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

March 5, 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: BBC wins big by betting on chat app to deliver Ebola tips

Related Stories

BBC wins big by betting on chat app to deliver Ebola tips

September 27, 2015

The BBC won a prestigious Online News Association award for public service journalism Saturday for its use of the chat application WhatsApp to distribute information about Ebola in stricken areas during the 2014 outbreak.

What motivates 'Facebook stalking' after a romantic breakup?

September 23, 2015

Social networking makes it easy to monitor the status and activities of a former romantic partner, an often unhealthy use of social media known as interpersonal electronic surveillance (IES) or, more commonly, "Facebook stalking." ...

Recommended for you

The dark side of Nobel prizewinning research

October 4, 2015

Think of the Nobel prizes and you think of groundbreaking research bettering mankind, but the awards have also honoured some quite unhumanitarian inventions such as chemical weapons, DDT and lobotomies.

How much for that Nobel prize in the window?

October 3, 2015

No need to make peace in the Middle East, resolve one of science's great mysteries or pen a masterpiece: the easiest way to get yourself a Nobel prize may be to buy one.

Search for Egypt's Nefertiti gains new momentum (Update)

September 29, 2015

The search for ancient Egypt's Queen Nefertiti in an alleged hidden chamber in King Tut's tomb gained new momentum as Egypt's Antiquities Minister said Tuesday he is now more convinced a queen's tomb may lay hidden behind ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Jun 01, 2009
The plagiarism problem is not surprising, when existent -- because we know motivations, e.g:

But "who was not guilty" is a problem that is surprising, often -- even motivating conspiracy theories.

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.