The Journal of Systems Architecture has retracted a 2010 article by a group of researchers in China who tried to publish their work twice.
The paper first appeared in July 2010 in the Journal of Software under the title, “Description and Verification of Dynamic Software Architectures for Distributed Systems.” At the time, it had three authors — Xu Hongzhen, Zeng Guosun and Bo Chen.
But Xu and Zeng evidently resubmitted the paper to the Journal of Systems Architecture, which published its version, “Specification and verification of dynamic evolution of software architectures,” in October 2010.
As the notice explains:
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief.
This paper has been withdrawn as it became apparent that a second, virtually identical article was published at about the same time in Journal of Software. The two papers had very similar content, addressing the same problem with similar techniques. Following a detailed investigation, with the support of the authors, the differences in the text and the techniques used were considered too minor.
Off topic, but Bent Flyvbjerg – a big shot in the social sciences – had an article retracted on the grounds that it was a virtual duplicate of a paper he’d already published (with co-authors).
There’s been no press or blog coverage of this, which puzzled me a little.
Retraction at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01441647.2012.664813#tabModule
Retracted article:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01441640500124779
Erratum to: Lu J-H, Tan J-Q, Durairajan SSK, Liu L-F, Zhang Z-H, Ma L, et al. Isorhynchophylline, a natural alkaloid, promotes the degradation of α-synuclein in neuronal cells via inducing autophagy. Autophagy 2012; 8:98-108.
Lu JH, Tan JQ, Durairajan SS, Liu LF, Zhang ZH, Ma L, Shen HM, Chan HY, Li M.
Autophagy. 2012 May 1;8(5):864-6. Epub 2012 May 1
No coverage of this one too- Strange erratum, they did whole study with different compound.
And this retraction!
Cell Death Differ. 2009 Feb;16(2):264-77. Epub 2008 Oct 31. Retraction in: Cell Death Differ. 2010 Dec;17(12):1944.
To the attention of COPE, Elsevier and Gaceta Sanitaria:
The paper “Welfare state, labour market inequalities and health. In a global context: An integrated framework. SESPAS report 2010” published in Gaceta Sanitaria 2010; 24(Suppl 1):56–61 contains two figures (the core of the paper) which appear in earlier publication of the same authors, however, without any reference to the earlier publication entitled “Employment Conditions and Health Inequalities”, Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), 20 September 2007, available here: http://www.who.int/social_determinants/resources/articles/emconet_who_report.pdf
The figures in both publications are identical. The only difference is that they (the figures) have different names, although that the meaning is the same (i.e. the names are paraphrased).
Fig. 1. Macro-level framework and policy entry points on p. 57 from the above mentioned paper in Gaceta Sanitaria is identical to Figure 13. Policy entry points in the macro-theoretical framework on p. 109 from “Employment Conditions and Health Inequalities”, Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), 20 September 2007;
Fig. 2. Micro-level framework and policy entry points on p. 58 from the above mentioned paper in Gaceta Sanitaria is identical to Figure 14. Policy entry points in the micro-theoretical framework on p. 109 from “Employment Conditions and Health Inequalities”, Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), 20 September 2007.
Apart from the identical figures, there are striking similarities in the texts of these two publications.
Compare:
WHO Report, 2007:
Figure 2 provides a micro conceptual framework from which we can assess the potential links between employment conditions and health inequalities through a number of behavioural, psychosocial, and physiopathological pathways. Potential exposures and risk factors are classified into four main categories: physical, chemical, ergonomic, and psychosocial. axes such as social class, gender, or ethnicity/race are key relational mechanisms that explain why workers will be exposed differently to risk. the key axes generating work-related health inequalities can influence disease even though the profile of risk factors may vary dramatically. Material deprivation and economic inequalities, exposures which are closely related to employment conditions (e.g., nutrition, poverty, housing, income, etc.), may also have an important effect on chronic diseases and mental health.
Gaceta Sanitaria, 2010:
The “Micro Conceptual Framework” (fig. 2) identifies the links between employment conditions and health inequalities with reference to three different pathways: behavioural, psychosocial, and physio-pathological. Potential exposures and risk factors are classified into four main categories which are physical, chemical, ergonomic, and psychosocial. The specific mechanisms of stratification according to (for example) class, gender, and ethnicity/race explain how workers are exposed to risk in different ways. The axes generating work-related health inequalities can influence disease even though the profile of risk factors may vary dramatically. Exposure to material deprivation and economic inequalities, which are closely related to employment conditions (e.g., nutrition, poverty, housing, income, etc.), have important effects not only on acute conditions but also on chronic diseases and mental health.
Then, the very same figures appear once again in 2011 WHO publication http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241503037_eng.pdf (p.165-195), once again with different titles and with absolutely no attribution to the earlier publications in Gaceta Sanitaria 2010, or WHO 2007.
COPE, Elsevier and Gaceta Sanitaria, please, take a good look at the above and Do-the-Right-Thing!
I don’t really see the problem, YKBOA. The 2007 paper is report – not a peer reviewed publication. It doesn’t see much different than a conference paper or a report for an evaluation.
Sagit, there is a problem but (to my mind) not a very serious one. It is definitely correct to cite earlier work, even by the same authors, in which a figure or substantially similar one has appeared. The captions should say “… adapted from (authors, date)” and the previous report should be in the reference list. There is however no problem in making a peer-reviewed paper out of what was a non-peer reviewed, non-journal report (or, as you say, conference paper). For the 2011 WHO publication, I doubt the original authors had any say about it, the WHO’s contractees did indeed make a mistake, they should cite the source of all figures and information.
Yes, that makes sense, D.G. Rossiter. The authors should have cited their earlier public work, and in turn, the 2011 publication should have cited the published paper.
The missing attribution for the figures is clear contravention to:
(i) ORI Guidelines for Avoiding Plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism, and Questionable Writing Practices http://ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-0; and also to
(ii) COPE Guidelines.
But, who cares, right?
There is another dimension to the story.
The same figures appear also in other publications of these authors, this time in peer reviewed journal:
See “A Macro-level Model of Employment Relations and Health Inequalities” in International Journal of Health Services (IJHS) Vol. 40, No. 2, 2010, p. 215-221
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of employment relations and health inequalities: a macro-level model on p. 217
See “A Meso— and Micro-level Model of Employment Relations and Health Inequalities” in IJHS Vol. 40, No. 2, 2010, p. 223-227.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of employment relations and health inequalities: a micro-level model on p.225
Should you have missed something, the figures are always the same, they always appear with different titles (is this an honest mistake or intentional deception?), and always there is absolutely no attribution.
In an email to me the Vice Rector for Faculty Affairs at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra (institution of one of the authors) openly admits that “Figures 1 and 2 do not explicitly refer to the document“ and that “the original report is not directly cited”.
Interestingly enough, the University of Toronto (institution of one of the authors) has Framework for dealing with misconduct, which states: “Specifically, the following acts generally are considered instances of Research Misconduct: 4.1 m) Misleading publication, for example:
9. Portraying one’s own work as original or novel without acknowledgement of prior publication”.
See here: http://www.research.utoronto.ca/ethics/pdf/conduct/framework.pdf
So, Do we have a problem, Houston?