The COPE Trustee Board and Council occasionally publishes position statements, which are intended to provide COPE’s formal position on a particular issue where guidance does not yet exist.
Authorship and AI tools (2023)
COPE considers that AI tools, such as ChatGPT, cannot be listed as author of a paper, and their use must be fully transparent. Read the Authorship and AI tools position statement.
COPE advice to editors on geopolitical intrusions on editorial decisions (2022)
COPE considers that editorial decisions should not be affected by nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Read the geopolitical intrusions on editorial decisions position statement.
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility (2022)
Read COPE's position statement on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility (DEIA).
The protection of vulnerable groups and individuals (2021)
COPE supports international ethical standards related to research and publication of research that relate to vulnerable groups and individuals. Read The protection of vulnerable groups and individuals position statement.
COPE subscribes to and promotes the principles of academic freedom and editorial independence that underpin the pursuit of knowledge inherent in research and academic work. Read the Censorship position statement.
Opinions on opinions (2018)
COPE’s role in addressing contentious issues within publication is based on our principles of neutrality and professionalism. Read the Opinions on opinions position statement.
Authorship and politics (2017)
COPE have on occasion been made aware of publishing ethics issues that have wider ramifications, including the personal safety of authors, reviewers and editors. Read the Authorship and politics advice to journals and publishers.
Inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes (2014)
This position statement was issued on behalf of COPE after consultation with a variety of publishers to underscore the seriousness with which we take inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes. Read the Inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes position statement.
Clarification of COPE advice to editors on geopolitical intrusions on editorial decisions (2013)
COPE discussed geopolitical intrusion on editorial decisions on two occasions in the past year and takes the position that decisions to edit and publish should not be determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself. Read the COPE advice to editors on geopolitical intrusions on editorial decisions.
Joint COPE/BMJ consensus statement on research misconduct published (2012)
The consensus statement relates to a high-level meeting on research misconduct organised by COPE and the BMJ. Read the Joint COPE/BMJ consensus statement on research misconduct published position statement.