COPE - Committee On Publication Ethics

C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS
What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication

Notes
• The instructions
to authors should
state the journal’s
(a) Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript policy on redundant

publication.
• It may be helpful
to request the
Redundancy detected by text-matching institution’s policy.
Reviewer informs editor about redundant publication
software (eg CrossCheck screening) • Ask authors to verify
that their manuscript
is original and has
Thank reviewer and say you plan to investigate. Get full documentary evidence if not already provided not been published
elsewhere.
• International
Committee of
Check extent and nature of overlap/redundancy Medical Journal
Editors (ICMJE)
advises that
translations are
Major overlap/redundancy (i.e. based Minor overlap with some acceptable but
on same data with identical or very element of redundancy or No significant MUST reference
similar findings and/or evidence that authors legitimate overlap (e.g. methods) or overlap the original.
have sought to hide redundancy e.g. by re-analysis (e.g. sub-group/extended
changing title or author order or follow-up/discussion aimed
not citing previous papers) at different audience)
Inform reviewers
of decision and
Contact corresponding author in proceed with review
Contact author in neutral terms/
writing, ideally enclosing signed
expressing concern/explaining
authorship statement (or cover letter)
journal’s position Further reading
stating that submitted work has not
Explain that secondary papers must COPE Cases on
been published elsewhere and
refer to original Request missing redundant/duplicate
documentary evidence of duplication
reference to original and/or remove publication: http://
overlapping material publicationethics.org/
Proceed with review/decision cases/?f[0]=im_field_
classifications%3A829
Author responds No response Duplicate publication

Inform reviewer of guidelines
outcome/action www.biomedcentral.
com/about/
duplicatepublication
Unsatisfactory Attempt to contact all other (nb. the definitions
explanation/admission authors (check Medline/ only apply to BMC and
of fault Google for emails) may not be accepted
by other publishers).
Satisfactory Links to other sites

explanation No response are provided for your
(honest error/ convenience but
journal instructions COPE accepts no
unclear/legitimate responsibility or
Contact author’s institution requesting your concern liability for the
republication)
is passed to author’s superior and/or person content of those sites
responsible for research governance
Try to obtain acknowledgement of your letter
Write to author (all authors if
possible) rejecting submission,
explaining position and
expected future behaviour If no response,
Write to author (all authors
if possible), explaining position keep contacting
and expected future behavior institution every
3–6 months Version one
Published 2006
Consider informing http://bit.ly/2fmf6g0
author’s superior
and/or person Current version
responsible for Inform author(s) Inform reviewer of
November 2015
research governance of your action outcome/action
publicationethics.org
Originally developed for COPE by Liz Wager of Sideview (www.lizwager.com)
© 2016 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
A non-exclusive licence to reproduce these flowcharts may be applied for by writing to:
cope_administrator@publicationethics.org
What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication

(b) Suspected redundant publication in a published manuscript
Reader informs editor about redundant publication

