COPE Code of Conduct for Scientific editors and publishers

  • With regard to Huw Price 'Reputation Trap' and discussions here about the quality of papers, I want to give attention to an organization named COPE.

    More than 5000 scientific journals are members of COPE including Nature (Editor-in-Chief: Sir Philip Campbell).

    I wrote to them:

    Dear COPE,

    Your processes - as far as I could see - are focused on misconduct from the writers, but I have seen that also editors can behave unethical and because you suppose to be a 3rd party auditor of the practice I hope you take my question seriously.

    The examples I have come from the area of physics and the science of LENR, aka Cold Fusion. To my knowledge editors still refuse to publish papers about this subject. My question is not about particular examples about refused papers but about the editor process of refuse. An editor must have integrity and look again at new evidence even if refused earlier. Editors should not fall for groupthink of what is possible or not. Solid experiment results should not be refused because current theory says otherwize.

    Please direct me to the subprocess and guides for what to expect from the editors.

    Yours truly
    Mats G Danielsson

    I just got an answer from Linda Gough, from the administration of COPE. Following her advice I find this important text:

    It [COPE Code of Conduct] also established a mechanism for dealing with complaints against COPE member editors that could not be resolved by the journal’s own complaints procedure.
    So: this is a way to go for LENR paper writers, please use it!

    Dear Mats,

    Thank you for your email to COPE.

    We expect all of our member editors to follow the COPE Code of Conduct. If you have a concern about a journal that is a member of COPE, we do have a process for dealing with complaints or concerns. Please see the details of our process on our website

    Kind regards

    Linda Gough

    Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

    Tel: +44 (0) 1379 854181
    Fax +44 (0) 844 443 1087

    Registered charity No 1123023
    Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120
    Registered office: COPE, 22 Nelson Close, Harleston, Norfolk IP20 9HL, UK

  • Quote

    To my knowledge editors still refuse to publish papers about this subject.

    It would be more accurate to say that some editors refuse to publish some papers on this subject.

    Possibly, some editors refuse to publish all papers. Not sure how you would prove that was due to policy rather than quality - but if you did you would still have the issue that all Journals have scopes, and if your paper lies outside their area it will not go there.

    Perhaps there are not enough high quality journals that include LENR in their scope? Difficult to get far on this one, especially because there are many places for LENR papers to be published, and the overall quality of what I've seen is pretty low, simply because the results shown are of only marginal interest, but presented as something extraordinary.

    • Official Post

    The story of ENEA paper by Denino on He4/heat corelation.
    This paper at least deserved some review and critics given it's surface quality and clear impact.

    anyway, we should not joke and ignore the 10tons gorilla in the kitchen.
    It is clear high impact journal make a blocus on any LENR paper, not even looking at it, by the fear to be forced to publish it like they avoided with Oriani paper.

    Oriani paper is much better than Caltech Lewis paper, so quality is just a joke.
    They even refused to corrects errors.
    so quality and ethic is a joke.
    I don't want anymore to play with jokers like them.

    about the quality of the "reference" papers that they like, caltech and MIT…ibolic-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf…Pjcondensedg.pdf#page=138 (page 138)

    the opinion of the editor of MIT paper on the paper he followed in MIT

    the rejection of critic of Lewis paper by "high impact journal"
    this is simply a joke.

    Here is the rejected post-positive-review paper of Oriani home page/acrobat/OrianiRAcalorimetr.pdf
    Why reject that if the review is good, except for lack of theory, and if it answers the claims of lewis, and hansen on stirring and recombination ?
    because it solve the

    How Morrisson, whose paper was accepted, was bashed by competent electrochemist
    peer review is a joke.

    the argumented (LOL) rejection letter of Deninno Enea Report 41…nti/letteraSCIENCE001.pdf

    some data , video of Preparatta&co that I gathered on the old forum

    If the quality was a problems the skeptic papers would be retracted since long.
    The problems in only theory, and ego.

    It is time to stop playing.The game if screwed.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.