Cases
Showing 1–25 of 552 results.
All of the cases COPE has discussed since its inception in 1997 have been entered into a searchable database. This database now contains over 500 cases together with the advice given by COPE. For more recent cases, the database also includes follow-up information and about outcome, and podcasts are available for most of the newer cases. We hope this database will provide a valuable resource for editors and those researching publication ethics.
You can search by classification or keyword using either the search field (top left) or by filtering your inquiry using the years and classifications/keywords listed below. A more detailed explanation of the classifications and keywords can be found on the COPE Case Taxonomy page.
We encourage members to look at the database before submitting a case to the Forum to see if similar cases have already been discussed and to see the format used for presenting cases. However, please note that advice from the COPE Forum meetings is specific to the particular case under consideration and may not necessarily be applicable to similar cases either past or future.
COPE accepts no liability for any loss or damage caused or occasioned as a result of advice given by them or by any COPE member. Advice given by COPE and its members is not given for the purposes of court proceedings within any jurisdiction and may not be cited or relied upon for this purpose.
-
bb
Case number:Resolution: -
Institutional investigation of authorship dispute
Case number:16-15Year:2016Resolution:On-going -
Author accused of stealing research and publishing under their name
Case number:16-17Year:2016Resolution:On-going -
Request by organisation to retract article and publish expression of concern
Case number:16-16Year:2016Resolution:On-going -
Authorship dispute and possible unreported protocol amendment
Case number:16-14Year:2016Resolution:On-going -
Author requests permission to publish review comments
Case number:16-13Year:2016Resolution:On-going -
Author of rejected paper publicly names and criticises peer reviewer
Case number:16-12Year:2016Resolution:Case Closed -
What extent of plagiarism demands a retraction vs correction?
Case number:16-11Year:2016Resolution:On-going -
Parental consent for participants
Case number:16-07Year:2016Resolution:Case Closed -
Paper B plagiarised paper A: what to do if a journal does not respond?
Case number:16-10Year:2016Resolution:On-going -
Low risk study with no ethics committee approval
Case number:16-06Year:2016Resolution:Case Closed -
Author requests for certain experts not to be included in the editorial process
Case number:16-08Year:2016Resolution:On-going -
Publication of expression of concern
Case number:16-09Year:2016Resolution:On-going -
Data anonymity
Case number:16-05Year:2016Resolution:Case Closed -
Publication of a manuscript on an external website after acceptance but prior to journal publication
Case number:16-02Year:2016Resolution:Case Closed -
Multiple redundant submissions from the same author
Case number:16-04Year:2016Resolution:On-going -
Disclosure and transparency issue
Case number:16-01Year:2016Resolution:Case Closed -
Reviewer concerns about transparency of peer review process
Case number:16-03Year:2016Resolution:Case Closed -
Attempt to supress legitimate scientific results
Case number:15-15Year:2015Resolution:On-going -
Profusion of copied text passages
Case number:15-16Year:2015Resolution:On-going -
Inability to contact an author to obtain permission to publish
Case number:15-11Year:2015Resolution:Case Closed -
Requesting authorship after publication
Case number:15-17Year:2015Resolution:Case Closed -
First author submits paper, impersonating corresponding author, without knowledge of co-authors
Case number:15-12Year:2015Resolution:Case Closed -
Handling self-admissions of fraud
Case number:15-10Year:2015Resolution:On-going -
Duplicate publication and removal of article