Notes
• The instructions
Thank reader and say you plan to investigate to authors should
Get full documentary evidence if not already provided state the journal’s
policy on redundant
publication.
• Asking authors to
Check extent and nature of overlap/redundancy sign a statement
or tick a box
may be helpful
in subsequent
investigations.
Major overlap/redundancy (i.e. based on
Minor overlap (”salami publishing” No significant
same dataset with identical findings • ICMJE advises
with some element of redundancy) overlap
and/or evidence that authors that translations
or legitimate repetition or re-analysis
have sought to hide redundancy, are acceptable but
(e.g. sub-group/extended follow-up/
e.g. by changing title or author order MUST reference the
repeated methods)
or not referring to previous papers) original. Editors may
consider publishing
Discuss with
a correction (i.e. the
reader and
link to the original
Contact author in neutral proceed with
Contact corresponding author in article) rather than a
terms/expressing concern/ review
writing, ideally enclosing signed retraction/notice of
authorship statement (or cover letter) explaining journal’s position duplicate publication
stating that submitted work has not Explain that secondary papers in such cases.
been published elsewhere and must refer to original
documentary evidence of duplication Discuss publishing correction giving
reference to original paper
Where editor has reason to believe
failure to refer to previous paper(s)
was deliberate, consider informing
author’s superior or person
Author responds No response
responsible for research governance
Version one
Published 2006
http://bit.ly/2fCptzz
Attempt to contact all
Unsatisfactory other authors (check
Current version
explanation/ Medline/Google for Inform reader of
November 2015
admits guilt current affiliations/emails) outcome/action
Satisfactory
No response
explanation
(honest error/
legitimate
publication) Contact author’s institution requesting your concern Originally developed
is passed to author’s superior and/or person for COPE by Liz Wager
responsible for research governance of Sideview
Consider publishing statement (www.lizwager.com)
of redundant publication © 2016 Committee on
or retraction Publication Ethics
Inform editor of other (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
Write to author (all authors if If no response,
journal involved
possible) explaining position keep contacting
and expected future behaviour institution every A non-exclusive
3–6 months licence to reproduce
Consider informing these flowcharts
author’s superior may be applied
and /or person for by writing to:
responsible for Inform author(s) Inform reader of cope_administrator@
research governance of your action outcome/action publicationethics.org
What to do if you suspect plagiarism

(a) Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript
Reviewer informs editor about suspected plagiarism Note
The instructions
to authors should
include a definition
Thank reviewer and say you plan to investigate of plagiarism and
Get full documentary evidence if not already provided state the journal’s
policy on it
Check degree of copying
Minor copying of short Redundancy No problem

Clear plagiarism (unattributed
phrases only (e.g. in discussion (i.e. copying
use of large portions of text
of research paper from from author’s
and/or data, presented as if
non-native language speaker) own work)–
they were by the plagiarist)
No misattribution of data see flowcharts
on redundancy
Contact corresponding author in Contact author in neutral

writing, ideally enclosing signed terms/expressing
authorship statement (or cover disappointment/explaining
letter) stating that submitted work journal’s position
is original/the author’s own and Ask author to rephrase copied
documentary evidence of plagiarism phrases or include as direct
quotations with references Discuss with
Proceed with review reviewer
Author responds No response
Unsatisfactory Attempt to contact all

explanation/ other authors (check
admits guilt Medline/Google for emails)
Satisfactory
explanation No response
(honest error/
journal instructions
unclear/very
Contact author’s institution requesting your concern
junior researcher)
is passed to author’s superior and/or person Developed for
responsible for research governance COPE by Liz Wager
of Sideview
Write to author (all authors if
(www.lizwager.com)
possible) rejecting submission,
© 2013 Committee
explaining position and
on Publication Ethics
expected future behaviour Write to author (all authors if If no response, keep First published 2006
possible) rejecting submission or contacting institution
requesting revision, explaining every 3–6 months A non-exclusive
position and expected future behaviour If no resolution, consider licence to reproduce
Consider informing contacting other these flowcharts
author’s superior and/ authorities, e.g. ORI in may be applied
or person responsible US, GMC in UK for by writing to:
for research governance Inform author(s) Inform reviewer of cope_administrator@
and/or potential victim of your action outcome/action publicationethics.org
What to do if you suspect plagiarism

(b) Suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript
Reader informs editor about suspected plagiarism Note
The instructions
to authors should
include a definition of
Thank reader and say you plan to investigate plagiarism and state
Get full documentary evidence if not already provided the journal’s
policy on it
Check degree of copying
Clear plagiarism (unattributed

