Research Integrity Case Handling
Pubrica’s research integrity case handling service supports journal editors and publishers when a concern is raised about a submitted or published article. Our research integrity specialists handle each case to COPE process. We assess the allegation, draft the correspondence, recommend the appropriate notice with written reasoning and draft the notice. Correction, corrigendum, erratum, expression of concern and retraction are not interchangeable, and a notice that understates the problem is usually followed by a second, stronger notice later.
- Assessment before categorisation: we establish what is alleged, what the evidence shows and whether the conclusions are affected
- Category recommendation. We assess whether the finding reflects honest error or misconduct, because this determines which notice applies and what it must say
- Correspondence drafted for the editor, including the letter to authors, which is the part most likely to be answered badly under pressure
- Notice drafting: each notice states what was wrong, what is affected and who agreed, so that a second notice is not needed
- The record maintained: the version of record, the repository copies and the metadata all updated together
Allegation assessment and evidence reviewIncluded
Correspondence drafted for the editorIncluded
Category recommendation, arguedIncluded
Notice drafting and record updatesIncluded
Determining misconductThe institution’s
Concern → assessed → corresponded → categorised → notice
- Assessed before categorisation
- Evidence documented as it is gathered
- Category argued in writing
- Notice drafted to avoid a second notice
- Record updated everywhere it exists
Service Scope
Four Components of Every Research Integrity Case
Each case concerns one paper, and the evidence determines what the notice can state.
From the assessmentCategorising before investigating can lead journals to retract an article that needed a correction, or to correct one that needed a retraction.
From the recommendationIssue a correction.Recommend an expression of concern: the institutional investigation is ongoing, the raw data cannot be produced, and the conclusions cannot currently be relied on. A correction would understate it and a retraction would pre-empt the institution.
From the correspondenceNeutral, specific, evidenced and giving a defined window to respond. Accusatory language invites a defensive response and slows everything down.
From the noticeThe authors wish to correct an error in Figure 2.Figure 2 panels B and D were duplicated from a previous publication by the same group. The affected analysis is reported in section 3.2 and the conclusion regarding treatment effect is unchanged. Authors A and B agree; author C could not be contacted.
Samples are illustrative and anonymised. Hover any one of them to play it again.
Compliance and Standards
Research Integrity Standards and Guidelines
COPE sets the process. Your journal policy sets who decides what.
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
The flowcharts a journal follows when something is wrong, and the standards it is expected to operate to.
Correction and retraction notices (linking, metadata and versions)
How a notice is linked to the article, how the version of record is updated, and how repository and index copies are corrected.
ICMJE Recommendations (authorship and conduct)
Authorship criteria, editorial independence, peer review conduct and the declarations an article carries.
Quality management (cert. H3CR9TCU20251212INDQM10N)
How the work is run, recorded and released, and how confidentiality is maintained.
Responsible Use of AI
Our Approach to AI Use and Disclosure
AI tools support specific, checkable tasks. Editorial judgement, final wording and sign-off remain with Pubrica subject specialists.
Why we do not publish our own AI accuracy figures
Accuracy figures for AI tools are usually reported by the companies that sell them.
Pubrica therefore does not quote its own accuracy figures, as they would carry the same conflict of interest. Instead, we tell you which tool was used on your project, at which stage, and what a specialist changed afterwards.
Our Process
How Our Research Integrity Case Handling Process Works
Each case is handled carefully and documented in writing, because integrity cases are weakened by haste and by incomplete records.
Intake and preservation
The concern recorded, the evidence preserved as received, and the relevant versions of the article and its supplements secured before anything is discussed.
Assessment
What the evidence shows, which parts of the paper are affected, and whether the conclusions survive — documented as it is established rather than afterwards.
Correspondence
Authors contacted with specific, evidenced questions and a defined window; institutions engaged where the concern requires it.
Category, notice and record
The category recommended in writing with reasons, the notice drafted for the editor, and the version of record, repository copies and metadata updated together.
Our Experts
Your Research Integrity Team
Your project is handled by a named team that stays with it from scoping to delivery. Your project coordinator introduces each team member by name before work begins.
Reviews the scientific content for accuracy and confirms that each conclusion is supported by the evidence. Matched to your field rather than allocated from a rota.
Edits for clarity, grammar, structure and consistency while preserving the author voice and scientific meaning.
Checks the finished work independently against the agreed scope and the applicable checklist. Findings are logged and resolved before delivery.
Manages the timeline, keeps you informed at each stage and coordinates the team so that questions are answered and deadlines are met.
Packages
Research Integrity Packages
Cost depends on case complexity and the volume of evidence. Image and data cases take longer than authorship disputes.
Single case
Journals with a concern raised about a published article
Quoted per projectOn complexity and evidence volume
Delivery By scope
- ✓Intake and evidence preservation
- ✓Assessment against the published record
- ✓Correspondence drafted for the editor
- ✓Category recommended with written reasoning
- ✓Notice drafted
- ✓Record and metadata updates specified
Contact us early, because cases become harder once informal correspondence has taken place.
Service Scope Request a quoteStanding arrangement
Publishers handling cases regularly
Quoted per projectOn case volume
Delivery By arrangement
- ✓Cases handled to one documented process
- ✓Consistent categorisation across the portfolio
- ✓Notice templates and house language established
- ✓Policy and escalation routes documented
- ✓Editor training on early handling
Consistency across a portfolio is important, because resolving similar cases differently can itself attract criticism.
Service Scope Request a quoteSend an anonymised case summary and we will tell you, free of charge, which notice category we think applies and why.
FAQs
Frequently Asked Questions About Research Integrity Cases
If your question is not answered here, ask an expert — no quote required.
Correction where the record needs fixing and the conclusions stand. Expression of concern where there is credible doubt not yet resolved. Retraction where the findings are unreliable, whatever the cause.
The most common error is understating the problem, which tends to result in a stronger notice six months later. Two notices on one paper damage the record more than one.
No. Determining misconduct is for the authors’ institution, and a journal that concluded on it would be acting beyond its standing.
A journal decides what happens to the published record. That is a separate question and it can often be answered before an institutional process concludes.
COPE guidance covers this situation. The process continues with each attempt documented, and a notice can be issued stating that the authors did not respond or did not agree.
For this reason we draft the correspondence carefully and record every attempt, because evidence that the authors were properly contacted forms part of the case.
Concerns are handled confidentially while they are being assessed. The outcome is not confidential: if the published record is wrong, correcting it is the entire point.
Resolving cases privately and leaving the literature uncorrected damages a journal’s reputation when the issue later becomes known.
Related services
Related Academic Editorial Services
Integrity cases often arise from screening and conclude with changes to the published record.
1WHERE CONCERNS ARE FOUNDscreening
Forensic and quality auditIntegrity and documentation review. Plagiarism and AI screeningSimilarity and authorship screening.2JOURNAL OPERATIONSjournal operations
Editorial office servicesPeer review and journal operations. Compliance statement checkingEthics, funding, COI and data.3IF THE PROBLEM IS THE ANALYSISa specialist read
Statistical reviewMethods and analysis checked. BiostatisticsReanalysis where it is warranted.Request a Free Case Category Assessment
We will tell you, free of charge, which notice category we think applies and why.