Filter by content type

Filter by topic

Search results for '数字币盘定做源码【TG���������@EK7676】平台包网搭建数字币盘定做源码【TG���������@EK7676】平台包网搭建EOm8EWy1By'

Showing 1–20 of 1043 results
  • Case

    Confidentiality breach by an associate editor

    The authors of a manuscript sent an official complaint to our journal regarding a breach of confidentiality by an associate editor (AE). The authors had been informed by the supervisor of a reviewer of a manuscript. After submission of the review, the reviewer received a confidential email from AE asking whether the favourable recommendation made by the reviewer would have been different if…
  • News

    New book on competing interests published by the Esteve Foundation

    The Esteve Foundation has recently published the latest volume of the Esteve Foundation Notebooks series titled “Competing interests in biomedical publications. Main guidelines and selected articles”, coordinated by Ana Marusic and Harvey Marcovitch.  COPE guidelines are referenced in the book.  The notebook is available through their website here…
  • Case

    Possible breach of confidentiality by a reviewer

    One of the figures in an article under review was said by the authors to appear in a presentation given at a conference while the paper was still under review and from this identified the reviewer and accused this person of abusing their position. We could not confirm to the authors that they had correctly identified the reviewer. The authors contacted the reviewer directly and also contacted…
  • Case

    Submission of a paper by a reviewer

    …editor sent the research letter to the two other reviewers who had reviewed the first paper. The paper’s design was criticised by all three reviewers and the paper was rejected. The peer review of the research letter is ongoing but is so far favourable. Did the editor act correctly in having the research letter reviewed as well? Is it fair to reject the paper but accept the research letter?…
  • Case

    Redundant publication by an editorial board member

    A specialist journal received a paper for review. An editorial board member was one of the authors. The paper was sent out for review and one reviewer replied quite favourably. A few days later the reviewer sent the editor a copy of a paper seen in another journal that was very similar to the one under consideration, and by the same authors. It was the same population and the same study, just…
  • Case

    Serial plagiarism by an experienced author

    Suspicions were raised on 20 September 2012 by a reviewer who commented that some of the passages in a submission from Dr J were similar to an earlier paper published in our journal by the same author. An iThenticate check indicated a similarity index of 60%: however, the overlap was not from that earlier paper but from another source by a different author which had contributed 41% of the…
  • Case

    Patients with vitiligo treated with anti-fungal drugs by a general practitioner

    …done by the HIV virus) and therefore cannot easily be diagnosed by laboratory means.”The research seems to have been done without controls. The editor wrote to the general practitioner asking whether his patients had given fully informed consent and whether he had obtained ethics committee approval. What should be done, if he has neither?…
  • Case

    Withdrawal request by an author

    We received a request by an author who states not to have contributed to an article published in 2015. The author claims that his name was used without his knowledge and that the corresponding author has been retired for several years and can no longer be reached. At the time of submission, we received a copyright transfer signed with the author’s name (we request all authors to sign the…
  • Seminars and webinars

    China Seminar 2017: Peer review in the journals published by Chinese Medical Association, experiences and challenges

    …Download presentation: Peer review in the journals published by Chinese Medical Association: experiences and challenges [PDF, 451KB]…
  • Case

    Authors’ contributions and involvement by medical communications company

    The editorial office was contacted by someone who indicated that s/he has been working with a medical communications company on several manuscripts and has become concerned about the minimal extent of the authors’ contributions to manuscripts handled by the company. The work requested by the company goes beyond language editing, and involves developing parts of manuscripts into narrative on…
  • Case

    Findings of a published trial called into question by a subsequent audit of trial conduct

    …accurate by our journal). The following concerns were raised by the regulatory authorities:(1) There was no medical involvement in the process for informed consent, which was delegated to a non-medical practitioner. The country’s regulations require that a medical practitioner informs a participant and confirms this. The local ethics committee has been informed by the regulator about this…
  • Case

    Author alleges discrimination by institutional report

    …protocols were approved by the IACUC, which is against journal policy. The journal considered this sufficient information to proceed with retraction of the article. After informing the corresponding author of the retraction notice, the author responded that the conflict was an authorship dispute and that they have been the target of racial discrimination at the institution. The journal and…
  • Increasing number of fraudulent papers produced by “paper mills”

    …href="https://publicationethics.org/publishing-manipulation-paper-mills"> Systematic manipulation of the publishing process via “paper mills” and how to identify and tackle this type of fraudulent behaviour. Paper mills produce and sell fraudulent manuscripts that seem to resemble genuine research. Articles are bought by people who need to publish research in order to get a job or promotion. This type of manipulation is often difficult to spot until…
  • Case

    Scientist reads published paper by former collaborators and claims co-authorship

    …A examined and screened patients . Dr A used data gathered in July 2007 within the framework of a study headed by Dr B. Dr A is listed as “another scientist involved” in the report from the funder and in a grant application. This application was to be on behalf of both Dr A and Dr B, and some others, but made no mention of Dr B’s study, although Dr B’s study had provided the funding for gathering the data…
  • Case

    Sharing by a reviewer on social media

    The journal’s course of action in this case needs to be guided by the objective. The point of double blind peer review is to reduce bias during the review process. While of course anonymity of the authors ends upon publication of the work, anonymity of the reviewers’ identity in a double blind peer review process typically continues after publication because of the contract that the journal…
  • Case

    Author non-disclosure by editor in chief

    Please note, this case is being submitted by the Publishing Director of the journal based on the advice of a senior COPE member because it relates to the conduct of the editor in chief of the journal. The editor in chief of the journal is aware that the case is being submitted. A letter of complaint was submitted in November 2009 relating to an editorial published in one of our…
  • News

    Call for cases - November COPE Forum

    Our next COPE Forum, where we discuss cases submitted by members, will be held by webinar on Monday 13 November 2017. Cases need to be submitted by Monday 30 October. Submit a case…
  • Case

    Concerns over research by an author in numerous, separate publications

    The authenticity of the content of numerous publications by Author K has been questioned by ‘concerned researchers’ in an anonymous email sent to the Editor of Journal A in December 2009. The email noted that author K had been publishing articles in numerous journals that “report remarkable findings that watching humorous films, drinking deep-sea water, exposure to road traffic,…

Pages