Minor copying of short phrases only
use of large portions of text
(e.g. in discussion of research paper)
and/or data, presented as if they
No misattribution of data
were by the plagiarist)
Contact corresponding author Contact author in neutral

in writing, ideally enclosing terms/expressing
signed authorship statement disappointment/explaining
(or cover letter) stating that work journal’s position
is original/the author’s own Discuss publishing correction
and documentary evidence giving reference to original
of plagiarism paper(s) if this has been omitted
Inform reader (and plagiarized

author(s) if different) of
Author responds No response journal’s actions
Unsatisfactory Attempt to contact all other

explanation/ authors (check
admits guilt Medline/Google for
current affiliations/emails)
Contact all Satisfactory

authors and tell explanation (honest No response
them what you error/journal
plan to do instructions
unclear/very junior
researcher) Contact author’s institution requesting your concern
is passed to author’s superior and/or person Developed for
responsible for research governance COPE by Liz Wager
Consider publishing retraction of Sideview
Inform editor of other journal(s) (www.lizwager.com)
involved or publisher of Write to author (all authors if If no response, keep © 2013 Committee
plagiarized books possible) explaining position contacting institution on Publication Ethics
and expected future behavior every 3–6 months First published 2006
If no resolution, consider
contacting other A non-exclusive
Consider informing
authorities, e.g. ORI licence to reproduce
author’s superior
in US, GMC in UK these flowcharts
and/or person
may be applied
responsible for
Inform readers for by writing to:
research governance Inform author(s) and victims(s) of cope_administrator@
at author’s institution of your action outcome/action publicationethics.org
What to do if you suspect fabricated data

(a) Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript
Reviewer expresses suspicion of fabricated data
Thank reviewer, ask for evidence (if not already

provided) and state your plans to investigate
Consider getting a 2nd opinion from another reviewer
Contact author to explain concerns but

do not make direct accusation

Author replies No response other authors (check
Medline/Google for emails)
Unsatisfactory
answer/ Satisfactory Author replies No response
admits guilt explanation

is passed to author’s superior and/or person
responsible for research governance, if necessary
Inform all authors coordinating with co-authors’ institutions
that you intend to
contact institution/
regulatory body
Apologise to author, inform

reviewer(s) of outcome
Contact author’s No response
Proceed with peer-review
institution(s) if appropriate
requesting an
investigation
Contact regulatory body Developed for
(e.g. GMC for UK doctors) COPE by Liz Wager
requesting an enquiry of Sideview
(www.lizwager.com)
No or © 2013 Committee
unsatisfactory on Publication Ethics
response First published 2006
A non-exclusive
Author cleared Author Reject licence to reproduce
found guilty these flowcharts
may be applied
for by writing to:
Apologise to author, proceed Inform reviewer cope_administrator@
with peer-review if appropriate of outcome publicationethics.org
What to do if you suspect fabricated data

(b) Suspected fabricated data in a published manuscript
Reader expresses suspicion of fabricated data
Thank reader and state your plans to investigate
Consider getting a 2nd opinion from another reviewer
Contact author to explain your concerns

but do not make direct accusations

Author replies No response other authors (check
Medline/Google for emails)
Author replies No response

Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
is passed to author’s superior and/or person
answer/admits guilt explanation
responsible for research governance, if necessary
coordinating with co-authors’ institutions
Inform all authors

you intend to
contact institution/ Apologise to author
regulatory body Publish correction if necessary No response
(e.g. if an honest error has
been detected). Inform reader
of outcome
Contact author’s
Contact regulatory body
institution
(e.g. GMC for UK doctors)
requesting an
requesting an enquiry
investigation
Developed for
No or COPE by Liz Wager
unsatisfactory of Sideview
response (www.lizwager.com)
© 2013 Committee
Publish expression First published 2006
Author(s) guilty Author(s) found of concern
of fabrication not guilty
A non-exclusive
licence to reproduce
these flowcharts
may be applied
Publish Apologise to author(s) Inform reader
for by writing to:
retraction of outcome
cope_administrator@
Changes in authorship
(a) Corresponding author requests addition of extra author before publication
Clarify reason for change in authorship Note

