Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance: Essential Guide for Journal Editors

Publication ethics form the foundation of credible scholarly publishing. Indexing services, funding bodies, and institutions increasingly require journals to demonstrate adherence to recognized ethical standards—with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines serving as the global benchmark. This guide explains core ethical principles, COPE requirements, and practical implementation for journal editors.

Understanding COPE

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is a nonprofit organization that provides resources, guidance, and support for ethical publishing practices. Founded in 1997, COPE now serves over 13,000 member journals and publishers worldwide.

COPE membership isn't required but increasingly signals editorial integrity. Many indexing services (including DOAJ) specifically ask about COPE membership or adherence to COPE guidelines during applications.

COPE Core Practices

COPE's Core Practices define expectations for journals across several domains:

• Allegations of misconduct: Procedures for investigating and responding to claims
• Authorship and contributorship: Clear policies on who qualifies as an author
• Complaints and appeals: Mechanisms for authors to appeal decisions
• Conflicts of interest: Disclosure requirements for all parties
• Data and reproducibility: Expectations for research data availability
• Editorial independence: Protection from external influence
• Ethical oversight: Ensuring proper ethics approval for research
• Intellectual property: Copyright and licensing clarity
• Peer review: Transparent review processes
• Post-publication discussions: Handling corrections and criticisms

Essential Ethics Policies for Your Journal

1. Authorship Policy

Define who qualifies as an author and what contributions merit authorship. Most journals adopt the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) criteria requiring authors to have:

• Made substantial contributions to conception/design or data acquisition/analysis
• Drafted or critically revised the manuscript
• Approved the final version for publication
• Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Your policy should address: corresponding author responsibilities, author order conventions in your field, handling of author disputes, and requirements for author contributions statements.

2. Conflict of Interest Policy

Require disclosure of relationships that could bias research or editorial decisions:

• Authors: Funding sources, employment, consulting relationships, stock ownership, patents
• Reviewers: Relationships with authors, competing research interests, prior collaborations
• Editors: Personal or professional conflicts preventing objective handling

OJS includes conflict of interest disclosure options in submission workflows. Configure these fields as required rather than optional.

3. Plagiarism and Originality Policy

State that submitted work must be original, not previously published, and not under consideration elsewhere. Specify:

• How plagiarism is defined (including self-plagiarism)
• That submissions will be screened for originality
• Consequences of confirmed plagiarism
• Expectations for proper citation and attribution

4. Peer Review Policy

Document your review process transparently:

• Type of review (single-blind, double-blind, open)
• Number of reviewers typically assigned
• Review criteria and expectations
• Target timelines for review completion
• How reviewer confidentiality is maintained
• Handling of conflicted reviewers

5. Research Ethics and Informed Consent

For journals publishing research involving human subjects, animals, or sensitive data:

• Require ethics committee/IRB approval documentation
• Mandate informed consent statements for human subjects research
• Establish guidelines for animal research ethics
• Address data privacy and protection requirements

6. Corrections and Retractions Policy

Describe how errors and misconduct are handled post-publication:

• Erratum/Corrigendum: For errors that don't affect conclusions
• Retraction: For unreliable findings due to error or misconduct
• Expression of Concern: When investigation is ongoing
• Removal: In extreme cases (legal requirements, patient privacy)

Follow COPE's Retraction Guidelines for proper retraction procedures.

COPE Flowcharts: Decision-Making Tools

COPE provides flowcharts for handling common ethical issues:

• What to do if you suspect plagiarism in a submitted manuscript
• What to do if you suspect plagiarism in a published article
• What to do if you suspect fabricated data
• How to handle author disputes
• What to do if you suspect duplicate/overlapping publication
• Handling cases of suspected peer review manipulation

These flowcharts are freely available on the COPE website and should be bookmarked by all editorial team members.

Implementing Ethics in OJS

Submission Checklist

OJS allows creation of submission checklists that authors must complete before submitting. Include ethics-related items:

• Confirmation work is original and not under consideration elsewhere
• Acknowledgment of authorship criteria compliance
• Declaration of conflicts of interest
• Confirmation of ethics approval where applicable
• Agreement to plagiarism screening

Ethics Statements in Articles

Configure your production workflow to include standard ethics statements in published articles:

• Conflict of Interest Statement
• Ethics Approval Statement (for relevant research)
• Data Availability Statement
• Author Contributions Statement
• Funding Acknowledgment

Policy Pages

Create dedicated pages for your ethics policies within OJS:

• About → Policies: Link comprehensive ethics documentation
• Author Guidelines: Reference ethics requirements prominently
• Reviewer Guidelines: Include ethics obligations for reviewers

Becoming a COPE Member

COPE membership provides:

• Access to COPE Forum for case discussions
• Use of COPE member logo on your journal website
• Right to state COPE membership in applications
• Resources and training materials
• Credibility signal to authors, reviewers, and indexers

Membership fees are tiered based on journal size and publisher revenue. Small journals and those from lower-income countries may qualify for reduced rates.

Common Ethics Violations and How to Prevent Them

Gift/Ghost Authorship

Problem: Including authors who didn't contribute (gift) or excluding those who did (ghost).

Prevention: Require author contributions statements specifying each author's role. Confirm all authors approve final manuscript.

Duplicate Submission

Problem: Authors submitting identical manuscripts to multiple journals simultaneously.

Prevention: Plagiarism screening catches many duplicates. Include explicit prohibition in submission requirements with consequences clearly stated.

Peer Review Manipulation

Problem: Authors suggesting fake reviewers or compromised email addresses.

Prevention: Verify suggested reviewers independently. Check institutional affiliations. Be suspicious of personal email addresses (gmail, yahoo) for established researchers.

Salami Slicing

Problem: Dividing one study into multiple publications to inflate publication count.

Prevention: Ask about related submissions during review. Similarity checks may reveal overlap with author's other work.

Ethics and Indexing Applications

Major indexing services examine ethics practices during applications:

• DOAJ: Requires stated ethics policies, plagiarism detection, peer review documentation
• Scopus: Evaluates journal policies and COPE membership/adherence
• Web of Science: Reviews editorial standards and ethics framework

Demonstrable ethics compliance strengthens indexing applications significantly.