- Case
Plagiarism in a book title
We received a complaint of plagiarism by Dr A concerning a book that has just been published. This case is ongoing since January 2012. Authors B and C published a new, very extended edition (+1000 pages), on a topic that previously was covered in part in an English book by author B (published in 2006). Part of this book was based on a German book published back in 1993 by Dr A and author… - News
Artificial intelligence in the news
…href="https://iblnews.org/chat-gpt-at-capacity-due-to-its-massive-traffic/">registrations are currently suspended because of demand), both have been busy with talk of the FORUM DISCUSSION TOPIC: comments please
…costs. Retraction Watch, 28 January 2016; http://retractionwatch.com/2016/01/28/sharing-data-is-a-good-thing-but-we-need-to-consider-the-costs/ This will be discussed at the start of the next COPE Forum on Friday 12 February. Please do leave any comments below, whether or not you…Consensus statement on research misconduct in the UK by COPE and BMJ
16 February 2012 A BMJ/COPE high level meeting in London on 12 January 2012 agreed the following statement: This meeting believes that the UK’s mechanisms for ensuring good research conduct and investigating research misconduct need to be strengthened Research misconduct is defined as behaviour by a researcher, intentional or not, that falls short…- Case
Correcting errors versus privileged information
The editor-in-chief received an email from author A regarding a recently published corrigendum by authors BCD, one of whom (author C) is a member of the journal’s editorial board. In this email, author A claimed that the corrigendum, which corrected some errors in an earlier article by BCD, was based on illicit use of privileged information, obtained by two of the authors (B and D) who were rev… - Case
Was this study unethical?
We reviewed and published a randomised controlled trial in which children’s exposure to parental secondhand smoke (SHS) was either sustained (usual practice control) or parents were asked to avoid smoking around their children (intervention group). The study included more than 400 children averaging 9 years old. Parents provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the ethics com… - Case
Alleged misuse of confidential information
In early 2012, author A submitted a paper reporting on the gene mutated in a rare syndrome seen in a specific population. The paper was citing an earlier (2006) report by author B that had mapped the disease locus to a narrow chromosomal location but had stopped short of actually identifying the gene (which would have been laborious by the technology available at the time). Author A’s su… - Case
Authorship dispute regarding author order
…different countries. Hence it can be difficult for authors to navigate. COPE resources: What constitutes authorship How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers … - Case
Authorship issues from disbanded consortium
…international newspaper was copied into these threats. The publisher took the following actions: - Removed the three authors from author list, as per their request. - Asked all 12 remaining authors to sign an authorship form re-attesting to the authorship (the publisher's online submission system notifies all authors of manuscript submission). - Included the three… - Case
Excessive self-citation in a book chapter
The case concerns an introductory chapter in a book. The publisher was first contacted about potential misconduct as part of a broader investigation into an academic who was a coauthor on an introductory chapter in a book. The publisher's subsequent investigation identified excessive self-citation in the work (one of the coauthors is named as an author on 12 out of 16 referenced works).… Press
…%20RELEASE%20December%202011%20_0_4.pdf">WCRI and COPE joint guidance for editors and authors 12 December 2011 During the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) in Singapore in 2010, COPE helped develop two position statements setting out international standards for responsible research publication for editors and authors. Resources…- Case
Authorship dispute
The paper in question describes a collaborative study of several datasets (not all previously published). A putative referee was asked to review the paper and declined. However, this led to a written complaint asserting that (s)he should be an author as (s)he had made a significant contribution to some of the work described in the paper. After promising comments from referees, the existi… - Case
How to correct an incorrect decision to publish a flawed paper
Some years ago our journal published a paper reporting concentrations of a substance in an organ in a small number of people of a particular occupational group who had died of a rare disease. The results have been reanalysed in two subsequent papers and discussed in five pieces of correspondence in two journals. The original paper contributes to a body of evidence used by the defence in some co… - Case
Submissions from institutions where misconduct has previously been suspected
A scientific paper was submitted in January 2011. After initial assessment by the journal’s editor-in chief, it was allocated to one of the co-editors. By chance, the co-editor had reviewed the manuscript for another journal only a few weeks before. The manuscript had been rejected by the previous journal for a number of methodological flaws. The resubmitted manuscript contained signific… - News
In the news: November 2018 Digest
…the origins, supporters, principles and plans of the organisation is here. Also launched in October was the 2018 STM report which gives a comprehensive… - News
Diversity in Peer Review: Survey Results
… Proportional representation matching that of a discipline/community (21%) Equal proportional representation (12%) Other (4%), including:- substantial degree of non-homogeneity/heterogeneity- proportional representation at least matching that of the discipline/community- proportional to the diversity in published topics- integrity/competence/expertise is more… - News
In the news: June 2020
…launched a 12-month NIH Preprint Pilot. The first phase "will focus on increasing the discoverability of preprints with NIH support relating to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19." https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2020/06/01/nih-preprint-pilot-pmc ASAPbio and the attendees of the… Potential paper mills
…Publishers Sarah Robbie, Head of Research Integrity & Ethics, Taylor & Francis Group Ulf Scheffler, Deputy Editor, Wiley Elizabeth Moylan, Publisher (Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics), Wiley Page last updated 12 October 2020 Related resources- Case
Suspected contact between reviewer and an author led to coauthorship of the reviewer
…of reviewers. The reviews of the original version came with conclusions "Accept after major revision" (rev A) and "Accept after minor revision" (rev B). On that basis, on 12 December 2008 the Associate Editor submitted a decision "Accept after major revision", and requested the author to prepare it within 90 days. The revised version of the paper arrived on 20 December 2008. Without… - Case
Omitted author
A case series of 89 patients with a relatively rare condition was accepted for publication by the journal following due process through the peer-review system. The paper was published online within days of being accepted. A few days later the editor of the journal received an email from a professor (Professor X) from the same country from which the paper was submitted to say that one of the cas…