Major changes
in response to
reviewer comments,
Check that all authors consent to e.g. adding new
addition of extra author data might justify
the inclusion of a
new author
All authors agree Authors do not agree
Get new author to complete Suspend review/publication of paper until

journal’s authorship authorship has been agreed by all
declaration (if used) authors, if necessary, via institution(s)
Amend contributor details (role of

each contributor/author) if included
Proceed with
review/publication
Developed for
COPE by Liz Wager
of Sideview
(www.lizwager.com)
© 2013 Committee
First published 2006
A non-exclusive
these flowcharts
may be applied
for by writing to:
cope_administrator@
(b) Corresponding author requests removal of author before publication
Clarify reason for change in authorship Note

Most important
to check with the
author(s) whose
Check that all authors consent name(s) is/are being
to removal of author removed from the
paper and get their
agreement in writing
All authors agree Authors do not agree
Suspend review/publication of paper

Amend author list and contributor
until authorship has been agreed
details (role of each author/contributor/
Inform excluded author(s) that if they
acknowledgments as required)
wish to pursue the matter they should
do this with their co-authors or
institutions rather than the editor
Proceed with
review/publication
Developed for
COPE by Liz Wager
of Sideview
(www.lizwager.com)
© 2013 Committee
A non-exclusive
these flowcharts
may be applied
for by writing to:
cope_administrator@
(c) Request for addition of extra author after publication
Ask why author was omitted

from original list – ideally, refer
to journal guidelines or To prevent
Clarify reason for change in authorship authorship declaration which future problems:
should state that all authors
meet appropriate criteria and (1) Before publication,
that no deserving authors get authors to sign
Check that all authors consent statement that all
to addition of extra author have been omitted
listed authors meet
authorship criteria
and that no others
meeting the criteria
All authors agree Authors do not agree have been omitted
(2) Publish details
of each person’s
Publish correction Explain that you will not change the contribution to
authorship until you have written their search
agreement from all authors. and publication
Provide authorship guidelines
but do not enter into dispute
All authors agree Authors still cannot agree
Publish correction if needed Refer case to authors’

institution(s) and ask it/them
to adjudicate
Publish correction if
required by institution(s)
Developed for
COPE by Liz Wager
of Sideview
(www.lizwager.com)
© 2013 Committee
A non-exclusive
these flowcharts
may be applied
for by writing to:
cope_administrator@
(d) Request for removal of author after publication
Clarify reason for change in authorship Ask why author wishes to

be removed from list – refer
to journal guidelines or
authorship declaration which
should state that all authors
Author(s) gives Author(s) alleges fraud/misconduct meet appropriate criteria.
acceptable Ask if author suspects
reason for change fraud/misconduct
See flowchart for Author(s) has difference in
fabricated data interpretation of data
Check that all
authors agree to
change (including
excluded author) Suggest author(s) put views in a
letter and explain you will give other
authors a chance to respond and
will publish both letters if suitable
Publish correction (i.e. correct length, not libellous)
Author(s) writes a letter Author(s) does not agree to

write letter (or writes
something unpublishable)
Contact other authors
explaining what is happening
Other authors Other authors do

submit response not wish to respond If author insists on removal
of name and other authors
agree, then consider
publishing correction
Publish Publish
both letters minority view letter
Developed for
COPE by Liz Wager
of Sideview
(www.lizwager.com)
© 2013 Committee
A non-exclusive
these flowcharts
may be applied
for by writing to:
cope_administrator@
What to do if you suspect ghost, guest or gift authorship

