我们本月突出显示的案例涉及升级的作者争议以及邮政发布校正过程的管理作者争端的不确定的机构调查：18-07。带到COPE论坛的案件通常很复杂，涉及多个问题，就是这里的情况。
Case summary
After publication of an article, Author A contacted the journal asking to correct their surname. Journal procedures required the editor to request agreement from all authors for the required erratum to change the name, which resulted in an accusation by Author B that Author A did not really qualify as an author and requested removal of Author A from the article. The editor has legal proof of Author A’s correct name but does not have complete information from all authors on their contributions to the work. As the corresponding author, Author B insists on his right to have the final say on the authorship list. The editor contacted the institution where the work was conducted and where Author B is affiliated; Author A and some of the other authors have since left that institution. The institutional investigation only contacted those authors, including Author B, who remain at the institution and concurred with the opinion of Author B. The institution stated they were not allowed to contact the other authors, including Author A, who have moved to other institutions. The editor is concerned that the investigation by the institution was inadequate because it did not contact the complaining Author A.
案例讨论
论坛建议编辑有两个，涉及两个单独的问题：1）名称更改和2）作者争议。第一个问题很容易被错误/逆势纠正，而第二个问题需要充分的制度调查。
作者纠纷仍然是学术出版物编辑杂志所面临的最常见的道德问题之一。因此，作者和挑选是资源不断发展的领域。作者纠纷也是一个问题，期刊编辑和出版商必须依赖作者自己及其机构来裁决分歧。大多数相关案件强调体制调查是唯一要继续的方法;但是，在这种情况下，编辑没有以为调查足够。当机构调查不充分时，编辑处于劣势;在这种情况下，由于作者B的机构没有联系其机构以外的作者，因此合理假设该决定是根据不完整信息制定的。
此期刊编辑还有可能与作者A现行的机构联系，并要求调查。然而，该论坛中未讨论，努力可能会产生另一种调查，这将使编辑在同一位置。
通过类似案例的常见螺纹，在制度调查不可用或不足的情况下，需要将案件升级到区域或国家权力机构。这是在这种情况下的建议。编辑可能不知道在某些情况下联系谁，这是11月消化中最近一篇文章的主题//m.lang0752.com/news/research-integrity-issue-who-are-youou-Oge-Call.关于新形成的Association of Research Integrity Officers。
涉及作者数据库的136例案件中的两个共同建议是使用特定的作者标准（如ICMJE.,信用或纪律特定的标准）并向作者提供明确指导，了解是什么，不可接受的作者。bob官方app提交人在稿件提交时特别是他们对工作的贡献可能对其的贡献很重要，而作者需要确切地知道提交过程中的预期。
似乎本期刊的鼓励和确保作者对工作贡献准确性和透明度的过程不足。为避免作者纠纷，期刊应该拥有并强制执行披露要求。在组织编辑部遵守核心实践的新的Cope流程图促使作者和内部流程的全面准则同时开发，以验证是否符合这些指南。bob官方app没有足够的执法，发达的政策不会有任何用于预防未来争端的用途。
通过在出版之前与文章产生的问题可以通过持有该文章来处理，直到情况解决。出版后出现问题时，需要以适当和及时的方式纠正文献。在这种情况下，期刊可以同时发布错误/勘误，以纠正作者A的名称，并发出迄今为止披露作者争议的关注的表达，这是一个不足的机构调查。论坛同意这将是合理的，可以鼓励进一步调查或解决作者争端，因为尚未解决的关注的表达可能导致作者造成声誉危害。
管理对文献的更正的批准也涉及有效的日记管理，但表达关注的表达不是更正。论坛的建议是为编辑提供了一个公司截止日期，在编辑联系区域或国家当局之前扩大他们的调查。编辑的主要责任是确保科学文学的完整性，这为编辑和出版商提供了努力维护公众信任所需的权力。
这个caserelates to core practice of “Authorship and contributorship” and “Post-publication discussions and corrections.” A closely related core practice is “Journal management.” All the core practices are described under the Core Practices tab on the COPE website and resources are available to describe and promote the best practices for resolving publication ethics issues.
作者和挑养: Clear policies (that allow for transparency around who contributed to the work and in what capacity) should be in place, as well as processes for managing potential disputes.
Post-publication discussions and corrections：期刊必须允许在其网站上发布辩论，通过信件到编辑器，或在外部审核网站上，例如Pubpeer。他们必须有机制来纠正，修改或撤回出版物后物品。
杂志管理: A well-described and implemented infrastructure is essential, including the business model, policies, processes and software for efficient running of an editorially independent journal, as well as the efficient management and training of editorial boards and editorial and publishing staff.
Charon Pierson.代表COPE教育小组委员会
制度评论
这个case强调对评估或调查可能涉及潜在违反负责任的研究实践的关注/指控的机构责任。特别是，机构如何管理所涉及的一个或多个研究人员在不同的机构中受雇的调查。
在澳大利亚，国家卫生和医学研究委员会（NHMRC）2007年负责任的负责任的澳大利亚守则（守则）负责任研究实践的指南机构和研究人员。代码的第B部分为处理潜在研究不当行为的指控提供了一个机构的框架。机构必须确保所有调查都是程序公平的。机构调查仅适用于在机构主持下与研究的工作人员和人员相关联。
For an allegation involving misattribution of authorship, an Institutional investigation will need to consider the author’s contribution by applying relevant authorship criteria from codes, guidelines (e.g. ICMJE) or disciplinary standards. If an institutional investigation is limited in its capacity to fully assess this information because other involved co-authors are employed at different institutions, these limitations should be communicated to the Editor.
于2019年7月1日，澳大利亚机构政策和程序需要与修订的NHMRC澳大利亚委员会为2018年负责任进行负责人进行(revised Code). The revised Code will be supported by Guidelines on Responsible Research Practices including, aGuide to Managing and investigating potential breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018(the Guide). Section 8.1 of the Guide provides for ‘Collaborative research across multiple institutions’ and states:
‘Institutions should consider how preliminary assessments and investigations into potential breaches of the Code are to be conducted for multi-institutional collaborations on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration issues such as the lead institution, where the complaint was lodged, contractual arrangements or where the events occurred. Institutions should cooperate if there is a potential breach of the Code to ensure that only one investigation is conducted. There should be clear communication between all parties throughout the investigation.’
Where investigations may involve a number of institutions, the Guide’s focus on principles of cooperation and communication between institutions when managing a common research concern/allegation is a helpful guide in cases of this nature
Anne Walsh，代理董事，研究和诚信办公室，昆士兰理工大学研究与创新分工（QUT）
Read more on authorship, including latest publication ethics news, in our2019年3月消化时事通讯。