Correction of the literature, expressions of concern

About this resource

Case

Paper published without permission or acknowledgement from institution

20-15

An author affiliated with a research institution R published two papers as a single author, one of them in a journal of publisher A. 

Case

Author admits failure to credit other authors

20-07

An author submitted a manuscript and stated that he was the sole author. The manuscript received a favourable peer review and eventually was accepted. Some time after the article was published, a co-author told the author to contact the journal to correct the author list. The author of record (AOR) did this and supplied co-author names to the journal.  

Case

Institution refuses to investigate scientific issues

20-01

A publisher was alerted to possible issues with band duplication in an article (more than 10 years old) by a reader. The corresponding author was contacted to resolve the issue. The author was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the bands, and because of the age of the article, the original data were no longer available. The institution was asked to investigate; a summary of the case was provided and the similarities in the bands using an open source tool were highlighted. 

Case

Appropriate scope of review for retractions

19-12

An institutional review recommended retraction of certain works by a highly prolific and influential author who has since died. The institutional review focused on a relatively small portion of this author’s work. The institution recommended retraction based on deeming the articles unsafe and identifying several concerns, including that the articles' conclusions were implausible.

News

In the news: January 2019 Digest

Journal management

There has been much discussion of Plan S over the last month, especially since cOAlition S released their implementation guidance on 27th November
https://www.coalition-s.org/wp-content/uploads/271118_cOAlitionS_Guidance.pdf 

News

Letter from the COPE co-Chairs: November 2018

My initial introduction to COPE many years ago occurred when, as an editor of a peer reviewed journal, a reviewer called to my attention, a blatant example of fabrication in a manuscript in which years and volumes of references had been altered to make them more current. I contacted COPE, presented the case at a Forum, and received excellent advice and consultation. This ultimately resulted in numerous retractions of manuscripts published by this researcher, across three journals.

Case

Inconclusive institutional investigation into authorship dispute

18-07

After publication of an article, Author A contacted the journal asking to correct their surname. Author A’s name consists of two parts, but only one was included in the publication. The editor accepted this request but asked all authors to agree to publication of an erratum. Author B (the corresponding author) immediately replied, disagreeing with publication of such an erratum.

Pages