(see also flowcharts on Changes in authorship, as such * Note
requests may indicate the presence of a ghost or gift author) Initial action will
depend on journal’s
normal method of
collecting author/
contributor info
* * Note
Review acknowledgement section and Including clear
authorship declaration (if supplied) guidance/criteria for
authorship in journal
and/or* instructions makes
it easier to handle
Send copy of journal’s authorship policy** such issues
to corresponding author and request statement
that all qualify and no authors have been omitted
(if not obtained previously) * * * Note
Marusic et al. have
and/or* shown that the method
of collecting such data
Request information (or further details) (e.g. free text or check
of individuals’ contributions*** boxes) can influence
the response.
Letting authors describe
their own contributions
probably results in
the most truthful and
informative answers.
Authorship role missing Listed author does not Satisfactory Doubts Reference
(e.g. contributor list does meet authorship criteria explanation remain/need Marusic A, Bates T,
not include anybody of author list more information Anic A et al. How
who analysed data the structure of
or prepared first draft) contribution disclosure
statement affects
‘Guest’ or ‘gift’ validity of authorship:
Try to contact
author identified a randomised study in
authors (Google
ageneral medical journal.
names for contacts)
‘Ghost’ identified Curr Med Res Opin
and ask about their
2006;22:1035–44
role, whether any
authors have been
omitted, and
Suggest missing Suggest guest/gift whether they have
author should be author(s) should be any concerns
added to list removed/moved to about authorship
Acknowledgements
section
Developed for
COPE by Liz Wager
of Sideview
Get agreement for authorship change Proceed with (www.lizwager.com)
(in writing) from all authors. Letter should review/publication © 2013 Committee
also clearly state the journal’s authorship on Publication Ethics
policy and/or refer to published criteria First published 2006
(e.g. ICMJE) and may express
concern/disappointment that these were A non-exclusive licence
not followed. For senior authors consider Review your journal’s instructions to reproduce these
copying this letter to their head of to contributors and submission flowcharts may be
department/person responsible forms to ensure clear guidance applied for by writing
for research governance and prevent future problem to: cope_administrator
@publicationethics.org
How to spot authorship problems

Editors cannot police author or contributor listing for every submission but may sometimes
have suspicions that an author list is incomplete or includes undeserving (guest or gift)
authors. The COPE flowchart on ‘What to do if you suspect ghost, guest or gift authorship’
suggests actions for these situations. The following points are designed to help editors be
alert for inappropriate authorship and spot warning signs which may indicate problems.
References
Gotzsche PC,
Type of authorship problems Hrobjartsson A,

Johansen HK, Haar MT,
Altman DG et al. Ghost
A ghost author is someone who is omitted from an authorship list despite qualifying for authorship in industry-
authorship. This is not necessarily the same as a ghost writer, since omitted authors often intiated randomised
perform other roles, in particular data analysis. (Gotzsche et al. have shown that statisticians trials. PLoS Med 2007;
4(1):e19.doi:10.1371/
involved with study design are frequently omitted from papers reporting industry-funded trials.) journal.pmed.00440019
If a professional writer has been involved with a publication it will depend on the authorship
Wager E (2007) Authors,
criteria being used whether s/he fulfils the criteria to be listed as an author. Using the ICMJE Ghosts, Damned Lies,
criteria for research papers, medical writers usually do not qualify as authors, but their and Statisticians. PLoS
involvement and funding source should be acknowledged. Med 2007;4(1):e34.
doi:10.1371/journal.
A guest or gift author is someone who is listed as an author despite not qualifying for pmed.0040034
authorship. Guests are generally people brought in to make the list look more impressive
(despite having little or no involvement with the research or publication). Gift authorship
often involves mutual CV enhancement (i.e. including colleagues on papers in return for
being listed on theirs).
Signs that might indicate authorship problems

