COPE 01A - Portland Press Ltd

Developed for COPE by Liz Wager of Sideview (www.lizwager.com)Redrawn for COPE by Blackwell Publishing© 2006 Committee on Publication Ethics

A non-exclusive licence to reproduce theseflowcharts may be applied for by writing to:

[email protected]

Committee on Publication Ethics Flowchartwww.publicationethics.org.uk

What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication(a) Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript

Reviewer informs editor about redundant publication

Thank reviewer and say you plan to investigateGet full documentary evidence if not already provided

Check degree of overlap/redundancy

Author responds No response

No response

Consider informingauthor’s superior

and/or personresponsible for

research governanceInform author(s)

of your actionInform reviewer of

outcome/action

If no response,keep contactinginstitution every

3–6 months

Unsatisfactoryexplanation/admits

guilt

Attempt to contact all otherauthors (check

Medline/Google for emails)

Inform reviewer ofoutcome/action

Satisfactoryexplanation (honest

error/journalinstructions

unclear/very juniorresearcher)

Write to author (all authors ifpossible) rejecting submission,

explaining position and expectedfuture behaviour

Contact author’s institution requesting your concern ispassed to author’s superior and/or person

responsible for research governanceTry to obtain acknowledgement of your letter



Major overlap/redundancy (i.e. based onsame data with identical or very similar

findings and/orevidence authors have sought to hide

redundancy, e.g. by changing title,author order or not citing previous papers)

Minor overlap with some elementof redundancy or legitimate reanalysis

(e.g. sub-group/extendedfollow-up/discussion aimed at

different audience)

Note: The instructions to authorsshould state the journal’s policy on

redundant publicationAsking authors to sign a statement

or tick a box may be helpful insubsequent investigations

No significantoverlap

Discuss withreviewerProceed

with review

Contact author in neutralterms/expressing

disappointment/explaining journal’sposition

Explain that secondary papers mustrefer to original

Request missing reference to originaland/or remove overlapping material

Proceed with review

Contact corresponding author inwriting, ideally enclosing signedauthorship statement (or cover

letter) stating that submitted workhas not been published elsewhere

and documentary evidence ofduplication

Note: ICMJE advisesthat translations areacceptable but MUSTreference the original

What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication(b) Suspected redundant publication in a published article

Reader informs editor about redundant publication

Thank reader and say you plan to investigateGet full documentary evidence if not already provided

Check degree of overlap/redundancy


No response



research governanceInform author(s)

of your actionInform reader ofoutcome/action

Inform reader ofoutcome/action

If no response,keep contactinginstitution every

3–6 months


guilt


Medline/Google for currentaffiliations/emails)




Consider publishing statementof redundant publication or

retractionInform editor of other journal

involved


responsible for research governance

Write to author (all authors ifpossible) explaining position

and expected future behaviour

Major overlap/redundancy (i.e. based onsame dataset with identical findings

and/or evidence that authorshave sought to hide redundancy,

e.g. by changing title, author orderor not referring to previous papers)

Minor overlap (’salami publishing’with some element of redundancy)or legitimate re-analysis (e.g. sub-

group/extended follow-up/discussionaimed at different audience)

Note: The instructions to authorsshould state the journal’s policy on

redundant publicationAsking authors to sign a statement

or tick a box may be helpful insubsequent investigations

Contact author in neutralterms/expressing disappointment/

explaining journal’s positionExplain that secondary papers must

refer to originalDiscuss publishing correction giving

reference to original paperWhere editor has reason to believefailure to refer to previous paper(s)was deliberate, consider informing

author’s superior or personresponsible for research governance


letter) stating that submitted workhas not been published elsewhere

and documentary evidence ofduplication

Note: ICMJE advisesthat translations are

acceptable but MUSTreference the originalEditors may consider

publishing a correction(i.e. the link to the

original article) ratherthan a retraction/noticeof duplicate publication

in such cases



[email protected]




[email protected]


What to do if you suspect plagiarism(a) Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript

Reviewer informs editor about suspected plagiarism

Thank reviewer and say you plan to investigateGet full documentary evidence if not already provided

Check degree of copying


No response

No problem

Consider informingauthor’s superior and/or person responsible

for research governanceand/or potential victim

Inform author(s)of your action

Inform reviewer ofoutcome/action

If no response, keepcontacting institution

every 3–6 monthsIf no resolution, consider

contacting otherauthorities, e.g. ORI in

US, GMC in UK


guilt

Redundancy(i.e. copying

from author’sown work)–

see flowchartson redundancy



Discuss withreviewer








Write to author (all authors if possible)rejecting submission or requesting

revision, explaining position andexpected future behaviour

Clear plagiarism (unattributeduse of large portions of textand/or data, presented as ifthey were by the plagiarist)

Minor copying of short phrasesonly (e.g. in discussion ofresearch paper from non-native language speaker)No misattribution of data

