A trio of researchers from the United States and China are in, um, hot water for inappropriately reusing figures that had appeared in previous publications about liquids.
The article, “Temporally resolved imaging on quenching and re-ignition of nanosecond underwater discharge,” appeared last year in AIP Advances, a title of the American Institute of Physics. The authors were Yong Yang, Young I. Cho and Alexander Fridman. Yang is from Huazhong University of Science and Technology, in Wuhan, and Cho and Fridman are at Drexel University, in Philadelphia.
Here’s the notice:
The authors wish to retract the article because several figures (Figure 2 and parts of Figure 3) were reproduced from two previously published papers without proper attribution:
- Andrey Starikovskiy, Yong Yang, Young I. Cho, Alexander Fridman. Nonequilibrium Plasma in Liquid Water – Dynamics of Generation and Quenching. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 20 (2011) 024003.
The authors recognize that these errors represent a serious omission that does not comply with the ethical standards of AIP Advances. They sincerely apologize for these errors and regret any inconvenience they may have caused.
The paper has yet to be cited, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Fridman directs Drexel’s Plasma’s Institute, and this isn’t the only case of suspect publishing we’ve seen from the center. Last October we wrote about a “possible breach of ethics” by Drexel plasma scientists in a confusing instance of duplicate publication.
Reblogged this on The Firewall.
I wonder if this Firewall blog has any original posts at all, however I do not feel like giving it a click
Should the Rules Apply to All?
The same story with Benach and Muntaner paper “Welfare state, labour market inequalities and health. In a global context: An integrated framework. SESPAS report 2010″, Gaceta Sanitaria 2010; 24(Suppl 1):56–61, Elsevier, however, still no retraction.
FYI, Coincidentally, Carme Borrell (Editor-in-Chief of Gaceta Sanitaria) has 23 co-publications with Joan Benach and 18 co-publications with Carles Muntaner.
Some facts:
Two identical figures appear without any attribution in multiple publications.
The only difference is that the names are paraphrased, although that the meaning is absolutely the same.
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;
and
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.
Can you find any similarity in the texts of these two publications?
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.
One more case with Benach and Muntaner paper “A Macro-level Model of Employment Relations and Health Inequalities” published in International Journal of Health Services Vol. 40, No. 2, 2010, p. 215-221, Editor-in-Chief Vicente Navarro (coincidentally their co-author in several publications).
Figure 1. “Theoretical framework of employment relations and health inequalities: a macro-level model” on p. 217 in the above mentioned paper in IJHS is identical to Figure 1. “Macro-theoretical framework of employment relations and health inequalities” on p. 31 from “Employment Conditions and Health Inequalities”, Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), 20 September 2007.
One more case with Benach and Muntaner paper “A Meso— and Micro-level Model of Employment Relations and Health Inequalities” published 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 in the above mentioned paper in IJHS is identical to Figure 2. “Micro-theoretical framework of employment conditions and health inequalities” on p. 32 from “Employment Conditions and Health Inequalities”, Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), 20 September 2007.
One more case with Benach and Muntaner paper “Employment Relations and Global Health: A Typological Study of World Labor Markets” published in IJHS Vol. 40, No. 2, 2010, p. 229-253.
Figure 1. “Model for the relationship between workers’ bargaining power, welfare state, employment relations, and health outcome” on p. 230 in the above mentioned paper in IJHS is identical to Figure 3. “The relationship between workers’ bargaining power, welfare state, employment relations, and health” on p. 38 from “Employment Conditions and Health Inequalities”, Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), 20 September 2007.
One more case with Benach and Muntaner paper “The Global Impact of Employment and Work on Health Inequalities: The Need for a New Policy Agenda”, essay No. vii in “Dilemmas in Globalization” published by Global Progressive Forum, March 2009.
Figure 1.” Theoretical model linking employment relations with health inequalities” on p.61 from the above mentioned paper in “Dilemmas in Globalization” is a combination of: Figure 1. “Macro-theoretical framework of employment relations and health inequalities” on p.31 from the Original WHO Report, September 2007; and Figure 2.” Micro-theoretical framework of employment conditions and health inequalities” on p.32 from the Original WHO Report, September 2007.
Is this misconduct?
Please, note that while Universitat Pompeu Fabra (the institution of Benach) has no Framework to deal with misconduct, the University of Toronto (the institution of Muntaner) points out in its “Framework to Address Allegations of Research Misconduct, November 2006” that “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”.
Copyright Irregularities:
Apart from all of the above, at present at least 3 parties claim simultaneously copyright on identical material:
1. WHO
2. Elsevier (Gaceta Sanitaria)
2. Baywood Publishing (IJHS)
Even for a lay person, this is an ABSURD!
Herewith I’m asking Elsevier and COPE:
1) Do you apply your policies/frameworks in all cases of misconduct/irregularities, or you do this very selectively, i.e. discriminate?
2) When you’ll act on the above mentioned major irregularities with Benach and Muntaner papers?
Reblogged this on lab ant and commented:
It seems to me that the authors have “just reused” some figures from their earlier publication because but apparently without asking Andrey Starikovskiy. Im wondering about stuff like that. I think one could certainly invest the time to make their own figures this makes me a bit suspicious if that was the true reason for the retraction.