• Corresponding author seems unable to respond to reviewers’ comments
• Changes are made by somebody not on the author list (check Word document
properties to see who made the changes but bear in mind there may be an innocent
explanation for this, e.g. using a shared computer, or a secretary making changes)
• Document properties show the manuscript was drafted by someone not on the
author list or properly acknowledged (but see above)
• Impossibly prolific author e.g. of review articles/opinion pieces (check also for
redundant/overlapping publication) (this may be detected by a Medline or
Google search using the author’s name)
• Several similar review articles/editorials/opinion pieces have been published
under different author names (this may be detected by a Medline or Google
search using the article title or key words) Developed for
COPE by Liz Wager
• Role missing from list of contributors (e.g. it appears that none of the named of Sideview
authors were responsible for analysing the data or drafting the paper) (www.lizwager.com)
© 2013 Committee
• Unfeasibly long or short author list (e.g. a simple case report with a dozen on Publication Ethics
authors or a randomised trial with a single author) First published 2006
• Industry-funded study with no authors from sponsor company (this may A non-exclusive
be legitimate, but may also mean deserving authors have been omitted; these flowcharts
reviewing the protocol may help determine the role of employees – may be applied
see Gotzsche et al. and commentary by Wager) for by writing to:
cope_administrator@
What to do if a reviewer suspects undisclosed

conflict of interest (Col) in a submitted manuscript
Reviewer informs editor of author’s undisclosed Col
Thank reviewer and say you plan to investigate
Contact author(s) and express concern
Author(s) supplies Author(s) denies Col

relevant details
Explain journal policy/Col definition

clearly and obtain signed statement
Thank author but point out from author(s) about all relevant Cols
seriousness of omission
Amend competing interest

statement as required
Proceed with review/publication
Inform reviewer of outcome
Developed for
COPE by Liz Wager
of Sideview
(www.lizwager.com)
© 2013 Committee
A non-exclusive
these flowcharts
may be applied
for by writing to:
cope_administrator@
What to do if a reader suspects undisclosed

conflict of interest (CoI) in a published article
Reader informs editor of author’s undisclosed Col Notes

To avoid future
problems:
Always get signed
Thank reader and say you plan to investigate statement of Cols
from all authors and
reviewers before
It may be helpful to provide publication.
Contact author(s) and express concern a copy of the journal’s Ensure journal
policy/definition of Col guidelines
include clear
definition of Col
Author(s) supplies Author(s) denies Col
relevant details
Explain journal policy/Col definition

Thank author but point out clearly and obtain signed statement
seriousness of omission from author(s) about all relevant Cols
(if not obtained previously)
Publish correction to competing

interest statement as required
Inform reader of outcome
Developed for
COPE by Liz Wager
of Sideview
(www.lizwager.com)
© 2013 Committee
A non-exclusive
these flowcharts
may be applied
for by writing to:
cope_administrator@
What to do if you suspect an ethical problem

with a submitted manuscript
e.g. lack of ethical approval/

Reviewer (or editor) raises ethical concern re: patient consent
concern about manuscript or protection/concern
re: animal experimentation
Thank reviewer and say you plan to investigate
e.g. request evidence of

ethical committee/IRB
Author(s) supplies relevant details
approval/copy of informed
consent documents
Satisfactory answer Unsatisfactory answer/no response
Inform author that review Consider submitting case

Apologise and continue
process is suspended until to COPE if it raises novel
review process
case is resolved ethical issues
Forward concerns to author’s

employer or person responsible
for research governance at institution
Issue resolved No/unsatisfactory

satisfactory response
Contact institution at 3–6

monthly intervals, seeking
conclusion of investigation
Inform reviewer about No/unsatisfactory

Developed for
outcome of case response
COPE by Liz Wager
of Sideview
(www.lizwager.com)
Refer to other authorities © 2013 Committee
(e.g. medical registration on Publication Ethics
body, UKPRI, ORI) First published 2006
A non-exclusive
these flowcharts
may be applied
for by writing to:
cope_administrator@
What to do if you suspect a reviewer has

