The Cope / Doaj / Oaspa / Wame Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
A Critical Analysis
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21987240 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jaime A Teixeira Da Silva (0000-0003-3299-2772), Salim Moussa (0000-0003-2589-0719, University of Gafsa) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 130-154 |
| Publication date | 2024-07-12 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | ETHICS IN PROGRESS (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2084-9257 • E-ISSN: 2084-9257 |
| Publisher | Adam Mickiewicz University Poznan (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.14746/eip.2024.1.7 |
| OpenAlex | W4400889509 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 40 |
Four publishing-related organizations, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the first being dedicated specifically to the creation and dissemination of ethics policies, established a set of 16 principles related to journal and publisher transparency and “best” publishing practices. The first, second, third and fourth versions were published in 2013, 2015, 2018, and 2022, respectively. Membership of these organizations implies that members can only become such if they satisfy these principles. This paper compares the four versions to appreciate how the content has changed over time, as a historical endeavor to gather how publishing ethics has progressed over time. An assessment is also made to determine whether all principles are related to transparency and best principles, and if any may be missing. We concluded that the 16 principles offer broad guidance to several important aspects related to journal and publishing ethics and management. However, the vast majority are in general excessively broad, occasionally vague, or lack sufficient examples or specifics, despite the slight improvement between versions 3 and 4. We argue further that these weaknesses may limit their practical application. Until September 2022, there was no transparency regarding the consequences for any members that might violate, or not abide by, these principles. In the light of these arguments, we are of the opinion that the 16 principles of “best” publishing practices merit additional improvements
Political science · Publishing · Academic Publishing and Open Access · Law · scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Testing the Robustness of Cope’s Characterization of Predatory Publishing on a Cope Member Publisher (Academic and Business Research Institute)
Assessing the Ethics of Stings, Including from the Prism of Guidelines by Ethics-Promoting Organizations (Cope, ICMJE, CSE)
Is the Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope) Trustee Board racially inclusive
The Next Steps in Academic Integrity — Education, Awareness, Norms, Duty and Law
Under repair
| Citations per year | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |