Is COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) fit for purpose?

The overwhelming problem is what, if anything, will save UK biomedical science and its victims (the citizenry) from the overwhelming and multiplying problem of the BPS set having taken over and dominated all communication. They control: the UK government.The UK establishment. Fleet Street (the national media) The BBC. The scientific journals (notably Lancet and BMJ.)

Heretofore the sole UK institution to fairly defend PWME has been the judicial system, and we can kiss that good-bye now since the Knight of Weasely Falsehoods has propelled himself onto the UK's judicial advisory council (proper name to follow) from which he can influence every member of the UK judiciary and even weigh in on the appointment of personnel, including President of the high court (apologies, nomenclature could use polishing). THE JUDICIARY IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING CAPTURED BY THE BPS FACTIONS.

The natural inclination of an English person is to avoid making a scene. This has contributed to the overwhelming reluctance of official UK entities such as charities to engage in public relations warfare or aggressive courtroom warfare. The Knight of the W.F. has no such reservations. He and associates therefore have conquered most British institutions while observers wait meekly for the nation to somehow notice that the knight-Emperor has no clothes.

At this point only one thing is going to rescue PWME and UK medical science. War. And how does one wage a war? One captures strategic targets. One uses strategy to apply maximum force against the enemy in the most efficient fashion. One mobilizes all and everything (which see, Dunkirk) One uses propaganda wholeheartedly to rally one's allies and confuse one's enemies.

This is war. Shall we go on, weakening steadlly under the ministrations of NICE, CBT, GET, denials of PIP, suffering and dying in misery? PWME now are in the position of the unfortunate Polish citizens who were herded into the Warsaw ghetto to weaken from starvation, typhus, etc while thousands in their midst intermittently muster for train rides to the unknown.

Shouldn't every MP in Britain know about a Russell university's involvement in a concerted program of pseudo-science carrying on Child Abuse. Is not the Labour Party opposed to Child Abuse? Are not the Conservatives? Liberals? Lib-Dems?
Do the unions of academic workers favour the employ of universities in Child Abuse?
The unions of teachers?
The unions of medical personnel?

Of course this is only the latest in a quarter-century program of child abuse (taking into care) involving children who may or may not have ME. Sectioning of adults, while we're at it.
How many local party constituencies know about this?
How many union leaders?
How many GPs have a glimmer that there is a serious scientific opposition -- including the best and the brightest -- opposed to what they are told to do about ME?

Of course the same point more or less can be made of the United States. The configuration of enemies is better hidden and much harder to target. In Bethesda and Atlanta (NIH and CDC) the Deep State prevails. Americans need bunker blaster bombs, while land forces can probably manage in the UK.

 

Maybe Shakespeare's Richard III and Steve Bannon/Michael Wolff's book give a clue. When a group of people are driven by a lust for power what tends to destroy them is each other.

One of the things that puzzles me about the names that keep popping up in the media groups is that they have separate and not necessarily entirely concordant agendas. It continues to amaze me just how systematically the media has been infiltrated, but it seems to be a rickety alliance of different interests (me, me, me and me, you might say). The Death of Stalin is another situation that comes to mind. Except the intriguingly there is no central figure in all this, except perhaps whoever owns Monsanto.

 

It is expected for all members of COPE to adhere to the "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing" at https://publicationethics.org/resou...arency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing and it is stated in these Principles:

"In the event that a member organization is found to have violated these best practices, or other specific requirements of the organisation, COPE shall in the first instance try to work with them in order to address any concerns that have been raised. In the event that the member organization is unable or unwilling to address these concerns, their membership in the organization may be suspended or terminated."

So COPE has the power and the possibilities to punish members (so journals and/or publishers), for example by terminating or suspending their membership, when these members continue with violating these best practices and/or other specific requirements. It is on the other hand mandatory for members of COPE to pay an annual fee to be member. The annual fee for the major publisher are high (details are on the website of COPE). Punishing a major publisher thus implies that this major publisher will not anymore pay the fee. The details about the financial situation at the website of COPE reveals that such a loss will have severe consequences.

 

Thanks, and welcome to the forum!

I've been finding your comments on research ethics and transparency interesting for years now.

You might be interested in the pieces from David Tuller which have led to our current concerns about COPE:

http://www.virology.ws/2018/01/02/trial-by-error-the-school-absence-study-revisited/
http://www.virology.ws/2018/01/03/trial-by-error-cope-to-bmj-open-more-details-please/

 

Isn't this akin to bank robbers being punished by withdrawal of personal banking privileges at the branch they have been caught robbing, with no other penalty?

 

(1): Queensland University of Technology (QUT) is since 1 April 2017 processing a formal complaint with serious accusations of badmouthing on a public part of the internet about me by Virginia Barbour (an employee of QUT) and in her capacity of chair of COPE. The processing of this complaint last thus already over nine months. There are thus towards my opinion serious grounds to argue that this amount of time implies that it is difficult / tough for QUT to rebut / refute these serious allegations of badmouthing by Virginia Barbour. See http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/B/B_08_01.jsp for backgrounds about the expected behaviour for all members of the staff of QUT.

(2): Leiden University (The Netherlands) is since 22 November 2017 processing a formal complaint against professor Frits Rosendaal with serious accusations of badmouthing about me in an e-mail to 3th parties which is dated 11 November 2017. Professor Rosendaal is since 21 July 2017 member of the council of COPE and this e-mail was written in his capacity as member of the council of COPE. Leiden University has until today not rebutted / refuted any of these serious allegations. See https://www.organisatiegids.univers...mplaints-committee-for-unacceptable-behaviour for backgrounds about the expected behaviour at Leiden University. Professor Rosendaal is also a member of the staff of LUMC (The Netherlands). A similar complaint was filed to LUMC on 18 December 2017.

COPE is since 1 July 2016 in the possession of the report "Final investigation on serious allegations of fabricated and/or falsified data in Al-Sheikhly et al. (2013, 2015)", see https://www.academia.edu/33827046 , see also https://www.researchgate.net/projec...the-Basra-Reed-Warbler-Acrocephalus-griseldis for backgrounds. COPE was at that time processing a formal complaint against member Taylor & Francis for the refusal of this publisher to retract the fraudulent study on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler. Multiple requests for reviews (from experts) (with opposing views) about the conclusions of this report have remained until now unanswered.

I fail to understand how the above listed behaviour / acting of COPE is in line with the above listed statements about a "polite and collegial tone at all times". I also fail to understand why cases cannot be discussed in public on the internet. There is towards my humble opinion no difference between discussing this kind of cases during lunch time (or during a coffee break) in public places at a university (which was the only option in the end of the 1970s), or at a variety of internet sites (which is common in these days).

 

Compare https://publicationethics.org/files...Financial_Statements_Year_ended_31Dec2016.pdf with https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Subscription rates 2016.pdf and sort out what will happen when COPE will suspend / terminate the membership of one of the major publishers (all of them are member of COPE, see https://publicationethics.org/members/publishers ).

 

Absolutely. How were newspapers supposed to run investigative journalism if the could not put complaints on the social media of the past (newspapers). Was a letter to the Times an inappropriate form of communication? Social media make things open and honest and public. These organisations love to use social media when it suits them but are 'not prepared to engage' when others do (a phrase from Dr Wessely).

 

Groves loves a bit of Social Media ...except when it makes her publication look silly perhaps????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jXPOgK0guM

Edit: anyone want to open a book on how long it takes for this to be taken down from You Tube?

Edit 2: anyone able to cache this first?

 

Who owns Monsanto? oddly, America's famously folksy billionaire and octogenarian idol, Warren Buffet of Omaha, Nebraska, is among the latest to splash out for a full plate of yummy Monsanto shares. This was reported in the most recent 13-F filing to America's Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) by his corporate vehicle -- the tax-sheltering insurance company Berkshire Hathaway. This would seem to suggest that Monsanto's Round-Up herbicide -- glyphosate with lashings of other plausibly toxic chemicals -- will enjoy a brightly profitable future. Buffet and his older partner, Charlie Munger of lovely Pasadena, California, rarely invest in losers. The EU's recent 5-year extension of its permit for glyphosate use in agriculture may have figured into the buy. And wherever glyphosate sales flourish, sales of Monstanto's patented GMO soya beans are sure to follow upwards, being genetically tailored to outlive Round-up applications. Separately, Monsanto's patented GMO corn lures farmers to open their purses with the handy feature of generating its own pesticides.
Yet these status quo products, however jolly the outlook for sales growth, can't be all there is to have attracted these super-savvy investors. Surely Monsanto's product pipeline must have new attractions with big sales potential on the way. Let's just hope that continuing life on earth has figured into the calculations of profit and loss.

 

It seems to me that it is not excluded that COPE is trying to argue over here that they endorse partial behavior, whereas on the other hand the VSNU 'The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice' lists 'impartiality' as one of its 6 key principles. This VSNU CoC can be viewed at http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten..._for_Academic_Practice_2004_(version2014).pdf and it is mandatory for all researchers of all 14 Dutch research universities to act at all times, and always for the full 100% according to this VSNU CoC, and already since 1 January 2005. For example PhD students at RUG, the University of Groningen, cannot get their PhD when they are unwilling to promise, in public and during the graduation ceremony, that they will always keep acting according to the guidelines of this VSNU CoC.

"Principle 4. Impartiality. In their scientific or scholarly activities, academic practitioners are led by no other interest than academic interest, and they are always prepared to account for their actions. Definition. Academic practitioners are impartial and objective when they do not let personal interest, preference, affections, prejudice or the interests of the commissioning or funding body affect their judgement and decisions. (...) 4.4. In assessing the performance of others (peer review of research and manuscripts), academic practitioners are led by scientific or scholarly arguments, and they refrain from assessing a manuscript if there could be any doubt about the impartiality of their opinion."