appropriated an author’s ideas or data
Note
Author alleges reviewer misconduct The instruction to
reviewers should
state that submitted
material must be
Thank author and say you will investigate
treated in confidence
and may not be used
If files are no longer
in any way until it has
available at journal,
Retrieve files (submitted MS and reviews) been published
request copy
from author
Note
Options depend
Open review (reviewer’s Anonymous review (reviewer’s
on type of review
identity is disclosed to author) identity is NOT disclosed to author)
system used
*Note
Author accuses actual Author accuses somebody NB Do not forget If author produces
reviewer of misconduct who was not asked to review people who refused published paper
the article for your journal to review this may be handled
as plagiarism
Get as much documentary evidence as (see plagiarism
possible from author and other sources, e.g. flow chart)
publication*, abstract, report of meeting, copy Check for links between accused
of slides, grant application: do not contact person and named reviewer, e.g.
reviewer until you have assessed this same department, personal
relationships
Review evidence (or get suitably qualified

person to do this) and decide whether Consider contacting actual
author’s allegations are well-founded reviewer(s) to comment on
allegation and check they
performed the review
Not well-founded Appear well-founded themselves/did not discuss the
paper with others
Write to reviewer explaining

Discuss with concerns and requesting Explain situation to author
author/request an explanation (decide whether you wish to
further evidence reveal actual reviewer(s)
name(s): this is up to you,
however if your journal uses
Satisfactory No reply/ anonymous review you must
explanation unsatisfactory get the reviewer’s
explanation permission before disclosing Developed for
their identity to the author) COPE by Liz Wager
of Sideview
(www.lizwager.com)
Reviewer Contact reviewer’s institution © 2013 Committee
Consider removing
exonerated requesting an investigation on Publication Ethics
reviewer from review
database during First published 2006
investigation and inform
Reviewer reviewer of you action A non-exclusive
Discuss with author
found guilty licence to reproduce
these flowcharts
If no response, Remove reviewer may be applied
keep contacting Keep author permanently from for by writing to:
institution every informed database and consider cope_administrator@
3–6 months of progress reporting case in journal publicationethics.org
How to respond to whistle blowers

when concerns are raised directly
Note
A published article is criticised via direct email to the The tone of the
editor or publisher. This could include anonymous or allegations may
not anonymous concerns about scientific soundness be aggressive or
or allegations of plagiarism, figure manipulation or personal. Respond
other forms of misconduct politely; don’t
get drawn into
personal exchanges
Let the publisher and the communications team Note

know about any allegations. It is useful to establish Sometimes the
an escalation procedure and agree a process whistle blower may
for responding ahead of time prefer toremain
anonymous. It is
important not to try to
“out”people who wish
to be anonymous
Do the allegations contain specific and
detailed evidence to support the claim?
Yes No
Request more detail saying

that otherwise you are unable
to investigate
Respond to the person who raised

concerns saying that you are going If they persist with vague
to investigate and will let them When more detail is
claims, politely say you
know the outcome but will not provided, investigate
cannot pursue this further
necessarily be in contact regularly
before then Developed in
collaboration with
BioMed Central
© 2015 Committee
and BioMed Central
Investigate according to the
appropriate COPE flowchart Version one
or guidance and also follow Published
own publisher’s guidance November 2015
A non-exclusive
these flowcharts
may be applied
If there is an outcome to your for by writing to:
investigation, such as a correction cope_administrator@
or retraction, inform the person publicationethics.org
who originally raised the concern
How to respond to whistle blowers when

concerns are raised via social media
Note
The tone of the
A published article is criticised on social media allegations may
or a post-publication peer review site(s). be aggressive or
This could include anonymous or not anonymous personal. Respond
concerns about scientific soundness or allegations of politely; don’t
plagiarism, figure manipulation or other forms of misconduct get drawn into
personal exchanges
Let the publisher and the communications team Note

know about any allegations. It is useful to Sometimes the
establish an escalation procedure and agree whistle blower may
a process for responding ahead of time prefer to remain
anonymous. It is
important not to
try to “out” people
Do the allegations contain specific and detailed who wish to
evidence to support the claim? be anonymous
Note
It is important to
Yes No
take the discussion
away from the public
domain; don’t engage
Treat in the same way as in specific discussions
Are the comments targeted directly at the
concerns raised directly on social media
author, editor, publisher or the journal?
Respond via the same social media,

ideally within 24 hours, saying that Yes No
you are going to investigate
Let the authors know via email that Don’t respond, but flag to the
Respond via the same social media
concerns were raised and ask them publisher so they can decide on
to say thank you, if you would like
for an explanation. You should not their approach. Consider letting
to raise a complaint please contact
generally add them to an exchange, the authors know and explain why Developed in
[xyz]. Provide a generic contact,
e.g. in a Twitter response. you are not responding at the collaboration with
e.g. customer services, who will be
If the concerns were raised only moment. Make sure the authors BioMed Central
able to forward the complaint to the
about the research findings, in will be able to access the comments
appropriate person.
some instances the authors may (e.g. some authors are not able to © 2015 Committee
It is appropriate to respond from
wish to respond themselves access Twitter or Google) on Publication Ethics
a journal/publisher account rather
than a personal Twitter account for and BioMed Central
legal and ethical reasons.
Investigate according to the If they persist with vague claims, Version one
appropriate COPE flowchart politely say you cannot pursue this Published
or guidance and also follow further and do not respond to any November 2015
own publisher’s guidance further comments
A non-exclusive
these flowcharts
If there is an outcome to your may be applied
investigation, such as a correction for by writing to:
or retraction, consider putting cope_administrator@
information about it on the same publicationethics.org
social media/site(s) where the
concerns were originally raised. It
may not be appropriate for Twitter
but useful on other sites. Post a link
to the resolution on the journal site

COPE - Committee On Publication Ethics

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

COPE - Committee On Publication Ethics

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

C O P E CO M M ITTE E ON P U B LICATI ON ETH ICS

What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication

(a) Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript policy on redundant

Author responds No response Duplicate publication

Satisfactory Links to other sites

What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication

Reader informs editor about redundant publication

What to do if you suspect plagiarism

Check degree of copying

Minor copying of short Redundancy No problem

Contact corresponding author in Contact author in neutral

Author responds No response

Unsatisfactory Attempt to contact all

What to do if you suspect plagiarism

Check degree of copying

Clear plagiarism (unattributed

Contact corresponding author Contact author in neutral

Inform reader (and plagiarized

Unsatisfactory Attempt to contact all other

Contact all Satisfactory

What to do if you suspect fabricated data

Reviewer expresses suspicion of fabricated data

Thank reviewer, ask for evidence (if not already

Consider getting a 2nd opinion from another reviewer

Contact author to explain concerns but

Attempt to contact all

Contact author’s institution requesting your concern

Apologise to author, inform

What to do if you suspect fabricated data

Reader expresses suspicion of fabricated data

Thank reader and state your plans to investigate

Consider getting a 2nd opinion from another reviewer

Contact author to explain your concerns

Attempt to contact all

Author replies No response

Contact author’s institution requesting your concern

Inform all authors

Clarify reason for change in authorship Note

All authors agree Authors do not agree

Get new author to complete Suspend review/publication of paper until

Amend contributor details (role of

Clarify reason for change in authorship Note

All authors agree Authors do not agree

Suspend review/publication of paper

Ask why author was omitted

All authors agree Authors still cannot agree

Publish correction if needed Refer case to authors’

Clarify reason for change in authorship Ask why author wishes to

Author(s) writes a letter Author(s) does not agree to

Other authors Other authors do

What to do if you suspect ghost, guest or gift authorship

How to spot authorship problems

Type of authorship problems Hrobjartsson A,

Signs that might indicate authorship problems

What to do if a reviewer suspects undisclosed

Reviewer informs editor of author’s undisclosed Col

Thank reviewer and say you plan to investigate

Contact author(s) and express concern

Author(s) supplies Author(s) denies Col

Explain journal policy/Col definition

Amend competing interest

Proceed with review/publication

Inform reviewer of outcome