Authors, journal editors respond to possible cases of plagiarism identified by UT Southwestern

Mar 05, 2009
Authors, journal editors respond to possible cases of plagiarism identified by UT Southwestern
Dr. Harold "Skip" Garner is a professor of biochemistry and internal medicine at UT Southwestern. Credit: UT Southwestern Medical Center

By bringing cases of potential plagiarism out into the open, researchers at UT Southwestern Medical Center have shed light on the peer-review process and scientific publication.

In the past two years, UT Southwestern researchers have used a computer-based text-searching tool they developed, called eTBLAST, to analyze millions of abstracts randomly selected from Medline, one of the largest databases of biomedical research articles. They turned up nearly 70,000 highly similar citations.

Their subsequent analysis of a small sampling of these, including human inspection of the articles in question, revealed 207 pairs of articles with signs of potential plagiarism.

Now, in a commentary appearing in the March 6 issue of Science, the UT Southwestern researchers outline the wide range of reactions they received when they followed up with both victims and perpetrators of possible misconduct, as well as responses from journal editors.

"Studying these reactions might help to illuminate the reasons for such misconduct and might provide a way for the scientific community to prevent such activity in the future," said Dr. Harold "Skip" Garner, professor of biochemistry and internal medicine at UT Southwestern and senior author of the Science article, which appears in the Policy Forum section of the journal.

Dr. Garner and his colleagues sent 162 sets of questionnaires to the authors of original articles and to the authors of highly similar articles published later. Surveys also were sent to the editors of each journal in which the similar papers appeared. They received a reply in 143 cases. All respondents were guaranteed anonymity.

"Although our goal was merely to solicit information, our questionnaire triggered 83 internal investigations by editors, 46 of which have led to retraction," Dr. Garner said.

On the other hand, Dr. Garner said, nearly half of the duplications brought to light have received no action. In addition, on 12 separate occasions, editors specifically indicated that cases involving their journal would not be reviewed.

This variation in feedback reveals a great deal about the attitudes and motivation of scientists around the globe, including why some journal editors do not pursue obvious cases of duplication, Dr. Garner and his colleagues note. They speculate that some editors may not want to deal with the added stress of conducting a thorough investigation, while others might feel it would bring bad publicity or reflect poorly on their journal's review process.

The Science article and supplemental material available on the journal's Web site also include excerpts from statements made by authors and editors. The comments reveal many perspectives in response to being presented with evidence of possible plagiarism.

For example, before receiving the questionnaire, 93 percent of the original authors were not aware of the duplicate's existence. The responses from duplicate authors were more varied, however. Of the 60 replies, 28 percent denied any wrongdoing; 35 percent admitted to having borrowed previously published material; and 22 percent were from co-authors claiming no involvement in the writing of the manuscript. An additional 17 percent said they were unaware their names appeared on the article in question.

Of the 174 journal editors who responded, 11 admitted they had never personally dealt with a potentially plagiarized manuscript and were unaware how to proceed.

"The majority of these editors showed deep concern and were open to any helpful suggestions or recommendations we could offer," said Dr. Garner, who is a faculty member in the Eugene McDermott Center for Human Growth and Development at UT Southwestern.

"Our objective is to make a significant impact on how scientific publications may be handled in the future," Dr. Garner said. "As it becomes more widely known that there are tools such as eTBLAST available, and that journal editors and others can use it to look at papers during the submission process, we hope to see the numbers of potentially unethical duplications diminish considerably."

Source: UT Southwestern Medical Center

Explore further: Explainer: How to solve a jewel heist (and why it takes so long)

Related Stories

Desirable defects

Apr 30, 2015

Introducing flaws into liquid crystals by inserting microspheres and then controlling them with electrical fields: that, in a nutshell, is the rationale behind a method that could be exploited for a new generation of advanced ...

A call to US educators: Learn from Canada

Apr 18, 2015

As states and the federal government in the U.S. continue to clash on the best ways to improve American education, Canada's Province of Ontario manages successful education reform initiatives that are equal parts cooperation ...

Recommended for you

Top UK scientists warn against EU exit

May 22, 2015

A group of leading British scientists including Nobel-winning geneticist Paul Nurse warned leaving the European Union could threaten research funding, in a letter published in The Times newspaper on Friday.

Publisher pushback puts open access in peril

May 21, 2015

Delegates at the The Higher Education Technology Agenda (THETA) conference on the Gold Coast last week heard from futurist Bryan Alexander about four possible scenarios for the future of knowledge. ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

zilqarneyn
not rated yet Jun 01, 2009
The plagiarism problem is not surprising, when existent -- because we know motivations, e.g:
http://www.mid80....ties.htm
http://www.mid80....ayan.htm

But "who was not guilty" is a problem that is surprising, often -- even motivating conspiracy theories.
http://www.geocit...racy.htm


A sentence in this article is again in that extra surprising category.
"22 percent were from co-authors claiming no involvement in the writing of the manuscript"

If so,
1) was there no new substance they contributed?
2) if none, were they not surprised when their name was in the list of a paper?




In this case, one might think a possibility that "The paper was similar to their common work at lab, thus they would not know when a co-worker plagiarized some other (similar field) lab's paper."

Then again, that assumes they do not know of what is published in their own field, or so? (Likewise, ignorant were the peer list who went through that manuscript?)




Alternatively, names might have been listable for little and/or indirect contributions. Thus people have no opinion why that "honor" was given to oneselves, in that author list. Thus, the problem of "who deserves credit for what" is not only about plagiarizing altogether from other people.

For referring to people's past contributions right, we might need to know who contributed what to what article. That is, a micro-level (intra-paper) network. (In the wiki style, that is the transactions history of the people.)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.