This document discusses publication ethics and guidelines proposed by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). It provides an overview of COPE, including its structure, history, and role in advising on publication misconduct. The most common forms of misconduct include authorship disputes, plagiarism, redundant publication, and reviewer/editorial misconduct. COPE provides guidance and resources to help journals and editors prevent misconduct and handle cases appropriately.

1. Publishing ethics
Guidelines proposed by COPE
Mohammad Abdollahi
Professor and Dean, Dept. Toxicology and Pharmacology, TUMS
EiC, J Med Hypotheses Ideas (Elsevier, The Netherlands)
EiC, DARU J Pharm Sci (BMC, The UK)
Council Member, COPE (The UK)

2. Why publication is important?
 All scientific jobs are completed by writing.
 Scientists in the world communicate with each other by
writing
 Writings should be published somewhere in scientific
journals or books, etc.
 If misconducts happen in publication it will hurt science
and related aspects.
 Therefore, publication needs code of conducts

3. Retraction of papers
In the last decade, the number of publications and
misconducts in publication have been
increasing.
Parallel to above increase, the number of
retractions has been increased by many journals
including very famous ones!

4. How should we deal with
publication misconducts
The following questions come to mind:
1) Is there any organisation to deal with this concern?
2) What should be done if misconducts happen?
3) Is there any approved advice or kind of flow chart to deal with
misconducts?
4) Who is going to judge about occurrence of misconducts?
5) What is happening to publication with the growth of world INTERNET?
6) Is there any tools to diagnose misconduct?
7) Does rapid growth of electronic publication affect happening of
misconduct?

5. Overview of COPE
• What COPE does
• COPE structure
• COPE history
• Resources and member benefits
• Most common forms of misconduct
• COPE’s advice for preventing them

6. What COPE does
Membership organisation (and registered charity) for
journal editors and publishers:
• Provides advice (not regulation) on all aspects of
publication ethics
• Provides support and resources for good publication
practice (guidance documents, flowcharts)
• Advises on how to handle cases of research and
publication misconduct (forums)
• Educates editors on identifying research and publication
misconduct and their responsibilities (seminars, talks, e-
learning modules)

7. COPE structure
• Work guided by an elected Council and elected Officers,
who work voluntarily
• Day-to-day management of business affairs handled by
three permanent staff (paid): Operations Manager,
Natalie Ridgeway; Administrator, Linda Gough;
Web Manager, Cynthia Clerk
• Specific projects managed by various sub-committees of
Council members

8. COPE history
• Began in 1997 as an informal forum for editors in the UK
to discuss ethical issues related to research and
publication in biomedical journal publishing
• In 2007-08 established as a limited company and a UK-
registered charity
• Currently >8000 members, from 75 countries
• All academic disciplines are covered
• 20 Council members from 11 countries and a range of
disciplines

9. Guidance documents
• Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal
editors
• Code of conduct for journal publishers
• Guidelines for the board of directors of learned society
journals
• Ethical guidance for peer reviewers
• Guidance on co-operation between research institutions and
journals
• Guidelines for retracting articles
• Sample letters for handling common problems
• Discussion documents (eg, anonymous whistleblowing)
• A series of flowcharts
http://www.publicationethics.org/

10. Flowcharts
• Redundant (duplicate) publication
• Plagiarism
• Fabricated data
• Changes in authorship
• Ghost, guest, or gift authorship
• Conflicts of interest
• General suspected ethical concerns
• Reviewer misconduct
• How COPE deals with complaints

12. Forums
COPE offers advice and guidance to its members, primarily
through its quarterly forum meetings:
• Held in London or via webinar
• Allow members to benefit from views and experiences of
other members
• Cases presented anonymously
• Text summaries and audio recordings published on the
website (database of >450 cases, searchable by year
and keywords)
• Members can contact COPE between forums for advice
on urgent cases

13. Other member services
COPE members can:
• Attend the annual seminar for free
• Access the eLearning package
• Use the ethical audit tool to see how well their journals
match COPE’s guidelines
• Use the COPE logo in their journal
• Stand for election to COPE Council

14. Most common forms of misconduct
• Authorship disputes
• Plagiarism
• Redundant (duplicate) publication
• Reviewer misconduct
• Ghosts and guests
• Conflicts of interest
• Fabricated/falsified data
• General suspected ethical concerns

15. Authorship disputes
• Researcher claims that he/she should have been included
as an author on a paper
• Researcher claims that he/she has been included on the
authorship of a paper without his/her agreement
COPE advises:
• Have a written policy on what constitutes authorship
• Request signed statements of contribution from all named
authors
• Request signed agreement from those named under
acknowledgments

16. Plagiarism
Author presents the work of others (data, words, or
theories) as if they were his/her own and without proper
acknowledgment
COPE advises:
• Include a definition of plagiarism and your policy on it
in information for authors
• Consider obliging authors to read your policy and tick
a box to confirm that prior to submission
• Consider judicial use of plagiarism-detection software
such as iThenticate

17. Redundant (duplicate) publication,
text recycling
Researcher publishes all (or a substantial part
of) a piece of work more than once (in the
same or another language) without adequate
cross-referencing/justification
• COPE advises:
Include a statement in information for
authors that material should not have been
published elsewhere
• Use plagiarism-detection software such as
iThenticate

18. Reviewer misconduct
• Use of confidential information for reviewer’s own benefit
(eg, plagiarising text, stealing data or ideas)
• Submission of biased review in the hope of preventing or
delaying publication by a rival
• Failure to declare competing interests
COPE advises:
• Issue clear advice to reviewers on what is expected of
them
• Refer to COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

19. Conflicts of interest
Potential for professional judgment on a primary
interest (such as validity of research) to be
influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial
gain, personal relationships or rivalries, academic
competition, or intellectual beliefs)
COPE advises:
• Have a clear policy on conflicts of interest (for
editors, authors, and reviewers)
• Ask all authors to declare potential conflicts of
interest, and consider publishing them

20. Fabricated/falsified data
• Fabrication: invention of data
• Falsification: manipulation of real data – eg,
omission of “inconvenient” findings, alteration of
images
COPE advises:
• Have a clear policy on the enhancement,
cutting/pasting, or obscuring of images if likely to
be a particular problem in your field
• Image manipulation detection software may help

21. Other issues…
• Author recommends a reviewer who turns
out to be a close friend or even the author
him/herself
• Editor submits and accepts own research
without peer review
• Anonymous whistleblower contacts
journal repeatedly, pointing out
unspecificied ethical issues in different
articles

23. Some cases
Mistakes
When journals publish notices to correct errors made by authors in published works (i.e. corrigenda)
Authorship
When a case involves any issues to do generally with authorship
Changes In Authorship
When changes to the author list are requested at a late stage in the publication process (i.e. after
submission to a journal or after publication)
Complaints
Consent For Publication
When authors fail to obtain explicit consent to publish an individual’s personal details (e.g. for case
histories)

24. Cases
Copyright Breaches
When copyright material is reproduced without permission
Data Fabrication
Making up research findings
Data Manipulation/Fabrication
Data Manipulation/Falsification
Manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression. This includes
manipulating images (e.g. micrographs, gels, radiological images), removing outliers or
‘inconvenient’ results, changing data points, etc...

25. Cases
Data Ownership
When ownership of, access to, or rights to publish or to published research data are disputed
Disputed Authorship
When those involved with a research project or publication cannot agree on how the authorship should be represented (e.g. who should be
listed and the order of listing)
Editorial Decisions
When there are concerns that editorial decisions are being made in an unethical way (e.g. Editors’ conflicts of interests are not being handled
properly or if decisions appear to be unduly influenced by commercial considerations)
Editorial Independence
Restrictions of editorial freedom (e.g. when a journal’s owner or publisher attempts to exert inappropriate influence over editorial decisions)
Editorial Misconduct
Where an editor or journal has acted in a way that contravenes the COPE Code of Conduct for Editors
Ghost Authorship
When somebody who deserves to be listed as an author or contributor on a publication is omitted

26. Cases
Gift Authorship
When somebody who has made little or no contribution to a research project or publication is included as an author
Image Manipulation
Impact Factors
When Editors or publishers attempt to manipulate their journal’s impact factor
Journal Mistakes
When journals publish notices (errata) to correct problems introduced by the editing process (e.g. typographic errors, omissions, misplaced text, incorrectly
labelled figures)
Lack Of Ethical Review/Approval
Carrying out experimental research that has not been approved by an appropriate ethical review body (such as a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional
Review Board) despite such approval being required
NB: Some types of data collection, such as routine audit, which may result in publication, do not require ethical review. Lack of review/approval does not
necessarily indicate that the research was unethical but simply that the appropriate safeguards/approval processes have not been applied. See also guidelines
of differences between research and audit

27. Cases
Misleading Reporting
Multiple Submissions
When a manuscript (or substantial sections from a manuscript) is submitted to a journal when it is already
under consideration by another journal
Overlapping Publications
For research reports: when two (or more) articles report the same analysis of the same data set, or contain
relatively small amounts of new data or alternative analyses compared with the original publication,
particularly when this is done in such a way that reviewers/readers are unlikely to realise that some of the
findings have been published before
For reviews and editorials: when two (or more) review articles or editorials include material that has been
published elsewhere by the author(s)
Participant Confidentiality
Failing to respect the right of individuals to have their personal data treated in confidence; failing to obtain
explicit consent from individuals to publish personal information obtained in the course of research or
treatment

28. Cases
Participant Consent
Failing to obtain fully informed consent from individuals taking part in research or conducting
experiments in circumstances in which voluntary participation (and freedom to withdraw from a
study without fear of the consequences) cannot be ensured
Peer-Review Process
Concerns that a journal's peer-review process is inappropriate (e.g. because it creates conflicts
of interest, is unfair, introduces bias or is unethical)
Plagiarism
When somebody presents the work of others (data, words or theories) as if they were his/her
own and without proper acknowledgment
Protection Of Subjects (Human)
Failing to protect research participants (patients, volunteers or others) from potential hazards of
taking part in research

29. Cases
Protection Of Subjects (Animals)
Failing to minimise suffering and adhere to recommended standards for the care of laboratory
(or other research) animals
Redundant Publication
When a published work (or substantial sections from a published work) is/are published more
than once (in the same or another language) without adequate acknowledgment of the
source/cross-referencing/justification,
or
When the same (or substantially overlapping) data is presented in more than one publication
without adequate cross-referencing/justification, particularly when this is done in such a way
that reviewers/readers are unlikely to realise that most or all the findings have been published
before
Relation To Society/Owner
Concerns about an Editor’s relation to the journal’s owner or parent organisation (e.g. lack of
editorial independence, undue interference from parent society, editor contracts or incentive
schemes that create conflicts of interest)

30. Cases
Research Ethics Investigations
Concerns about processes for ethical review of research (e.g. lack of independent review body
or inadequate procedures)
Retractions
Concerns arising from requests to retract published articles (i.e. for a journal to publish a notice
of retraction), Editors’ decisions to retract articles or the process of retraction
Reviewer Misconduct
When reviewers: fail to treat submissions in confidence use information for their own benefit
from a submission they have been asked to review (e.g. reporting data as if it were their own,
plagiarising text, stealing data or ideas and using them in grant applications) try to delay
publications from rivals/competitors submit a biased review or inappropriate recommendations
in the hope of preventing or delaying publication by a rival fail to declare competing interests.

31. Cases
Role Of Publisher
When a journal publisher attempts to exert undue influence over editorial decisions
Role Of Sponsor
When there is any question over the role of a funder in a publication, including when the involvement of a funder in any part of the
research or publication (e.g. study design, data collection, analysis, reporting) is inadequately disclosed
Sanctions For Misconduct
When journal editors, publishers or learned societies impose sanctions on authors who have committed publication or research
misconduct (e.g. by banning individuals from publishing in their journals)
Selective Reporting
When unfavourable or inconvenient end-points (e.g. outcomes that fail to reach statistical significance or do not favour a particular
product or hypothesis) are deliberately omitted from publications reporting research
Self-Plagiarism

32. Cross check by the software

33. Cases
Undeclared CoI (Authors)
When authors fail to declare all conflicts of interest relevant to their publication (i.e. relationships, both
financial and personal, that might affect the conduct or interpretation of their work and about which
editors or readers might wish to be made aware)
Undeclared CoI (Editors)
When editors (or other members of a journal’s staff or editorial board) fail to declare conflicts of interest
relevant to the editorial processes of their journal (i.e. relationships, both financial and personal, that
might introduce bias or prevent objectivity)
Or
When journals fail to adopt appropriate systems for ensuring that people with relevant competing
interests (whether declared or not) are not involved in editorial decisions (e.g. systems to prevent
editors from considering their own work or that of close colleagues or family members)
Undeclared CoI (Reviewers)
When reviewers fail to declare all conflicts of interest relevant to the submission being considered (i.e.
relationships, both financial and personal, that might prevent an unbiased and objective evaluation of
the work)

34. Cases
Undeclared Financial Support For Publication
When sources of support for a research project or publication are not declared (e.g. failing to disclose
funding for research or for publication such as assistance from a professional writer or payment to an
author)
Unethical Research
Experiments that contravene ethical norms, such as the protection of research participants, the
treatment of research animals, patient confidentiality, consent to take part or withdraw from a study or
informing participants about the nature of the research
Unethical Treatments
Administering questionable healthcare procedures (e.g. failing to inform patients of the potential risks
of treatment, that a treatment is experimental / unapproved or that they are involved in an experiment)
Whistleblowers
Individuals who make allegations about research or publication misconduct and the handling of these
individuals

35. Sources of information on
publication/research ethics
• COPE: www.publicationethics.org
• Council of Science Editors:
www.councilscienceeditors.org
• The European Association of Science Editors
(EASE): www.ease.org.uk