Note: The instructions to authorsshould include a definition of

plagiarism and state thejournal’s policy on it


disappointment/explainingjournal’s position

Ask author to rephrase copiedphrases or include as directquotations with references

Proceed with review


letter) stating that submitted workis original/the author’s own and

documentary evidence of plagiarism

What to do if you suspect plagiarism(b) Suspected plagiarism in a published article

Reader informs editor about suspected plagiarism

Thank reader and say you plan to investigateGet full documentary evidence if not already provided

Check degree of copying


No response



research governanceat author’s institution

Inform author(s)of your action

Inform readers andvictim(s) of

outcome/action

If no response, keepcontacting institution

every 3–6 monthsIf no resolution, consider

contacting otherauthorities, e.g. ORI in

US, GMC in UK

Unsatisfactoryexplanation/admits guilt

Contact allauthors and tellthem what you

plan to do


Medline/Google forcurrent affiliations/emails)




Consider publishing retractionInform editor of other journal(s)

involved or publisher ofplagiarised books



Write to author (all authors ifpossible) explaining position

and expected future behaviour

Clear plagiarism (unattributeduse of large portions of text

and/or data, presented as if theywere by the plagiarist)

Minor copying of short phrasesonly (e.g. in discussion of

research paper)No misattribution of data

Inform reader (and plagiarisedauthor(s) if different) of

journal’s actions

Note: The instructions to authorsshould include a definition of

plagiarism and state the journal’spolicy on it


disappointment/explainingjournal’s position

Discuss publishing correctiongiving reference to original

paper(s) if this has been omitted


letter) stating that work isoriginal/the author’s own and

documentary evidence ofplagiarism



[email protected]




[email protected]


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 alreadyprovided) and state your plans to investigate

Consider getting a 2nd opinion from another reviewer

Assemble evidence of fabrication

Author replies

Author cleared

Author replies

No response

No response

No response

Reject

Unsatisfactoryanswer/

admits guilt

No orunsatisfactory

response

Satisfactoryexplanation

Authorfound guilty

Contact author’sinstitution(s)

requesting aninvestigation



Apologise to author, informreviewer(s) of outcome

Proceed with peer-reviewif appropriate

Contact author’s institution requesting your concern ispassed to author’s superior and/or person responsible

for research governance, if necessary coordinating withco-authors’ institutions

If raw data are suppliedthese should be

assessed by a suitablyqualified person,

ideally in cooperation with the author’s

institution

Contact author to explain concerns butdo not make direct accusation

Request raw data/labnotebooks as appropriate

Apologise to author, proceedwith peer-review if appropriate

Inform reviewer ofoutcome

Contact regulatory body(e.g. GMC for UK doctors)

requesting an enquiry

Inform all authorsthat you intend to

contact institution/regulatory body

What to do if you suspect fabricated data(b) Suspected fabricated data in a published article

Reader expresses suspicion of fabricated data

Thank reader and state your plans to investigate

Consider getting a 2nd opinion from another reviewer

Assemble evidence of fabrication

Author replies

Author(s) guiltyof fabrication

Author replies

No response

No response

No response

Unsatisfactoryanswer/admits guilt

No orunsatisfactory

response

Satisfactoryexplanation

Author(s) foundnot guilty

Publishretraction

Contact author’sinstitution

requesting aninvestigation



Apologise to authorPublish correction if necessary

(e.g. if an honest error hasbeen detected)

Inform reader of outcome

Contact author’s institution requesting your concern ispassed to author’s superior and/or person responsible

for research governance, if necessary coordinatingwith co-authors’ institutions

If raw data are supplied theseshould be assessed by a

suitably qualified person,ideally in cooperation with the

author’s institutionContact author to explain your concerns

Request raw data/lab notebooks as appropriate

Publish expressionof concern

Inform reader ofoutcome

Contact regulatory body(e.g. GMC for UK doctors)

requesting an enquiry

Inform all authorsyou intend to contactinstitution/regulatory

body

Apologise to author(s)



[email protected]




[email protected]


Changes in authorship (a) Corresponding author requests addition of extra author before publication

Clarify reason for change in authorship

Check that all authors consent to addition of extra author

Amend contributor details (role of each contributor/author) if included

Proceed with review/publication

All authors agree Authors do not agree

Suspend review/publication of paper until authorship has been agreed by all

authors, if necessary, via institution(s)

Get new author to complete journal’s authorship declaration (if used)

Note: major changes in response to reviewer

comments, e.g. adding new data might justify the inclusion

of a new author



[email protected]


Changes in authorship(b) Corresponding author requests removal of author before publication


Check that all authors consent to removal of author

Proceed withreview/publication


Suspend review/publication of paper untilauthorship has been agreed

Inform excluded author(s) that if theywish to pursue the matter they should dothis with their co-authors or institutions

rather than the editor

Amend author list and contributordetails (role of each contributor/author)/

acknowledgements as required

Most important to checkwith the author(s) whose

name(s) is/are beingremoved from the paper

and get their agreement in writing



[email protected]


