Tell us a little bit about what prompted COPE to create these two frameworks. In particular, what did you feel was lacking or needed to be remedied) in the Core Practices?

The Core Principles have been introduced to establish a clear, shared foundation for high ethical standards across the scholarly community. Specifically, we found that there is not always detailed guidance for every unique ethical issue; in such cases, the Core Principles are intended to serve as a starting point. In this way, the Core Principles act both as a reference framework for COPE and as a resource for the wider community, supporting the development of policies where explicit guidance is lacking. The Core Principles also enable COPE to map existing resources, identify gaps, and help to prioritize the development of future guidance.

The Code of Conduct has been reintroduced following member feedback that the Core Practices (history of the Code of Conduct and Core Practices) did not provide sufficient clarity or specificity. Clearer and more direct expectations from COPE were considered to be more helpful. The Code of Conduct establishes a formal set of mandated standards, offering clearer expectations and practical direction to support members in their day-to-day activities.

Together, these frameworks are central to delivering the “Integrity” pillar of COPE’s strategic plan. In a rapidly evolving and increasingly scrutinized landscape, shaped by developments such as artificial intelligence, they provide the clear ethical norms and principles needed to guide behavior, strengthen accountability, and safeguard the scholarly record.

The Code of Conduct includes some very specific provisions (such as “comply with COPE’s Membership Terms and Conditions and the policies they reference”) and some that seem more subjective (such as “conduct themselves in such a way as to uphold the reputation of COPE and its membership” and “actively promote diversity, equity, inclusivity, and accessibility within all aspects of scholarly publishing”). Can you say anything about how the Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee will address complaints along those more subjective lines?

While some provisions, such as those relating to reputation and diversity, equity, inclusivity, and accessibility (DEIA), are necessarily broader in nature, the intention is not for them to be interpreted arbitrarily. The Facilitation and Integrity (F&I) subcommittee will take a consistent approach to assessing complaints, considering the context, the member’s actions, and the extent to which behavior aligns with the principles and expectations set out in the Code of Conduct.

For areas such as DEIA, the emphasis is on demonstrable commitment and good-faith effort. In practice, this means the subcommittee is likely to focus first on engagement, support, and improvement – particularly where expectations are still evolving – while retaining the ability to act where there is clear disregard for these responsibilities. Similarly, in relation to upholding COPE’s reputation, the Code of Conduct is intended to apply where a member’s actions or communications materially undermine COPE’s mission, governance, or the trust placed in its membership.

In a sense, yes, that was deliberate. Artificial intelligence was not set out as a standalone provision in the Code of Conduct because we expect AI-related issues to be addressed through the Core Principles, alongside more detailed guidance where needed, just as we would any other ethical issue.Additionally, the development of AI tools, and tools to detect the use of AI, is changing so rapidly, we felt that specific references to AI would risk being outdated by the time it was published. Journals and publishers may also vary regarding their openness to AI uses by authors, reviewers, and themselves.In practice, AI considerations are relevant across several principles, including transparency, integrity, and accountability. Promoting the core principles within the Code of Conduct informs journals and publishers of a basis for making decisions about AI in a rapidly changing landscape.

It may be worth noting that COPE is involved in a number of collaborative projects on AI and we have also appointed Tim Kersjes to the new role of COPE Vice Chair for AI and External Liaisons, specifically to lead COPE forward with discussions on the support needed to help guide members where there are AI issues.

For many in academia and publishing, there’s a certain tension between the need for transparency when dealing with misconduct and the need for reasonable privacy and discretion (particularly when accusations have not yet been verified). The COPE frameworks address in several places the need for transparency; beyond upholding “principles of confidentiality in the publishing process” itself, what can COPE say about how best to balance the need for reasonable privacy and discretion in the context of real or perceived misconduct?

COPE guidance regarding retractions and corrections states the following:

“When editors have credible grounds to suspect misconduct, this should be brought to the attention of the authors’ institutions as early as possible, but the decision to correct or retract an article should be made by the editor and does not necessarily depend on the outcome of an institutional investigation. The editor should not wait for the outcome of an institutional investigation to retract the article if they are confident that the article is unreliable.”

The evaluation of the credibility of the paper is the purview of the editors, and in some instances, the publishers. The determination of intention or culpability of authors when concerns about research are raised, is that of the institution.

The document goes on to describe what should be included in a post-publication notice:

“If the concerns about the article were raised by a third party, their name could be included in the retraction notice, if relevant, and with permission. If the concerns were raised by an institutional investigation, this information should be included in the retraction notice.”

There are existing laws, at least in the United States, that govern the institutional investigations of potential misconduct, including how and if information can be shared. Reasonably, institutions will only provide journal editors the information that is legally allowed, with directions regarding what the journal can publish.

The COPE principles and guidance support the journal’s transparent inclusion of this information in any post-publication notice.

I note that both the remit of the Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee and the Membership Terms and Conditions are under revision and new versions will soon be published. How significant will the changes be, in light of these new frameworks? Should members expect significantly different expectations to be put in place?

 The revised Membership Terms and Conditions and the updated remit of the Facilitation and Integrity subcommittee are likely to introduce important changes, but not necessarily a complete change in the standards themselves. The main shift is expected to be in how expectations are framed, explained, and upheld, with greater clarity and a more structured approach to accountability.

COPE is not a regulator, and it should be clear that the purpose of these changes is not to create a regulatory body, but to strengthen the consistency and credibility of membership standards. Members should therefore expect a more explicit connection between membership and compliance with the Code of Conduct for Members, together with a more robust process for review, and follow-up where concerns arise.

The details of the complaints process will depend on the final approved documents. However, the direction of travel is toward clearer expectations, stronger accountability, and more transparency about what membership requires and how it will be maintained.