You are here

Guidance

Filter by topic

Filter by resource type

Showing 1–20 of 111 results
  • Flowcharts

    General approach to publication ethics for the editorial office

    A guide detailing the suggested approach to the organisation of the editorial office in order to comply with COPE’s Core Practices. General approach to publication ethics for the editorial office
  • Flowcharts

    Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript

    This flowchart offers editors a step-by-step process on handling cases where a potential conflict of interest is suspected during the reviewing process. Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript
  • Flowcharts

    Undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article

    A reader suspects an author’s undisclosed conflict of interest which becomes apparent after publication. The flowchart offers the editor a step by step process on handling this issue. Undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article
  • Flowcharts

    All Flowcharts

    …COPE Flowcharts COPE flowcharts offer a step by step process, for practical use on handling different aspects of publication ethics issues.  Allegations of misconduct Reviewer suspected to have appropriated an author’s ideas or data …
  • Flowcharts

    Arabic: all flowcharts

    …This is all of COPE's flowcharts in Arabic. For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: Chinese | 
  • Flowcharts

    Chinese: all flowcharts

    …This is COPE's flowcharts in Chinese For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: Arabic | 
  • Flowcharts

    Croatian: all flowcharts

    …This is COPE's flowcharts in Croatian For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: Arabic |
  • Flowcharts

    French: all flowcharts

    …This is COPE's flowcharts in French. For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: Arabic | 
  • Flowcharts

    Italian: all flowcharts

    …This is COPE's flowcharts in Italian For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: Arabic | 
  • Flowcharts

    Persian: 14 flowcharts

    …This is COPE's flowcharts in Persian For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: Arabic | 
  • Flowcharts

    Polish: all flowcharts

    …This is COPE's flowcharts in Polish For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: Arabic | 
  • Flowcharts

    Spanish: All flowcharts

    …This is COPE's flowcharts in Spanish For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: Arabic | 
  • Flowcharts

    Turkish: all flowcharts

    …This is COPE's flowcharts in Turkish For the latest version (English language) of this guidance visit https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26. Other languages: Arabic | 
  • Guidelines

    Editorial board participation

    These COPE Guidelines provide an overview of editorial board appointment and engagement, roles and responsibilities, and key details to consider during recruitment such as participation on multiple editorial boards. COPE Guidelines are formal COPE policy and are intended to advise editors and publishers on expected publication ethics practice.
  • Guidelines

    Sharing of information among editors-in-chief regarding possible misconduct

    Sharing of information among editors-in-chief (EICs) regarding cases of suspected misconduct can play a significant role in preserving the integrity of the scientific record, allowing EICs of affected journals to conduct investigations with greater efficiency and effectiveness.
  • Case
    On-going

    Complaint over protocol used in special issue

    We launched a Special Issue (SI) focusing on the application of a particular clinical protocol, with guest editors that have an extensive clinical history in applying this protocol. This specific protocol is currently used and promoted by a small subset of practitioners, with limited wider recognition. The SI concluded with a substantial number of published articles, including several case repo…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Should we allow pseudonymous authorship?

    We are handling a manuscript that is now ready for acceptance. During the review process we noticed that one coauthor had the surname "999" and this coauthor and two others had the affiliation "Independent researcher". We asked the corresponding author what this meant. Their answer was that the names of two of these three authors, including "999", were pseudonyms. The paper was based on a compe…
  • Discussion documents

    Guest edited collections best practice

    "Best practices for guest edited collections" introduces recommendations for journals and publishers for handling collections that are edited by guest editors. The potential risks and ethical issues are highlighted, as well as a checklist for creating guest edited collections, steps to ensure collections are edited according to valid publishing practices and ethical standards, and clarification…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    How to deal with obvious but disclosed conflict of interest

    We are dealing with a paper which contains an obvious but disclosed conflict of interest. The paper has two authors who are company employees (one is the CEO). The study does not directly involve their product (a medical device) but does directly involve the assessment of the broader medical service which it supports. The results of their study are favourable toward the company. All company aff…
  • Case
    Case Closed

    Call for retraction of a commentary

    A journal received two emails from different individuals, both critical of a commentary published in the journal. One cited serious errors, the other noted inaccurate statements, incorrect literature citations and fundamental flaws regarding misinterpretations or over-interpretations which could affect public health. The second email also cited the potential for the commentary to be used for (u…

Pages