Changes in authorship (c) Request for addition of extra author after publication


Check that all authors consent to addition of extra author

Publish correction if required by institution(s)


Publish correction if needed

To prevent future problems: (1) Before publication, get authors to sign statement that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted (2) Publish details of each person’s contribution to the research and publication

Publish correction

All authors agree Authors still cannot agree

Explain that you will not change the authorship until you have written

agreement from all authors Provide authorship guidelines but do not

enter into dispute

Refer case to authors’ institution(s) and ask it/them to

adjudicate

Ask why author was omitted fromoriginal list – ideally, refer to

journal guidelines or authorshipdeclaration that should state

that all authors meet appropriatecriteria and that no deserving

authors have been omitted



[email protected]


Changes in authorship (d) Request for removal of author after publication


Contact other authors explaining what is happening

See flowchart for fabricated data

Other authors submit response

Other authors do not wish to respond

Author(s) has difference in interpretation of data

Author(s) gives acceptable reason

for change

Author(s) alleges fraud / misconduct

Publish minority view letter

Publish correction

Publish both letters

Check that all authors agree to

change (including excluded author)

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

something unpublishable)

If author insists on removal of name and other authors agree,

then consider publishing correction

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 (i.e. correct length, not libellous)

Ask why author wishes to beremoved from list – refer to

journal guidelines or authorshipdeclaration which should state

that all authors meet appropriatecriteria. Ask if author suspects

fraud/misconduct

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

Proceed with review/publication

Inform reviewer of outcome

Explain journal policy/Col definitionclearly and obtain signed statement from

author(s) about all relevant Cols

Thank author but point outseriousness of omission

Amend competing intereststatement as required

Author(s) suppliesrelevant details

Author(s) denies Col

To avoid future problems:Always get signed statement

of Cols from all authorsbefore publication (or getthem to tick a box if they

declare no conflict)Ensure journal guidelines

include clear definition of Col



[email protected]


What to do if a reader suspects undisclosed conflict of interest (Col) in a published article

Reader informs editor of author’s undisclosed Col

Thank reader and say you plan to investigate

Contact author(s) and express concern

Inform reader of outcome

Explain journal policy/Col definition clearly and obtain signed statement from

author(s) about all relevant Cols (if not obtained previously)

Thank author but point out seriousness of omission

Publish correction to competing interest statement as required

Author(s) supplies relevant details

Author(s) denies Col

To avoid future problems: Always get signed statement of Cols from all authors and

reviewers before publication Ensure journal guidelines

include clear definition of Col

It may be helpful to provide a copy of the journal’s

policy/definition of Col



[email protected]




[email protected]


What to do if you suspect an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript

Thank reviewer and say you plan to investigate

Forward concerns to author’semployer or person responsible

for research governance atinstitution

Issue resolvedsatisfactory

e.g. lack of ethical approval/concern re:patient consent or protection/concernre: animal experimentation

e.g. request evidence of ethicalcommittee/IRB approval/copy ofinformed consent documents

Reviewer (or editor) raises ethicalconcern about manuscript

Author(s) suppliesrelevant details

Apologise andcontinue review

process

Inform author that reviewprocess is suspended until

case is resolved

Consider submitting caseto COPE if it raises novel

ethical issues

Contact institution at 3–6monthly intervals, seekingconclusion of investigation

No/unsatisfactoryresponse

No/unsatisfactoryresponse

Inform reviewer aboutoutcome of case

Refer to other authorities(e.g. medical registration

body, UKPRI, ORI)

Satisfactory answer Unsatisfactory answer/no response



[email protected]


How COPE handles complaints against editors

Chair of COPE informs editor of complaint

If not, COPE cannot consider

complaint

Complainant maytry other

organisations, e.g.Press Complaints

Commission,WAME

Evidence sent to Chair of COPE including correspondence about journal’s handling of complaints

Secretary checks that complaint:• is against a COPE member• is within the remit of the COPE Code of Conduct• has been through journal’s own complaints procedure• relates to actions taken after 1/1/05 (when COPE Code was published)

Chair consults with at least one member of COPE Council

Refer to COPE sub-committee*

Sub-committee considers case and reports to COPE Council

Council considers case and recommends action**

Editor and complainant are informed

Agree that journal has dealt satisfactorily with complaint

Agree that case requires further investigation

Complaint sent to COPE secretary

If so:

If the Chair of COPE belongs to thesame publishing group as the

subject of the complaint, the casewill be handled by the Vice-Chair

*Sub-committeewill comprise:• Chair• Three other Council members (two of whom are not editors)Members may notwork for the samepublishing groupas the subject ofthe complaint**Actions might include:

• editor apologises to complainant• editor publishes statement from COPE in journal• journal/editor agrees to improve procedures

Documents

COPE 01A - Portland Press Ltd