- Case
A patient was given an experimental course of complementary medicine when a standard treatment was available
…the authors’ medical practice and judgement into question. _ The editor should write to the authors again with a short deadline, informing them that the matter would be referred to both the authors’ employers and the appropriate regulatory body. _ Even if the patient had pleaded for the alternative therapy, the fact that the disease is infectious and potential fatal means that public interest would… - Case
Institutionalised policy of gift authorship?
…explained that the complainant should never have been listed as an author by our definition (which matches the ICMJE criteria), but should have been acknowledged. We are currently in communication with the complainant over the exact nature of their involvement with the manuscript. During discussion of this situation, the submitting author revealed what may be institutionalised authorship problems… - Case
Clear case of duplicate publication?
…not acceptable behaviour. Some of the members of the Forum suggested taking the matter further and contacting the authors’ institution, informing the Dean of the Faculty of the facts of the case. The Forum also raised the question of the three new authors on the second paper and suggested that the author should be reminded of the criteria for authorship.… - Case
Author creates bogus email accounts for proposed reviewers
The Forum agreed that this was a serious form of misconduct and may even be criminal, as the author was impersonating the reviewers. The advice was to contact the author’s institution and inform them of the situation, explaining the author’s inappropriate behaviour. Other advice was to look at the peer review of previous submissions/publications from this author in case they also involved… - News
Journal management focus
…processes (e.g. editorial handling, peer review model, average and range of time to decision, ethical standards, data availability…), and the structure employed by the journal to ensure editorial independence, should all be clearly and visibly described and presented. COPE offers several resources in support of attaining these objectives. For example, • the archive of - Case
Co authors’ unwillingness to support retraction of a review
_ If the figure was originally Professor W’s and published in 1990, then the original journal would have copyright over the figure. _ If the review was adequate without the figure, then the journal could either withdraw the figure or acknowledge the original copyright holder. _ The original slide would have to be studied to make a correct assessment of the professor’s claim. _ How could… - 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… - 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 - News
Letter from the COPE Chair: November 2019
…about the algorithms in discussions with authors. For those on the call, we thank the contributions and questions raised during the discussion. This forum will be followed up with the development of a discussion paper on the topic and as usual, we ask for and welcome any input and feedback that you can provide as we move… - 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… - Event
COPE Lightning Talk: AI
…recently as Senior Director, Research Integrity & Global Developments at the Publications Division of the American Chemical Society (ACS). The webinar is open to COPE members only Questions for the speakers The panel will welcome questions about AI in publishing, and the tools currently being used to improve efficiency and maintain quality in scholarly publishing. If you have… - 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… - 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… Foreword, COPE Report 2005
…you are not already a member, I hope too that you will consider joining, and that you will let us know what else you think COPE should be doing to protect the integrity of biomedical publication. Fiona Godlee Editor, BMJ Chair of COPE 2003-5…