Identity, which bills itself as “An International Journal of Theory and Research,” has retracted a 2013 article by an Italian researcher who stole the work from another author, then published it twice.
The paper, “Behind the mask: A typology of men cruising for same-sex act,” was ostensibly written by Stefano Ramello, an “independent researcher explores the interactions between space, erotic practices, identity, gender and sexuality.” But as the retraction notice explains, Ramello appears simply to have thrown his own name on top of an earlier paper.
We, the Editors and Publishers of Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, are retracting the following article:Ramello, S. (2013). Behind the mask: A typology of men cruising for same-sex acts. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 13:1, 73–94. DOI: 10.1080/15283488.2012.747436
Upon a thorough investigation, it has been determined that this article is substantially similar to that of a previously published article in The Journal of Higher Education:Dilley, P. (2005). Which way out? A typology of non-heterosexual male collegiate identities. The Journal of Higher Education, 76:1, 56–88. DOI: 10.1353/jhe.2005.0004
Among the points of similarity were quoted statements from interviews with research respondents. The nationality of these respondents was misrepresented in the Ramello article.
We are also cognizant of an extended and substantially similar version of this article which was concurrently submitted to, and published in, Psychological Studies:
Ramello, S. (2012). Discovering multiple identities among Italian non-heterosexual men in a cruising context. Psychological Studies, 57:4, 376–387. DOI: 10.1007/s12646-012-0160-z
These actions constitute a breach of warranties made by the author with respect to originality. We note we received, peer-reviewed, accepted, and published the article in good faith based on these warranties, and censure these actions.
The retracted article will remain online to maintain the scholarly record, but it will be digitally watermarked on each page as RETRACTED.
The paper in Psychological Studies has not been retracted but will be soon, according to its editor, Girishwar Misra.
Meanwhile, P. Dilley is Patrick Dilley, an education and gender/sexuality studies researcher at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. Dilley told us he was contacted on May 31st by an editor at Springer, who told him that a reader had alerted the publisher to potential problems with one of Ramello’s papers.
I printed it out and took it with me to lunch. I was thinking, ‘It’s really not on the same topic.’ But then I got to the methods section.
The first “coincidence” Dilley noticed was that the number of subjects in the study — 57 — was identical to the number of respondents in his doctoral dissertation. Then he saw that the typology Romello had used was identical to Dilley’s own system, one that is no longer used much in the field.
It had one word changed and I thought, ‘Damn! This is mine. There’s no doubt about it. This is mine.
Romello (whom the editor had not identified by name) had cited Dilley, but listed as a reference the book based on his dissertation, not a 2005 article that followed.
Dilley said he decided to look at other publications by Romello and, for the ones in English, at least, he found the same wanton lifting of text.
At least three or four things I know he has published are based on my work. On the one hand, somebody read it and liked it enough to use it! But he used it poorly.”
Hat tip: Rolf Degen
Reblogged this on The Firewall.
Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery…
…unless it’s embarrassingly bad.
Hi. I wonder how the original paper has been plagiarized if the Ramello paper was “really not on the same topic”.
Well, Mr Dilley says one more thing there: “But then I got to the methods section”. It is indeed plagiarism. The retracted article cites the same textbook edition, even though two more recent editions were published since Mr Dilley’s publication. Sometimes the wording has been changed (not that it changes anything), but large parts have been copied verbatim, including punctuation.
Thank you for the information. As I don’t have access to the papers I just want to understand. So it’s the methodology part plagiarized. But I can’t understand how it works if at least the book was cited. I did not follow the argument about the different editions of the books.
Why the second paper has not yet been retracted?
Hi. Patrick Dilley here. Editors at Springer and Taylor&Francis are aware of the situation, and the others will be similarly retracted. In response to an earlier question, not only was the methods section the same, he had also used,mad his own, the definition (or operationalization) of identity, as well as the typology (both terminology and explanation) without attribution. The typology was outlined in the 2005 article, as well as in my book, which he cited. He has emailed to apologize, saying he only wanted to bring insight to gay lives in Italy. I might feel the apology more sincere had he not based his entire academic career on my work.
Sorry: that should read: “he had also used, as his own, my definition (or operationalization) of identity.” That’s what I get for typing on an iPad.
Ramello also published an article that was later retracted for plagiarism from the Journal of Aging Studies
Volume 27, Issue 2, April 2013, Pages 121–134. (“Same sex acts involving older men. An ethnographic study”). See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890406512000941