COPE Asia-Pacific Workshop 2018

COPE Asia-Pacific Workshop 2018:
Publication Ethics Interactive Cases Workshop
28 March 2018, Novotel Singapore Clarke Quay, Singapore
Michael Wise, Associate Professor, School of Physics, Mathematics & Computing,
The University of Western Australia; COPE Council Member & Trustee
Trevor Lane, Publishing Editor, Hong Kong Academy of Medicine Press;
Education Consultant, Edanz Group; COPE Council Member
Jason Hu, Regional Director - China, ORCID; COPE Council Member
publicationethics.org

Agenda
1. Introduction to COPE
2. Case Presentation
3. Table Discussion
4. Case Discussion and Review
5. Any Questions

COPE
Promoting integrity in research and its publication
• COPE’s role is to assist editors of scholarly journals and publisher/owners in
their endeavour to preserve and promote the integrity of the scholarly
record through policies and practices that reflect the current best principles of
transparency as well as integrity.
• COPE is a membership organisation. Our >12,000 members are primarily
editors of journals and publishers and we are currently exploring expanding
our membership. Part of this potential expansion is being explored with a pilot
project with five universities around the world.
• COPE operates, manages, and governs the organisation with a small group of
paid employees and a group of active volunteers who serve on the trustee
board and council.

COPE assists editors of scholarly journals and publishers - as well as other parties, such as
institutions - in their work to preserve and promote the integrity of the scholarly record through
policies and practices. COPE describes these in 10 “Core Practices”. COPE's Core Practices
should be considered alongside specific national and international codes of conduct for research.
COPE’s Core Practices
https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

1. Allegations of misconduct
Journals should have a clearly described process for handling
allegations, however they are brought to the journal's or publisher’s
attention. Journals must take seriously allegations of misconduct
pre-publication and post-publication. Policies should include how to
handle allegations from whistleblowers.
2. Authorship and contributorship
Clear policies (that allow for transparency around who contributed to
the work and in what capacity) should be in place for requirements
for authorship and contributorship as well as processes for
managing potential disputes.

3. Complaints and appeals
Journals should have a clearly described process for handling
complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board or publisher.
4. Conflicts of interest
There must be clear definitions of conflicts of interest and processes
for handling conflicts of interest of authors, reviewers, editors,
journals and publishers, whether identified before or after
publication.

5. Data and reproducibility
Journals should include policies on data availability and encourage
the use of reporting guidelines and registration of clinical trials and
other study designs according to standard practice in their discipline.
6. Ethical oversight
Ethical oversight should include, but is not limited to, policies on
consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical
conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research
using human subjects, handling confidential data and of
business/marketing practices.

7. Intellectual property
All policies on intellectual property, including copyright and
publishing licenses, should be clearly described. In addition, any
costs associated with publishing should be obvious to authors and
readers. Policies should be clear on what counts as prepublication
that will preclude consideration. What constitutes plagiarism and
redundant/overlapping publication should be specified.
8. Journal management
A well-described and implemented infrastructure is essential,
including the business model, policies, processes and software for
efficient running of an editorially independent journal, as well as the
efficient management and training of editorial boards and editorial
and publishing staff.

9. Peer review processes
All peer review processes must be transparently described and well
managed. Journals should provide training for editors and reviewers and
have policies on diverse aspects of peer review, especially with respect
to adoption of appropriate models of review and processes for handling
conflicts of interest, appeals and disputes that may arise in peer review.
10. Post-publication
discussions, corrections
Journals must allow debate post publication either on their site,
through letters to the editor, or on an external moderated site, such
as PubPeer. They must have mechanisms for correcting, revising or
retracting articles after publication.

https://publicationethics.org/resources
• 10 core practices
o Flowcharts for handling cases of alleged misconduct
o Infographics
o Best practice guidelines
o Discussion documents
o Newsletter, presentation archives
o COPE Forum cases
• For members:
– E-Learning modules
– Letter templates, Self-audit tool for journals
– Seminars/workshops and webinars
– COPE Forum
Resources

Infographic
How to recognise potential
manipulation of the peer
review process
The features or patterns of activity
shown are suggested to help
recognise potential signs of peer
review manipulation.
Often it is the occurrence of these
features in combination that may
indicate a potential issue.
https://publicationethics.org/files/COPE%20PR_Manipulation_Process.pdf

Guidelines https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines_0.pdf

Discussion paper https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/COPE_Preprints_Mar18.pdf

Case Presentation

Workshop overview: COPE Forum cases
1.Authors’ contributions and involvement by medical communications company
2.Reviewer requests to be added as an author after publication
3.What extent of plagiarism demands a retraction vs correction?
4.Author requests for certain experts not to be included in the editorial process
5.Duplicate publication and removal of article
6.Editor found guilty of research misconduct
7.Lead author of a research paper disagrees with content of a linked editorial
8.Author impersonating corresponding author without knowledge of coauthors
9.Data manipulation and institute’s internal review

1. Authors’ contributions and involvement by medical communications company
•Employee of medical communications company contacted journal
oWorked on a submitted paper, beyond language editing (manuscript development, adding
references, responding to reviewers)
oWants to remain an anonymous whistleblower
•Authors declared only assistance with language editing, not developmental editing
What should the journal do?
COPE Forum Cases

2. Reviewer requests to be added as an author after publication
•Associate Editor assigned paper to a reviewer (R1) known to have worked with authors
oReviewer did not declare a conflict of interest. Total, 3 reviewers: paper accepted and published
•Reader (E1) from R1’s research group said both should be authors
oCorresponding author supplies Correction to add E1, R1 as authors; suggests relying on the other 2
reviews
oJournal editors suggest retraction and resubmission/re-review
COPE Forum Cases

3. What extent of plagiarism demands a retraction vs correction?
•Authors published a methods-testing paper on a new method
oTwo readers (PhD student and supervisor) said they had blogged about the new method 2 years
earlier; asked for retraction
oText overlap with blog, 25%-30%, especially Methods, but authors argued they were testing the
method
•Journal published Correction: rewritten text with reference to blog
What else should the journal do?
COPE Forum Cases

4. Author requests for certain experts not to be included in the editorial process
•Journal received submission, with author’s request to exclude reviewers
oAuthor said the paper disagreed with a published guideline paper, so the guideline authors
(including some of the editorial board) should not be reviewers
oThe author has had rejections before; would complain if peer review seemed biased
•Journal policy is to ask all reviewers and editorial board members to declare Conflicts of Interest
when reviewing a paper and to self-recuse if needed
COPE Forum Cases

5. Duplicate publication and removal of article
•Journal A was told that a published article had already appeared in Journal B
oAuthors said they had tried withdrawing the article but Journal B published against their wishes
oThey now requested retraction, and Journal B removed it without a retraction notice; article title in
Journal B still appears in Google Scholar
•Journal A will not retract the paper but wants readers to know
COPE Forum Cases

6. Editor found guilty of research misconduct
•Editorial board member promoted to Editor-in-Chief, but is to appear before a tribunal for research
fraud, so steps down and an acting Editor-in-Chief is appointed
oIs found guilty of misconduct, eg, fabricating data, forging coauthor signatures, thanking fictitious
person as joke in Acknowledgements; steps down permanently
•But in past 10 years, the editorial board member published in the journal (with fake
acknowledgement) and made decisions on manuscripts, including as Editor-in-Chief
COPE Forum Cases

7. Lead author of a research paper disagrees with content of a linked editorial
•Journal planned an editorial on an accepted paper about a controversial treatment; policy is not to
show editorial to authors
oLead author saw a planned press release that quoted the editorial; asked editorialist to see it and
asked for revisions (some accepted); and to see revision, which should be peer reviewed (denied)
oAt press briefing, author saw the revised editorial and asked journal to publish a simultaneous
response
•Journal let author post a response soon after the editorial went online
What should the journal have done?
COPE Forum Cases

8. Author impersonating corresponding author without knowledge of coauthors
•Author B tells journal that author A had used fake email as corresponding author, to publish an
article (apparently by 7 authors from 2 universities) without anyone’s knowledge, and there are
also mistakes
oAuthor A admitted to posing as B and also forging Licence to Publish; A and B request withdrawal
•Journal plans to investigate authorship situation and whether the article is flawed
COPE Forum Cases

9. Data manipulation and institute’s internal review
•A reader says spectra in the online supporting information of a published chemistry paper have
been ‘cleaned’
oEditor found 4 past papers with similar spectra, but author says the responsible researcher has left
•Research institute director says there are no originals in the archives and internal review cleared
the authors
COPE Forum Cases

Table Discussion Time

Case Discussion & Review

•Employee of medical communications company said service was beyond language editing; wanted
to remain anonymous
•Authors declared only assistance with language editing, not developmental editing
1. Should we proceed to contact the authors regarding the contributions to the manuscript?
2. What is our duty towards the person who raised the concerns to our attention?
3. Are there any steps that we can take to identify this type of situation in the future?
GROUP 1

•Refer to guidelines of American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), the European equivalent
(EMWA), or the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP)
•Check document properties, discrepancies in cover letter; without disclosing whistleblower, ask
authors to explain
•Considered ghost writing: reject the manuscript, report case to the author’s institution
•Follow-up: Editor requested original document submitted to the medical communications company;
name listed as author was that of the freelance medical writer; editor rejected paper
•Update: Institution was informed but no response; journal is looking into ways to identify this type of
issue more systematically
COPE Forum Feedback
Based on case 14-07
https://publicationethics.org/case/authors%E2%80%99-contributions-and-involvement-medical-communications-com

•Associate Editor assigned paper to a reviewer (R1) known to have worked with authors
•After publication, reader (E1) from R1’s research group said both should be authors; corresponding
author wants to add E1 and R1 as authors in a Correction
1. Should the editors offer the option of revise-and-resubmit following a retraction?
2. If the authors do revise and resubmit, there is a possibility that the journal will have a
retracted paper and a published paper that look very similar, by the same (if expanded) author list.
If this happens, would a linked editorial be needed to explain the situation?
3. Is a retraction merited, given there is nothing scientifically wrong with the paper? Is it
better to publish a Correction with just E1 as author (but not to include R1)?
GROUP 1

•Retract and offer revision / new submission, with new peer review, and publish a linked commentary;
question reviewer R1’s behaviour
•Alternatives: if remaining 2 reviews are acceptable, (1) issue Correction to explain authorship and
peer review, and (2) consider post-publication peer review
•Follow-up: Editor published a Correction to add E1 as an author and mention reviewer R1 in the
Acknowledgements section
COPE Forum Feedback
Based on case 15-05
https://publicationethics.org/case/reviewer-requests-be-added-author-after-publication

•Authors published a methods-testing paper without citing a blog on the method by a
student/supervisor, who ask for a retraction
•Journal published Correction: rewritten text with reference to blog
1. Is there any difference between a blog and a scientific paper when it comes to “partial
duplication” in the scientific literature?
2. Does the journal need to go further than a correction, and instead retract? Is this a case
that needs to be investigated by the authors’ institution?
GROUP 1

•Suggest the blog be written as paper, or obtain digital object identifier (DOI)
•Correction was appropriate
•Editor may contact the corresponding author’s institution to improve training
•Follow-up: Journal notified corresponding author’s institution (still under consideration); added
Editorial Note about overlap between original article and blog, and about informing corresponding
author’s institution
•Update: No response from institution
COPE Forum Feedback
Based on case 16-11
https://publicationethics.org/case/what-extent-plagiarism-demands-retraction-vs-correction

•Journal received submission, with author’s request to exclude reviewers or else would complain
•Journal policy is to ask all reviewers and editorial board members to declare Conflicts of Interest
when reviewing a paper and to self-recuse if needed
1. Can an author request for certain experts not to be involved in reviewing their paper?
2. Is the journal obligated to follow the author’s request?
3. By not involving experts that could be particularly negative, is the journal then giving the
paper an unfair advantage?
GROUP 2

•Journals may allow authors to exclude a small number of named reviewers with known Conflict of
Interest or strong viewpoint
•Especially in small fields, journal does not have to comply with author’s request; journal should
include other reviewers (but a non-preferred reviewer should not be the handling editor)
•Journal should explain: it will try to follow author’s request, it has an unbiased process, it may ask
editorial board members with expertise, and editor’s decision is final
•Authors against this policy can withdraw paper
•Could suggest trying “open” peer review and uploading reviewer reports, if journal policy allows
•Follow-up: Editors complied with author’s request, but rejected paper (seen by 2 peer reviewers and
11 editors), author unsuccessfully appealed; journal clarified its policy on authors requesting reviewer
exclusions but journal reserves right to choose reviewers
COPE Forum Feedback
Based on case 16-08
https://publicationethics.org/case/author-requests-certain-experts-not-be-included-editorial-process

•Journal A was told that a published article had already appeared in Journal B; authors asked B to
retract but title still appears in Google Scholar
•Journal A will not retract the paper but wants readers to know
1. Should Journal A publish an Expression of Concern to highlight the duplicate publication in
the past, even though the article in Journal B is no longer available?
2. Would a comment in the comments system of Journal A suffice?
GROUP 2

•Retractions or corrections should only be used to correct the literature—not for “punishment”
•Add a formal note, which could be an Expression of Concern or Addendum, in Journal A
•Remind authors that simultaneous submissions then withdrawing an article from one journal is not
acceptable behaviour, if that is what happened
•Follow-up: Editor published Expression of Concern linked to Journal A, explaining the duplicate
publication that was removed from Journal B
COPE Forum Feedback
Based on case 15-14
https://publicationethics.org/case/duplicate-publication-
and-removal-article

•Editorial board member promoted to Editor-in-Chief, but is to appear before a tribunal so steps
down; is found guilty of misconduct
•But in past 10 years, the editorial board member published in the journal (with fake
acknowledgement) and made decisions on manuscripts, including as Editor-in-Chief
1. The journal will publish a Correction relating to the fictitious acknowledgements; should
they publish any additional note of editorial concern against the editor’s earlier papers? To
what extent should the journal consider the editor’s previous publications in the journal as
“suspect”?
2. To what extent should the journal revisit editorial decisions that the editor made?
3. Is there anything the journal can do to mitigate this situation during the process of
appointing a new chief editor, which may take several months?
GROUP 2

•All previous papers written by the editor should be looked at if possible, in particular if any have
medical/patient implications
•Regarding previous editorial decisions, do a spot check of, say, 10% of the decisions, especially
decisions made alone or that went against the reviewers
•Reassure potential authors that the journal has processes to be confident in what has been
published; consider engaging an external, independent group to deal with the issue
•Develop a process to appoint a new editor-in-chief that ensures that this situation does not happen
in the future; involve external people in the selection process
COPE Forum Feedback
Based on case 17-08
https://publicationethics.org/case/editor-found-guilty-
research-misconduct

•Lead author saw a planned press release that quoted a planned editorial; asked editorialist to
revise it; also saw the revision at press briefing
•Journal let author post a response soon after the editorial went online
1. Is it good practice to share the content of linked editorials with the authors of the relevant
paper? Should commissioned editorials also be sent for peer review?
2. How should the journal respond to the behaviour of the lead author? Was is the right
decision to allow posting of a rapid response after publication?
3. Should the journal have allowed the editorial authors to see the very critical rapid response
before publication, so they could have the chance to respond quickly?
GROUP 3

•Manage expectations: ensure authors are aware of commissioned editorials, if they are shared
before publication, if there will be a press release, and if authors can reply via comments/rapid
response
•If an editorial might be controversial, consider having it peer-reviewed by the reviewers of the
original article, or by different reviewers if editorial is very critical of article
•Follow-up: Journal now informs authors about press releases, not sharing editorials, and not to
contact editorialists; does not link to editorials in the press release sent to authors of article for
approval (link goes back in before release to journalists)
COPE Forum Feedback
Based on case 17-09
https://publicationethics.org/case/lead-author-research-
paper-disagrees-content-linked-editorial

•Author B tells journal that author A had used fake email as corresponding author to publish an
article without anyone’s knowledge, and there are also mistakes
•Journal plans to investigate authorship situation and whether the article is flawed
1. What misconduct has occurred? Should the paper be retracted?
2. If the article is scientifically sound, and therefore does not warrant retraction to protect the
accuracy of the scientific record, what action should the editor take to address the claims made
by author B regarding author A’s actions?
GROUP 3

•Remove article from website if no licence to publish; or retract and re-publish after licensing issue is
resolved, explain in a note
•Seek legal advice (serious deception, author names listed without their consent); inform institution
•Follow-up: Editor sought legal advice from publisher and contacted the institution; institution
directed author B to consult with coauthors, update licence to publish
•Update: Authors reached agreement; editor received updated licence to publish; journal will publish
a Correction to update authorship
COPE Forum Feedback
Based on case 15-12
https://publicationethics.org/case/author-impersonating-
corresponding-author-without-knowledge-coauthors

•A reader says spectra in the online supporting information of a published chemistry paper have
been ‘cleaned’; journal found 4 possibly affected papers
•Research institute director says there are no originals in the archives and internal review cleared
the authors
1. Should the journal accept the research institute’s recommendation of no further action?
2. Should the journal publish an Expression of Concern, stating that discrepancies in the
spectra were identified, the institute was asked to investigate, but that the original data were
not available, and the institution found no evidence of deliberate manipulation of the spectra?
3. Should the journal publish an Expression of Concern on the other affected articles, too?
GROUP 3

•Forum questioned institutional investigation: was it thorough, or rapid and not very reliable?
•Does the journal require data from a study to be made available on request? The lack of the original
data is a serious concern; this is a failure of the institution and could be grounds to retract the paper
or publish an Expression of Concern
•Encourage transparency via post-publication comments and author replies
•Follow-up: Journal outlined concerns to institute and explained it would publish an Expression of
Concern linked to each of the affected articles; institute was supportive of that approach
COPE Forum Feedback
Based on case 17-02
https://publicationethics.org/case/data-manipulation-and-
institute%E2%80%99s-internal-review

Any Questions?
Please complete the feedback form

Thank you!
— publicationethics.org —

COPE Asia-Pacific Workshop 2018

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (14)

Similar to COPE Asia-Pacific Workshop 2018

Similar to COPE Asia-Pacific Workshop 2018 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

COPE Asia-Pacific Workshop 2018