COPE flowcharts: Handling of post-publication critiques v1.
- Holbeach N.
- Freckelton I.
- Mol B.W.
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- COPE flowcharts: Handling of post-publication critiques v1.(Available at)https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/handling-post-publication-critiques-cope-flowchart.pdfDate: 2021Date accessed: December 31, 2022
- Journal editors and publishers’ legal obligations with respect to medical research misconduct.Res Ethics. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221147440
- Investigating the veracity of a sample of published trials with divergent results in spinal pain.(OSF Registries Available at)https://osf.io/345vqDate accessed: February 12, 2023
- Investigating the veracity of a sample of divergent published trial data in spinal pain.Pain. 2023; 164: 72-83
- Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; : CD007407
- Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies.in: Higgins J.P.T. Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK2011
- Identifying and handling potentially untrustworthy trials in Pregnancy & Childbirth Cochrane Reviews.(Available at)https://pregnancy.cochrane.org/sites/pregnancy.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/identifying_and_handling_potentially_untrustworthy_trials_v_2.4_-_20_july_2021.pdfDate accessed: January 5, 2023
- Distributions of baseline categorical variables were different from the expected distributions in randomized trials with integrity concerns.J Clin Epidemiol. 2023; 154: 117-124
- Trust/untrust is not the same as true/false. Lessons learned and ethical questions on the application of untrustworthiness scales to judge individuals.Eur J Phys Rehab Med. 2022; 58: 888-891
- Trials we cannot trust: investigating their impact on systematic reviews and clinical guidelines in spinal pain. Submitted. OSF record.(Available at)https://osf.io/m92ax/Date accessed: February 12, 2023
- European journal of pain ethical policies.(Available at)https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/15322149/homepage/forauthors.htmlDate accessed: January 5, 2023
- Correcting the scientific record – a broken system?.Account Res. 2021; 28: 265-279
- Flawed, futile, and fabricated – features that limit confidence in clinical research in pain and anaesthesia: a narrative review.Br J Anaesth. 2022; 130: 287-295
Publication stageIn Press Journal Pre-Proof
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Disclosures and competing interests: None of the authors has any financial interest in this work. Several authors are on the editorial boards of pain journals referred to in this paper (ACdeCW and CE) and of other pain journals (ACdeCW, NO’C, GS, EF, and CE). Patients or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of our research.
Authors’ contributions: AW: Conceptualization, investigation, writing – original draft. LH: Conceptualization, investigation, writing – review and editing. AM: Conceptualization, investigation, writing – review and editing. GS: Conceptualization, investigation, writing – review and editing. EF: Conceptualization, writing – review and editing. CE: Conceptualization, writing – review and editing. NO’C: Conceptualization, writing – review and editing.