    Using the name of a scientific society inappropriately

    reviewers (and the authors) about the level of involvement of each society. Requiring review by someone from each relevant society would trigger the need to contact all the societies involved to look for appropriate reviewers. That action could have prevented this problem.  Second, the journal should require sign-off of the relevant authorities at each society prior to submission of the manuscript.…
  • Case

    Duplicate submission or self plagiarism. Is the author to blame?

    An article was submitted to Journal A for publication. According to the journal’s policy, the article was scanned using anti-plagiarism detection software, which gave a 17% similarity result. As the journal allows up to 20% similarity, the article was sent for peer review to two reviewers. One of the reviewers noted that the article had been published in a similar form in a conference…
  • Case

    Duplicate submission and authorship dispute

    …journal, there were 10 authors. During the review process, two authors were removed from the article at their request. This happened in May, between manuscript resubmission. These two authors then submitted the case report to journal Y, with a new set of co-authors. We have confirmed with the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) of journal Y that they received their initial submission in May. As noted,…
  • Case

    Publication of correspondence relating to a paper currently online

    …reasonably be expected, and indeed has gone above and beyond the call of fiduciary duty.  There seem to be two issues: academic soundness of the study and any legal implications. The editor seems satisfied with the post-publication peer reviews. They may wish to determine if any unaddressed limitations identified by the post-publication peer reviews are serious enough for a correction. However, as…
  • Case

    Possible authorship conflict over an article published ahead of print

    …previous work under their own name and that of another author (Author 4), certificates of awards for the research on their behalf and Author 4; photographs of themselves presenting their work at different congresses; and correspondence with colleagues about the research.  The journal wrote to Author 2 notifying them that article 1, which had already been reviewed and accepted, would be included in…
  • Case

    Plagiarism and copyright of material without permission

    The presenters found an e-book where all of the 'chapters' comprised articles from different issues and volumes of their journal. These were used without the journal’s permission or any form of approval. The journal’s co-publisher neither gave permission nor was contacted. Also, no one contacted the authors of the articles involved for permission.    The journal is open access with…
  • Seminars and webinars

    North American Seminar 2019: Just ideas? The Status and Future of Publication Ethics in Philosophy

    At the 2019 COPE North American Seminar, Rebecca Kennison, from K|N Consultants, presented details of a project which  "seeks to foster greater awareness among humanities scholars and editors about ethical issues in philosophy publishing…. [It] acknowledges that research and publication ethics in the humanities are in many ways, and for good reasons, complex matters and that, unlike in t…
  • Seminars and webinars

    North American Seminar 2019: Ethical challenges in the arts, humanities, and social sciences

    At the North American seminar 2019, Kath Burton (Associate Editorial Director of Arts & Humanities, Routledge, Taylor & Francis) presented the initial research findings and the solution put together on the back of some research conducted by COPE, supported by Routledge. The aim of the research was to better understand the publication ethics needs of arts, humanities and social sc…
  • Case

    Dual submission and editor’s failure to take action

    An article was submitted to our journal (journal A) in March. According to the journal’s working policy, the article was initially reviewed inhouse and comments were sent to the author. The authors replied to the comments but did not agree to the suggestion to convert the article to a short report. A rather impolite letter was sent by the author criticising the policies of the journal. We sent…
  • Case

    Is ethics committee approval necessary for retrospective clinical studies?

    A journal received a manuscript on risk factors for a disease, which had no ethics committee approval or dispensation. The clinical data were collected from the electronic and physical histories of the patients during hospitalization. The authors stated that the study was not submitted to an ethics review board because these data are "secondary." In some countries, this type of research will…

Pages