Skip to content. Skip to navigation

COPE

Sections

Personal tools

You are here: Home → Reports → 2005

Document Actions

Table of contents

Foreword	i	[Download the report]
List of delegates	ii
COPE code of conduct for editors	1
Dealing with editor misconduct	3
New UK Panel for Research Integrity	5
The ethics of audit and research	8
Common ethical and editorial dilemmas of author misconduct: how should we respond?	12
Outcomes of editors' attempts to investigate research misconduct	15
Common editorial dilemmas: hypothetical cases	17
Update on cases submitted to COPE (to follow)	22
Cases submitted to COPE September 2003 to March 2005 Case 03/15: An accusation of racism Case 03/16: Plagiarism and possible fraud Case 03/17: Undeclared conflict of interest Case 03/18: A problematic obituary Case 03/19: Possible deception because of omission of important information Case 03/20: Going public on potential fraud Case 03/21: A highly critical obituary Case 03/22: Plagiarism and possible fraudulent publication Case 03/23: Authorship dispute Case 03/24: The disgraced author Case 04/01: Duplicate publication in a foreign language Case 04/02: An accusation of fraud in a rejected paper Case 04/03: The disappearing authors Case 04/04: Wholesale plagiarism Case 04/05: Dual publication and attempted retraction by the author Case 04/06: Attempts to draw attention to potential duplicate publication Case 04/07: CV study: was ethics approval and consent required? Case 04/08: Undeclared conflict of interest Case 04/09: Multiple submissions of a paper Case 04/10: Dispute between authors and a reviewer Case 04/11: Retraction of false authorship Case 04/12: Research on volunteers without informed consent or ethics committee approval Case 04/13: Undeclared competing interests Case 04/18: Lack of ethics committee approval? Case 04/22: Online trial of a new diagnostic tool Case 04/23: Plagiarism in a review article Case 04/24: Dispute over plagiarism Case 04/25: Interpretation of regulations: when is a waiver of authorisation acceptable? Case 04/26: Palestinian refugee conditions Case 04/27: Case report and consent Case 04/28: Single patient trials and lack of data Case 04/29: Redundant publication Case 04/31: Interactive case report of a patient with ongoing health problems Case 04/32: Whose responsibility is duplicate submission? Case 04/33: Russian scientific misconduct Case 04/34: Competing interest Case 04/35: Massaging the impact factor Case 04/36: Using annual reviews to massage the impact factor Case 04/37: Ethical approval and fabrication of results Case 04/38: Consent and ethics approval questioned after acceptance Case 04/39: Misunderstood requirements for authorship Case 05/01: Dual publication Case 05/02: Reviewer/author conflict of interest Case 05/03: Duplicate publication Case 05/04: Sanitising a misleading statement Case 05/05: Foreign language duplicate publication Case 05/06: Ethical approval procedural lapse Case 05/07: Salami publication Case 05/08: Plagiarism

Powered by RedHat and Plone Hosted by BMJTechnology

This site conforms to the following standards: