SpringerPlus has retracted a 2012 paper by a pair of Saudi mathematicians who lifted text and figures from previously published articles.
The paper, “On soft expert topological spaces,” appeared in October 2012. According to the retraction notice:
After publication of article [1], we became aware of the fact that sections of this article were taken verbatim without quotation from [2] and [3] listed below. In addition, ‘example 2’ and ‘algorithm 4.1’ as presented in this article are identical to ‘example 3.3’ from [3] and ‘algorithm 4.1’ from [2]. In light of these problems and in consultation with the journal’s Section Editor for Mathematics we have decided to retract this article from SpringerPlus.
The references are
1. Hussain S (2012) On soft expert topological spaces. SpringerPlus 1:42
2. Alkhazaleh S, Salleh AR (2011) Soft Expert Sets. Adv Decis Sci 2011
3. Shabir M, Naz M (2011) On soft topological spaces. Comput Math Appl 61(7):1786-1799
This seems fairly straightforward, although we’re amused by the construction of the notice. Who, exactly, is “we” here? The authors? The journal’s editorial staff?
Is there such a thing a lazy plagiarism?
Probably just weak knowledge of English as language. Since “we” conferred with the section editor for mathematics, “you” (the reader) are supposed to assume that “we” begins with the first editor. Did anyone sign this statement? What’s their first language(s)?
Yet another example of Doing_the_Right_Thing.
Well done!
However, could somebody explain, please,
Why editors, publishers and institutions are so-o-o-o-o swift for retractions of authors from China, Iran and/or Saudi Arabia, but do absolutely nothing (except active cover up) when plagiarists are from the University of Toronto, for example?
See my comment here http://www.retractionwatch.com/2013/04/09/plagiarism-of-textbooks-encyclopedia-leads-to-physics-retraction/
and here http://www.retractionwatch.com/2013/03/25/seals-of-disapproval-as-pinniped-paper-gets-yanked-for-plagiarism/