Personal tools
You are here: Home → Reports → 1999
 
Document Actions

COPE 1999 report

Full text of the COPE Report 1999
[View PDF]
Individual pages of the COPE Report 1999:
 

Introduction
Michael J G Farthing

 

[View PDF]

What the journals say

  • BMJ
[View PDF]
  • Lancet
[View PDF]
  • JAMA Peer Review Supplement (summary)
[View PDF]

Setting a new agenda for good publication practice
Programme details and delegate list for meeting held at St Bartholomew's hospital, London, 27 April 1999

[View PDF]
  • Publication misconduct and how editors should respond
    Michael J G Farthing
[View PDF]
  • A view from the General Medical Council
    Sir Cyril Chantler
[View PDF]
  • A view from the Royal College of Physicians
    Stephen Tomlinson
[View PDF]
  • Debate
[View PDF]
  • Breakout session report on developing guidelines for good publication practice
[View PDF]
  • Use of editorial sanctions
    Richard Horton
[View PDF]
  • Summing up
    Michael J G Farthing
[View PDF]
 
Guidelines on good publication practice[View PDF]
 
Update on cases submitted to COPE[View PDF]

Cases submitted to COPE June 1998 to June 1999

Case 98/08: Redundant publication?[View PDF]
Case 98/13: Uncertain treatment of four patients following previous published experiments[View PDF]
Case 98/14: Patients with vitiligo treated with anti-fungal drugs by a general practitioner[View PDF]
Case 98/14: The missing author[View PDF]
Case 98/17: Allegations of scientific fraud and unethical conduct of experiments with attempts to silence the whistleblower[View PDF]
Case 98/18: Triplicate publication with possibly different data in each[View PDF]
Case 98/19: The double review[View PDF]
Case 98/21: Duplicate publication and now fraud?[View PDF]
Case 98/22: Confidentiality and conflict of interest[View PDF]
Case 98/23: Duplicate publication[View PDF]
Case 98/24: Duplication, revision, and resubmission?[View PDF]
Case 98/25: Surprising results and a new area of research for a senior author[View PDF]
Case 98/26: Partial disclosure of redundancy?[View PDF]
Case 98/27: Attempted dual publication[View PDF]
Case 98/28: Redundant publication[View PDF]
Case 98/29: Overseas editor dismissed from university for fraud[View PDF]
Case 98/30: A falling out[View PDF]
Case 98/31: Retrospective ethical approval?[View PDF]
Case 98/32: Redundant publication by an editorial board member[View PDF]
Case 98/33: The author who wasn't an author[View PDF]
Case 98/34: "Inadvertent" duplicate publication[View PDF]
Case 99/01: A lost author and a new hypothesis[View PDF]
Case 99/02: The manipulated contributor list[View PDF]
Case 99/03: Plagiarism[View PDF]
Case 99/04: What happens when there is no local ethics committee?[View PDF]
Case 99/08: Publication of misleading information and publication bias[View PDF]
Case 99/09: Redundant publication and change of authors[View PDF]
Powered by RedHat and Plone Hosted by BMJTechnology

This site conforms to the following standards: