Archive for the ‘plagiarism’ Category
The European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging has an interesting exchange of retraction-related notices in its pages.
The article, “Neuroradiological advances detect abnormal neuroanatomy underlying neuropsychological impairments: the power of PET imaging,” appeared in 2011 and was written by Benjamin Hayempour and Abass Alavi, one of the pioneers in PET imaging.
According to the retraction notice:
This article has been withdrawn at the request of the Editor-in-Chief of European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging owing to the unexplained close similarity of some passages to parts of a previous publication [Rushing SE, Langleben DD. Relative function: Nuclear brain imaging in United States courts. J Psychiatry Law 2011; 39 (winter): 567–93].
Read the rest of this entry »
The other day, we nominated a phrase in a retraction notice for the prize “of most-extra-syllables-used-to-say-the-word-plagiarism” because a journal decided to call the act “inclusion of significant passages of unattributed material from other authors.”
That lovely phrase can now be added to our list of best euphemisms for plagiarism, which we highlight in our most recent column for LabTimes. There, you’ll find such gems as “unattributed overlap,” “a significant originality issue,” an “approach,” and an “administrative error.”
As we write: Read the rest of this entry »
The first notice is one we missed when it came out in 2012 in the British Journal of Educational Technology. The article, “Learning in troubleshooting of automotive braking system: a project-based teamwork approach,” was written by Janus Liang, of the Yung-Ta Institute of Technology and Commerce in Taiwan. It has yet to be cited, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
The journal Applied Surface Science (okay, so maybe it’s not called ASS at the home office) is retracting a pair of articles in its December issue.
The first, “Structure and mechanical properties of Ni–P electrodeposited coatings,” appeared in 2009 and was written by a group of researchers in Beijing. It has been cited nine times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Its problem: Plagiarism. According to the retraction notice: Read the rest of this entry »
If you’ve come across a case of plagiarism and want to report it to the proper authorities, a new article in the journal Ethics & Behavior would be a good place to start.
Mark Fox, a professor of management and entrepreneurship at Indiana University, and Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver, known for Beall’s List of questionable publishers, teamed up for the article. As they write in their abstract: Read the rest of this entry »
The Retraction Watch archives are full of dubious distinctions — most retractions by a single researcher, longest time between publication and retraction, etc. — but now we have a competition for another: “The three most plagiarized papers.”
That new category comes to us courtesy of a retraction notice in The Scientific World Journal, “Recent Advances in DENV Receptors,” by a group of researchers in China. Here’s the new notice: Read the rest of this entry »
PNAS has a curious correction in a recent issue. A group from Toronto and Mount Sinai in New York, it seems, had been rather too liberal in their use of text from a previously published paper by another researcher — what we might call plagiarism, in a less charitable mood.
To paraphrase Beyoncé: If you like it, better put some quotation marks around it. But we’re pretty sure she meant before, not after, the fact.
The article, “Structural basis for substrate specificity and catalysis of human histone acetyltransferase 1,” had appeared in May 2012, in other words, some 17 months ago. It has been cited twice, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
A group of scientists from Uttar Pradesh, India, who study forensic bioinformatics have had a paper retracted for something that can generally be detected with a specialized form of forensic software: Plagiarism.
Here’s the notice for Kumar Ajay, Singh Neetu, Gaurav S.S. “Forensic Bioinformatics: An innovative technological advancement in the field of Forensic Medicine and Diagnosis,” signed by O.A. Sofola, editor-in-chief: Read the rest of this entry »