Personal tools
You are here: Home → Reports → 2003
 
Document Actions

COPE 2003 reports

Full text of the COPE Report 2003
[View PDF]
Individual pages of the COPE Report 2003:
 
Foreword: COPE continues to flourish
Michael J G Farthing		 [View PDF]

COPE Council, Committee and Membership [View PDF]

Session 1: How do we deliver a Council for Research Integrity in the UK?

  
  • Introduction
    Michael J G Farthing
 [View PDF]
  • Setting the scene
    Stephen Lock
 [View PDF]
  • A view from the Academy of Medical Sciences
    Mary Manning
 [View PDF]
  • A View from Universities UK
    Eve Jagusiewicz
 [View PDF]
  • Research governance: the NHS perspective
    Marc Taylor
 [View PDF]
  • A view from the GMC
    Jane O'Brien
 [View PDF]

Session 2: Editorial Accountability

  
  • Editorial misconduct: time to act
    Richard Smith
 [View PDF]
  • Have we made progress in exposing and dealing with editorial misconduct?
    Andrew Herxheimer, Iain Chambers, and Doung Altman
 [View PDF]
  • A survey of editors' conflicts of interest
    Sara Schroter
 [View PDF]
 
How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers
Tim Albert, Elizabeth Wager		 [View PDF]
 
Update on cases submitted to COPE [View PDF]

Cases submitted to COPE July 2002 to September 2003
Case 01/14: Refusal to give details of a competing interest [View PDF]
Case 02/09: Arm twisting an editor [View PDF]
Case 02/10: The author not affiliated to an institution [View PDF]
Case 02/11: Contacting Research Ethics Committees with concerns over studies [View PDF]
Case 02/12: Babies needlessly submitted to a painful proceedure for research [View PDF]
Case 02/13: Order of authors changing between a submitted manuscript and a published paper [View PDF]
Case 02/14: Dual publication [View PDF]
Case 02/15: Possibly unethical report on the safety and efficacy of a minor operation [View PDF]
Case 02/16: Co authors' unwillingness to support retraction of a review [View PDF]
Case 02/17: Dual submission, salami slicing, redundant publication, or all three? [View PDF]
Case 02/18: An attempt to bribe an editor [View PDF]
Case 03/01: Possible plagiarism and fabrication [View PDF]
Case 03/02: An author thinks that a journal's decision not to publish is ethically incorrect [View PDF]
Case 03/03: A patient was given an experimental course of complementary medicine when a standard treatment was available [View PDF]
Case 03/04: Attempted dual publication? [View PDF]
Case 03/05: Unauthorised use of questionnaires [View PDF]
Case 03/06: Potential duplicate publication [View PDF]
Case 03/08: Is it duplicate publication when the first study is referenced in the second paper? [View PDF]
Case 03/10: Potential redundant publication [View PDF]
Case 03/11: Extensive plagiarism [View PDF]
Case 03/12: "Research" without ethics committee approval [View PDF]
Case 03/13: Attempted plagiarism of a published report [View PDF]
Case 03/14: Sloppiness or deception? [View PDF]
Case 01/03c: Manipulation of a journal's impact factor [View PDF]
Case 02/03c: Accepted papers become rejected papers [View PDF]
Case 03/03c: Rejecting a paper after favourable reviews [View PDF]
Case 03/04c: The indefinite ban imposed on authors for repeatedly contesting editorial decisions [View PDF]
Case 03/05c: A question of authorship [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: