- Flowcharts
Handling of post-publication critiques
A journal receives a critique, or commentary, of an article previously published in the journal. The flowchart offers editors a step by step guide on how to handle this process. Handling of post publication critiques - COPE flowchart - Flowcharts
Peer review manipulation suspected after publication
COPE's flowchart on what to do if peer review manipulation is suspected after publication. Related resource How to recognise potential manipulation of the peer review process… - Flowcharts
Peer review manipulation suspected during the peer review process
COPE's flowchart on what to do if peer review manipulation is suspected during the peer review process. Related resource How to recognise potential manipulation of the peer review process… - Flowcharts
Image manipulation in a published article
COPE's guidance in the form of a flowchart on what to do if you suspect that images in a published article have been manipulated. Key points The image manipulation flowchart offers guidance in steps to take when there is a suspicion of image manipulation, including who to contact and when to consider a retraction or correction. Related resource This f… - Flowcharts
How to recognise potential authorship problems
How to recognise potential authorship problems. Key points 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. … - Flowcharts
Systematic manipulation of the publication process
Manipulation of the publication process is a relatively new form of misconduct affecting the publishing industry. These guidelines represent an important first step towards encouraging openness and collaboration between publishers to address this phenomenon. Systematic manipulation of the publication process is where an individual or a group of individuals have repeatedly used dis… - Flowcharts
General approach to publication ethics for the Editorial Office
A guide detailing the suggested approach to the organisation of the Editorial Office in order to comply with COPE’s Core Practices. COPE has many resources to assist publishers and editors in making decisions about ethical issues in publication, including guidelines, - Flowcharts
How to recognise potential manipulation of the peer review process
COPE's guide on how to recognise potential manipulation of the peer review process. It contains details on recognised features or patterns of reviewer activity and best practice recommendations on how to minimise peer review manipulation. Key points Peer reviewers may be suggested by: the Editor handling the manuscript; authors on submission of their manuscr… - Flowcharts
What to consider when asked to peer review a manuscript
COPE's guidance on what to consider when you are asked to peer review a manuscript, presented as a flowchart and laying out the steps in the decision process that you might go through to decide whether or not you should accept the request. Key points Consider the review model and evaluation criteria Consider potential conflicts of interest Consider whether… - Flowcharts
Fabricated data in a submitted manuscript
COPE's guidance, as a flowchart, on what to do if you suspect fabricated data in a submitted manuscript. Key points Contact author to explain your concerns Related resource Image manipulation in a published article … - Flowcharts
Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript
COPE's guidance on what to do if a reviewer suspects that there is an undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript. Key points Always get signed COIs from all authors and reviewers before publication Related resources Undisclo… - Flowcharts
Undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article
A reader suspects an author’s undisclosed conflict of interest which becomes apparent after publication. The flowchart offers the editor a step by step process on handling this issue. Key points At the time of submission an author may have declared no potential conflicts of interest or an incomplete list. The editor should communicate with the author and reader dur… - Flowcharts
Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised via social media
COPE's guidelines, as a flowchart, on how to respond to whistleblowers when concerns are raised about a published article on a social media site. How should you respond when a published article is criticised on social media or a post-publication peer review site(s)? The criticism could include anonymous or not anonymous concerns about scientific soundness or allegations of plagiarism, fi… - Flowcharts
Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised directly
COPE's guidelines as a flowchart on how to respond to whistleblowers when concerns about a published article are raised directly with the publisher or the editor. How should you respond when concerns are raised by a whistleblower about a published article directly via email to the editor or publisher? This could include anonymous or not anonymous concerns about scientific soundness or al… - Flowcharts
How to spot authorship problems
Editors cannot police author or contributor listings for every submission but may sometimes have suspicions that an author list is incomplete or includes undeserving (guest or gift) authors. The COPE flowchart Ghost, guest or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript suggests action… - Flowcharts
Ghost, guest, or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript
COPE's guidance as a flowchart on what to do if you suspect ghost, guest, or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript. Key points Suspend peer review if suspicion is raised about authorship Related resources How to recognise potential authorsh… - Flowcharts
Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript
COPE's guidance, as a flowchart, on what to do if you suspect plagiarism in a submitted manuscript. The instructions to authors should include a definition of plagiarism and state the journal’s policy on it.… - Flowcharts
Reviewer suspected to have appropriated an author’s ideas or data
COPE's guidance as a flowchart on what to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data. Key points The instruction to reviewers should state that submitted material must be treated in confidence and may not be used in any way until it has been published. Related resources - Flowcharts
Redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript
COPE's guidance, as a flowchart, on what to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript. Key points The instructions to authors should state the journal’s policy on redundant publication. It may be helpful to request the institution’s policy. Ask authors to verify that their manuscript is original and has not been publishe… - Flowcharts
Suspected ethical problem in a submitted manuscript
COPE's guidance, as a flowchart, on what to do if you suspect an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript. …
Pages
- 1
- 2