When formed in 1997, COPE's major objective was to provide a sounding board for editors who were struggling with how best to deal with possible breaches in research and publication ethics. Most case discussion has taken place during the bimonthly COPE meetings, but some editors have made written submission to the committee and advice has been offered through correspondence. The possibility of extending the work of COPE has arisen during preliminary discussions with the ethics committee of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). What happens when an editor suspects that data have been falsified or fabricated, but there is insufficient conclusive evidence? What should be done under these circumstances? What action should be taken? How soon should the response be made? Should a further investigation be conducted to obtain more evidence? What, if any, sanctions need to be applied?
The selection of anonymised case histories submitted to COPE for review address some of these very issues. They illustrate particular aspects of the complexities of publication ethics and provide a framework for tackling this pervasive and pernicious form of research misconduct. Following on from the highly successful COPE Guidelines on Good Publication Practice published in 1999, the sixth annual report from COPE details progress to date on its moves to put research misconduct firmly on the academic and educational agenda, not only in the UK but also at an international level.
posted by Marcus Zillman |
4:05 AM
