Skip to main content
Log in

An Analysis on the Research Ethics Cases Managed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Between 1997 and 2010

Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The growing emphasis on the importance of publishing scientific findings in the academic world has led to increasing prevalence of potentially significant publications in which scientific and ethical rigour may be questioned. This has not only hindered research progress, but also eroded public trust in all scientific advances. In view of the increasing concern and the complexity of research misconduct, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was established in 1997 to manage cases with ethical implications. In order to review the outcomes of cases investigated by COPE, a total of 408 cases that had been managed by COPE were successfully extracted and analysed with respect to 7 distinct criteria. The results obtained indicate that the number of ethical implications per case has not changed significantly (p > 0.01) since the year COPE was instigated. Interestingly, the number of ethical cases, and to some extent, research misconduct, is not diminishing. Therefore, journal editors and publishers need to work closely together with COPE to inculcate adoption of appropriate research ethics and values in younger researchers while discouraging others from lowering standards. It is hoped that with a more concerted effort from the academic community and better public awareness, there will be fewer incidences of ethically and scientifically challenged publications. The ultimate aim being to enhance the quality of published works with concomittant public trust in the results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atlas, M. C. (2004). Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 9, 242–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H. (2007). How impact factor changed medical publishing and science. BMJ, 334, 561–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Publication Ethics. (2010). Consensus statement on the adoption of the COPE guidelines. Annals of Surgery, 252, 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COPE Committee on Publication Ethics. (2011). http://publicationethics.org/.

  • Foo J. Y. A. (2010) A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, doi:10.1007/s11948-010-9212-8.

  • Kakuk, P. (2009). The legacy of the hwang case: research misconduct in biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 545–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, N., & Lukinbeal, C. (2010). Comparing police and residents’ perceptions of crime in a phoenix neighborhood using mental maps in GIS. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 72, 33–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2007). Threats to the integrity of the croatian medical journal. Croatian Medical Journal, 48, 779–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2005). Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author. BMJ, 331, 288–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sox, H. C., & Rennie, D. (2006). Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144, 609–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E. (2010). The committee on publication ethics flowcharts. Chest, 137, 221–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2009a). Retractions: guidance from the committee on publication ethics (COPE). Croatian Medical Journal, 50, 532–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2009b). Retractions: Guidance from the committee on publication Ethics. Journal of Critical Care, 24, 620–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2009c). Retractions: Guidance from the committee on publication ethics (COPE). Maturitas, 64, 201–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2009d). Retractions: Guidance from the committee on publication ethics (COPE). Front Matter, 10, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G., & Hobbs, R. (2007). Should we ditch impact factors? BMJ, 334, 568–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

All the bibliographical data used were obtained from the official website of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest pertaining to this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jong Yong Abdiel Foo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foo, J.Y.A., Wilson, S.J. An Analysis on the Research Ethics Cases Managed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Between 1997 and 2010. Sci Eng Ethics 18, 621–631 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9273-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9273-3

Keywords

Navigation