2003年，在适当的同行评审后，在专业的外科杂志中公布了一篇论文。本文总结了一组有关临床医生的经验，使用新的治疗方法治疗头部和颈部恶性肿瘤 - 以及25名患者的案例系列。本文不被认为是高优先级之一，但由于本文在文献中的这种治疗方法的信息而发表。主要提交人有3个共同作者，所有这些都签署了相关文件，指出他们在编制稿件中扮演的大部分作用，并说明没有宣布利益冲突。发布后的版权归因于出版期刊。
In May 2005 the editor of a prestigious journal in the United States sent an e-mail to the current editor in this country stating that he had been in receipt of a manuscript, submitted electronically, which appeared to be an attempt at duplicate publication. He requested that a pdf file of the original article was sent to him and, in due course, confirmed that the new manuscript that he had received was a re-write of the already published paper with the addition of one extra case. The original paper was not cited in the new manuscript. The co-authors had mostly changed but the senior author and one co-author were common to both papers. Once again a covering letter had been received alleging that a substantial original input had been made by all the authors and stating that there were no conflicts of interest outstanding.
美国编辑现在已经写信给收到的稿件的高级作者，要求解释此次尝试重复发布。迄今为止，没有收到回复。他与美国其他高级编辑一起发表了一份编辑，该编辑说明抄袭或经过验证的重复出版物将通过否认个人在主要的美国期刊上的出版权利获得出版权利而受到惩罚。这一编辑没有关税编辑，并在美国被拒绝出版欺诈或欺诈行为的确切时间没有被禁止。
The situation is further complicated since the editor in this country is a professional colleague of the senior author who is alleged to have attempted this duplicity. In addition to this the senior author has already, in the past, been suspended from clinical practice for a period of four months while an untoward clinical incident was investigated and a Royal College of Surgeons inquiry was instituted.
Pending further explanation the senior editor in this country has already been in touch with the other British publication covering the same topic areas and both are agreed that they will, in principle, follow the American lead and will deny publication to those proven to have been engaged in duplicate publication or plagiarism. Both have also agreed to write a joint editorial on this issue once the outcome of this case is known.
However I would be grateful if advice could be given to us concerning the appropriateness of such action and also if some insight could be offered as to whether alternative action might prove preferable in this instance.
The committee thought that this was almost tantamount to blacklisting. COPE has never suggested blacklisting as a method. The journal should decide if there should be a notice of duplicate publication and then notify the authors.
The committee thought that it is not right to ban authors, blacklists raise a myriad of legal difficulties and also have a lack of due process. A better route is to contact the institution.
在12月20日在随后的委员会会议05, the previous advice from COPE regarding the “blacklisting” of authors who attempt duplicate publication—namely, that such action could have serious legal implications and publishers and editors should be very cautious of going down this route—was re-emphasised by the chair. Any attempt to deny authors access to journals might put the publishers of those journals at risk of legal action. Faced with this problem of duplication publication, another less risky route might be for editors to develop a “grey list” of those authors who may have transgressed in this regard, in order that special attention may be paid to articles they submit.