Personal tools
You are here: Home Reports 2001
Document Actions

COPE 2001 reports


Full text of the COPE Report 2001

[View PDF]
Individual pages of the COPE Report 2001:
 
A year of growth and development for COPE
Michael J G Farthing
[View PDF]

Does the UK need an independent review body to deal with biomedical research misconduct?
Programme details of the meeting held on 15 October 2001 at BMA House, London

[View PDF]
  • Introduction
    Michael J G Farthing
[View PDF]
  • Plans for a UK national panel
    George Alberti
[View PDF]
  • Experience in the USA
    Drummond Rennie
[View PDF]
  • Experience in the Scandinavian countries
    Magne Nylenna
[View PDF]
  • A framework for discussion
    Richard Smith
[View PDF]
  • Breakout group discussions
[View PDF]
  • Feedback
[View PDF]
  • The way forward
    Ian Kennedy
[View PDF]
Research fraud in Britain: Debate at the Royal College of Physicians, November 5 2001[View PDF]
Abstracts presented to the Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Barcelona, September 14-16 2001[View PDF]
Guidance on presenting cases to COPE[View PDF]
Summary of cases presented to COPE since its inception[View PDF]
Update on cases submitted to COPE[View PDF]

Cases submitted to COPE October 2000 to July 2001

Case 00/31: Clinical malpractice[View PDF]
Case 00/32: The cheating medical students[View PDF]
Case 00/33: Alleged plagiarism[View PDF]
Case 01/01: The incomplete systematic review[View PDF]
Case 01/02: The single authored, unbelievable, randomised control trial[View PDF]
Case 01/03: The incomplete retraction[View PDF]
Case 01/04: The doctor with a very strange theory[View PDF]
Case 01/05: Doubts over the exact nature of a drug being used in a study[View PDF]
Case 01/07: Dual submission due to discordant action of two doctors[View PDF]
Case 01/08: Suspected data fabrication[View PDF]
Case 01/09: Authorship without the author's knowledge[View PDF]
Case 01/10: Redundant publication[View PDF]
Case 01/11: Duplicate publication[View PDF]
Case 01/12: Attempted redundant publication[View PDF]
Case 01/13: Duplicate publication[View PDF]
Case 01/15: Duplicate submission, overlap of papers, and a referenced paper that was not in press[View PDF]
Case 01/16: Undeclared conflicts of interest and potential author dispute over signed letter for publication[View PDF]
Case 01/17: Dual submission[View PDF]
Case 01/18: Duplicate publication[View PDF]
Case 01/19: Dual submission[View PDF]
Case 01/20: Dubious surgery[View PDF]
Case 01/21: Bizarre treatment of viral disease overseas[View PDF]
Case 01/22: Yet more attempted duplicate publication[View PDF]
Case 01/23: Inadequately supervised research?[View PDF]
Case 01/24: Submission of a paper by a reviewer[View PDF]
Case 01/25: Duplicate publication[View PDF]
 
Guidelines on Good Publication Practice[View PDF]
 
Constitution of COPE[View PDF]
 

Powered by RedHat and Plone Hosted by BMJTechnology

This site conforms to the following standards: