Document Actions
COPE 2000 reports
Full text of the COPE Report 2000 | [View PDF] | |
Individual pages of the COPE Report 2000: | ||
COPE moves into the next millennium | ||
| ||
Who will lead on research and publication misconduct in the UK? | ||
| ||
Journal membership | ||
| ||
Constitution of the Committee on Publication Ethics | ||
| ||
Joint Consensus Conference on Misconduct in Biomedical Research: Consensus statement | ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
Abstract presented at the Research on Research Integrity meeting, November 2000 | ||
| ||
Update on cases submitted to COPE | ||
| ||
Cases submitted to COPE June 1999 to September 2000 | ||
Case 99/05: Ethical status of author's actions? | ||
Case 99/06: Yet another case of duplicate publication | ||
Case 99/10: A first report, not followed by a second | ||
Case 99/11: The anonymous critic | ||
Case 99/12: The careless surgeon | ||
Case 99/13: The discontented and abandoned contributor | ||
Case 99/14: Should authors get involved in authorship disputes? | ||
Case 99/15: A further case of redundant publication | ||
Case 99/16: Author dispute and dual submission | ||
Case 99/17: Submission without knowledge of the corresponding author | ||
Case 99/18: Rights of reviewers | ||
Case 99/19: An anonymous letter in response to qualitative research | ||
Case 99/20: Dual publication may be necessary in some circumstances? | ||
Case 99/21: Compromise of patient confidentiality? | ||
Case 99/22: Who ensures the integrity of the editor? | ||
Case 99/23: Publication bias arising from an editor's activities | ||
Case 99/24: Invasive intervention without consent | ||
Case 99/25: The results that were too good to believe | ||
Case 99/26: The declared and the undeclared competing interests | ||
Case 99/27: Misconduct on a massive scale? | ||
Case 99/28: Author dispute concerning ownership of data | ||
Case 00/01: A surgical series that is scientifically meaningless, has no ethics committee approval, and does not mention informed consent | ||
Case 00/02: The overlapping papers with conflicting data | ||
Case 00/03: Editorial compliance with duplicate publication | ||
Case 00/04: The single author, randomised controlled trial | ||
Case 00/05: Duplicate publication based on government data | ||
Case 00/06: Paper submitted by a PR company without the knowledge of the authors | ||
Case 00/07: The unacceptable use of a placebo | ||
Case 00/08: A paper describing a case of possible medical negligence | ||
Case 00/09: The study that may or may not already have been published | ||
Case 00/10: The hazardous drug used in an unlicensed way | ||
Case 00/11: Duplicate publication based on government data | ||
Case 00/12: Undeclared conflict of interest | ||
Case 00/13: Authorship dispute | ||
Case 00/14: The missing ethics committee and lack of written consent | ||
Case 00/15: Clinical misconduct(?), incidentally discovered | ||
Case 00/16: Developing novel approaches to improve the assessment of absolute risk among patients with cardiovascular disease in routine primary care practice | ||
Case 00/18: Research involving unethical animal experimentation | ||
Case 00/19: The dubious scientist | ||
Case 00/20: Duplicate publication based on conference proceedings | ||
Case 00/21: Retrospective correction: how far back do we go? | ||
Case 00/22: Duplicate submission of a paper | ||
Case 00/23: Scientifically meaningless research without consent | ||
Case 00/24: Reviewer submitting for publication material that had been removed from a paper he had reviewed | ||
Case 00/25: A paper which discloses confidential material | ||
Case 00/26: The undeclared competing interest | ||
Case 00/27: Possibly unethical plastic surgery | ||
Case 00/28: Plagiarism or redundant publication? | ||
Case 00/29: Authorship dispute | ||
Case 00/30: Duplicate publication: how much is too much? | ||
