Filter by content type

Filter by topic

Search results for '矿场分红系统定制开发【TG电报:@EK7676】平台包网搭建矿场分红系统定制开发【TG电报:@EK7676】平台包网搭建34DZ7cS9Fz'

Showing 1–20 of 36 results
  • Case

    A(uthor) vs C(omplainant) authorship dispute

    A was a researcher in C’s lab for 1 year, during which time they published a joint research paper in a third party journal (journal S). After leaving C’s institute (henceforth called institute X), A published in the journal (journal T as a sole author). The affiliation provided by A on the paper was institute X. All of the data reported in this paper were obtained while A was still employed at…
  • Ombudsman's Reports

     COPE recommends that journals have an ombudsman (independent of the editor) to hear complaints about journal policies or processes. We therefore felt it was appropriate to have an ombudsman for COPE to hear complaints against the organization and to resolve disputes between members (eg…
  • Event

    COPE Forum

    The September COPE Forum will be held on Wednesday 09 September 2015, 3.00pm–4.30pm (British Summer Time) at The Montcalm Hotel, 34-40 Great Cumberland Place, London, W1H 7TW.  Full details can be found here. …
  • Event

    National Academy of Sciences Meeting

    …3b-0ba3-4c90-9b3d-8951cd04cbf9" rel="nofollow">Register & more information  …
  • Flowcharts

    Japanese: all flowcharts

    …This is COPE's flowcharts in Japanese Other languages: Arabic | Chinese | Croatian | 
  • Case

    Author dispute over internal report

    Author A was paid to facilitate a meeting and write a meeting report for internal purposes.  He was paid to do this by author C’s company. The report was posted as a PDF on author C’s company website. No authors were listed on the report. Authors B, C and D co-authored an article that has been published in a journal supplement.  It later transpired that the main substance of this…
  • Case

    Literature evaluation service and supplements

    An online post-publication literature evaluation service aiming to highlight the best articles in medicine has received evaluation of articles published in supplement issues of journals. Given that many supplements are funded by pharmaceutical companies, should we have a different policy on how to handle such evaluations? If so, what suggestions do you have? … The committee felt that it is…
  • Case

    A breach of confidentiality?

    We ask our contributors to send us short mini-reviews of interesting articles they have come across in their regular reading. Most of our members also act as peer-reviewers and come across interesting articles as part of the peer-review process, before they are published . If they sent us one of those mini-reviews of an article they have peer-reviewed, and we kept the submission on file…
  • Case

    WAME case

    …editors should perhaps ask the author to suggest 5 reviewers and reject the paper if he can’t. If a journal gives an average time to acceptance, then the author has a right to pursue the issue after this time. COPE’s advice would be if no progress is being made within 3-4 months, contact the author and keep them updated.…
  • Event

    COPE Forum: Wednesday 22 June 2022

    …="https://publicationethics.org/case/managing-editors-undisclosed-conflict-interest-published-article">Managing an editor’s undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article 22-07 Where should journals escalate serious concerns about an institution or institutional review board? 4. Updates to cases Members who have previously…
  • News

    Website refresh

    …src="/files/u7140/Screen%20Shot%202019-03-08%20at%2010.28.01.png" style="width: 500px; height: 280px;" />   A case:   Guidance (the new starting point for finding any COPE resource):
  • Event

    COPE Forum: September 2022

    …href="https://publicationethics.org/case/duplicate-artilces-due-doi-reassignment">Duplicate articles due to DOI reassignment 22-11 Unauthorised reviewer challenges 22-12 Data availability for vulnerable populations 4. Updates to cases Members who have previously brought…
  • News

    Survey reveals need for guidance on places to publish

    …the top choice for just over 20% of respondents. ● There is still work to be done in building awareness of how Think. Check. Submit. can help researchers address this challenge; 34% of respondents had not heard of the initiative before completing the survey. ● The responses to the survey revealed a sense of community ownership about the initiative, in particular the willingness of many…
  • Case

    Author’s name removed from submitted article

    …involvement as principal investigator, yet the submitted study made no mention of his involvement or his name. In addition, person X alleges that he contacted the funders before he left the Trust and they agreed that he should remain the principal investigator. To complicate matters a little, the Editor had been asked to serve on the steering committee for the study3-4 years previously, and did attend one…
  • Case

    Allegation of reviewer malpractice

    A member of the editorial board of Journal A was approached by an overseas colleague with a strange tale. An epidemiological study had been conducted in the community around an industrial facility, funded by a group of plaintiffs’ lawyers. The study concluded that health effects in the community were related to exposures emanating from the facility. A paper based on the study was submitted to J…
  • Case

    Competing interest

    An editorial board member of a journal submitted an unsolicited review article on a drug. The editor said the journal would consider the article, but suspected that the article had been commissioned or even written by a drugs company. S/he stipulated that the author must provide a financial disclosure statement before the article could be accepted. The journal published the review article, whic…
  • Case

    Contacting Research Ethics Committees with concerns over studies

    …reiterated C’s concerns. The paper was rejected on methodological grounds, but with an offer to see if the authors could address the criticisms. The authors revised and resubmitted the paper, which was sent to the more critical referee (B). His view was that the authors had done little to improve it. Another referee (E) was consulted, who was also sent the comments from C and D. E was happy to take part in…
  • Case

    Dispute between two authors

    After the discussion at the Forum, the journal decided not to take any further action. The consensus was that there were no grounds to retract author C’s mini commentary. There was not enough of value in author A’s letter to pursue the idea of publishing a version of it in the journal. The editor communicated the decision to author A and eventually informed the individual that the…
  • Case

    Journal refuses to correct the record

    An author contacted our journal in August 2011 informing us that a paper he had published in our journal in 2005 had been published, word for word, in another journal (journal X), under a different title and author group, in 2007. We followed the appropriate COPE flowchart and contacted the editor of journal X. The editor of journal X told us in September 2011 that he would publish a ret…

Pages