My views about partial behaviour in relation to COPE can be read in my article at https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/roars/article/view/9073 ("Is partial behaviour a plausible explanation for the unavailability of the ICMJE disclosure form of an author in a BMJ journal?"), open access. The 'author in a BMJ journal' is a member of the council of COPE. Comments on the views in my article are highly appreciated.

 

It's hard for anyone to comment without know all the details... I'm reading this a dry humour rather than a genuine deduction... I suspect that thy rather want you to just ignore you until you go away!

For people interested in COPE stuff it looked like there were some interesting references there, including this from Leonid Schneider, which attracted a response from Virginia Barbour in the comments section:

https://forbetterscience.com/2015/10/31/join-the-committee-ignore-publication-ethics/#more-19

I've heard bad things about COPE from almost everyone who seems committed to fighting against junk-science, but it's often difficult to make judgements on particular issues without looking into all the details.

 

"Anon advocate" has not indicated in any of the 4 parts of this posting that COPE used to have an Ombudsperson. This Ombudsperson had a.o. the following tasks: "The COPE Ombudsman is an independent (unpaid) individual whose role is to ensure that COPE carries out its stated mission in a fair, expedient, and transparent manner, and that its Council and Trustees are acting in the best interests of the organization and its members. Who can bring a complaint to the Ombudsman? (...) Those who have asked COPE to consider a complaint against a COPE member and who feel that the process was not carried out in the manner stated on COPE’s website."
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160325203923/http://publicationethics.org/about/governance

Readers will notice that the current version of the url https://publicationethics.org/about/governance does not list anymore any details about the existence of an Ombudsperson. https://publicationethics.org/search/site/Ombudsperson and
https://publicationethics.org/search/site/ombudsman provide an overview with all current traces to information about this Ombudsperson / Ombudsman at the website of COPE. https://publicationethics.org/cope-...cs-practice-may-2016-vol-4-issue-5#story-1536 is towards the best of my knowledge the most recent information (dated 10 June 2016) at the website of COPE about their efforts to get a new Ombudsperson.

https://pubpeer.com/topics/1/2E91E8916236A6EE03F372E64FBBAF provides more backgrounds and details about the Ombudsperson at COPE.

 

Thanks for drawing attention to the response here from Virginia Barbour. There is a sentence in that response that indicates that “the vast majority of the general membership of COPE – of which there are more than 10,000 – are Editors-in-Chief of journals”.


Remembering that Trish Groves is Editor-in-Chief of BMJ Open, whilst Adrian Aldcroft is Editor, if Barbour’s statement is true, then you would have expected that Trish Groves would be the COPE member for BMJ Open and would have taken the School Absence Study case (IF it was that case that was discussed) to the COPE Forum, rather than the Editor Adrian Aldcroft as suggested by the initials ‘AA’ attached to the case. Perhaps BMJ Open has, for some reason, elected its Editor as COPE member rather than its Editor-in-Chief, or perhaps Groves is allowed to send her Editor in her absence and chose to do this because she was ill or too busy perhaps, or didn’t want to be accused of any conflict of interest because of her previous role on the COPE council and continued work for COPE after that ceased. Or perhaps her attitude towards Aldcroft was – ‘You’ve got us into this mess, (in the way that he’s dealt with the complaint), you can get us out’!

 

Thanks alot for your kind words, its highly appreciated.

 

Publisher Frontiers is listed on the most recent version of the so-called Beall’s List of 'potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers' at https://web.archive.org/web/20161229142636/https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ Publisher Frontiers was placed on this list in the end of October 2015, backgrounds at for example https://forbetterscience.com/2015/10/28/is-frontiers-a-potential-predatory-publisher/

Publisher Frontiers was still on this list when it was shut down in early 2017. It is argued at
https://forbetterscience.com/2017/09/18/frontiers-vanquishers-of-beall-publishers-of-bunk/ that publisher Frontiers was responsible for the shut down of this list of Jeffrey Beall.

https://forbetterscience.com/?s=frontiers is a good entry for views about the relationship "junk-science" and Frontiers, and for the motives why Jeffrey Beall has never decided to remove Frontiers from this list (and why Jeffrey Beall also has placed Frontiers on this list).

Mirjam Curno is since January 2014 an employee of Frontiers. Mirjam Curno is also a long-term member of the council of COPE.

Mirjam Curno is currently one of the trustees of COPE, see https://publicationethics.org/about/council/mirjam-j-curno

https://forbetterscience.com/2015/10/31/join-the-committee-ignore-publication-ethics/ provides views / backgrounds about the relationship Frontiers / Mirjam Curno / COPE. "It proved rather difficult to engage with Curno on the matter of editorial ethics in regard to her current main employer, Frontiers."

My experiences with contacting Mirjam Curno are identical. No response, and also no response on reminders.

 

In case it's of interest to people, there is this current Twitter thread about COPE.
https://twitter.com/user/status/1274124778161520644