When we heard about this retraction, we were forced to ask: Are there any articles left in Journal of Vibration & Control?
The publication was forced to retract 60 papers by the same author in July, after he was caught exploiting a technological loophole to review his own papers.
Now, papers on loading cargo ships has been felled by a much less tech-savvy method: Two authors submitted a paper to both Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems and the Journal of Vibration & Control, both of which accepted and published the paper.
The authors, Yousef M. Al-Sweiti and Dirk Soeffker, have now lost three papers in total. Here’s the joint notice from SAGE and Taylor & Francis (we’ve added links to relevant retractions):
We, the editors and publishers of Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems (Taylor & Francis) and Journal of Vibration & Control (SAGE) are retracting the following articles:
A. Cargo pendulation suppression of ship cranes with elastic booms, Authors: D. Soeffker, Y.M Al- Sweiti*, Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems, published by Taylor & Francis.Volume 13, Issue 6, 2007, pages 503–529 DOI: 10.1080/13873950701214424
B. Modelling and control of an elastic ship-mounted crane using variable-gain model-based controller, Yousef Al-Sweiti and Dirk Soeffker, Journal of Vibration and Control, published by SAGE.Volume 13, Issue 5, 2007, pages 657–685 DOI: 10.1177/1077546307074246
We are now aware that these articles contain sections that substantially overlap with each other and with the following published papers:
1. Yousef Al-Sweiti and Dirk Soeffker, ‘‘Modelling and control of an elastic ship-mounted crane using vari- able-gain model-based controller,’’ Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part K: Journal of Multi-body Dynamics, December 1, 2006; vol. 220, 4: pp. 239–255.
2. Yousef Al-Sweiti and Dirk Soeffker, ‘‘Planar cargo control of elastic ship cranes with the ‘‘Maryland Rigging’’ system,’’ Journal of Vibration and Control, March 2007, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 241–267.
It is noted that Article (1) has already been retracted by SAGE.
We have conducted a detailed investigation with regards to the originality of Articles A and B, and have consulted with each other on the appropriate course of action. Taylor & Francis and SAGE are in agreement that Articles (A) and (B) bear substantial overlap to each other and Article (2), particularly in the Mathematical Modeling and Observer and Controller Design sections.
The Publishers are thus retracting Articles A and B from publication in Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems and Journal of Vibration and Control.
The authors failed to cite, reference, or properly acknowledge their previous work nor properly identify or quote extracts from that work which subsequently appeared in, and appeared original to the articles (now retracted) in, Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems and Journal of Vibration and Control.
The authors were therefore in breach of the rules of submission for Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems and Journal of Vibration and Control, and of the warranties made to both Taylor & Francis and SAGE regarding originality. We note that the Editors of Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems and Journal of Vibration and Control published the now retracted articles in good faith.
Paper (A) has been cited twice, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, while (B) has been cited six times, and (2) has been cited once.
Here’s a statement from SAGE, whom we’ve found to respond quickly and helpfully to queries:
This retraction is a case of duplication, unrelated to the Journal of Vibration and Control multiple retractions in July.
In spring 2014, SAGE and Taylor & Francis became aware of two articles published in 2007 in the Journal of Vibration and Control(SAGE) and Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems (Taylor & Francis) which contained sections that substantially overlapped with each other. Following a detailed investigation, including correspondence with the authors, a joint decision was made by both publishers to retract the articles.
As outlined in the retraction statement, the authors failed to cite, reference, or properly acknowledge their previous work nor did they properly identify or quote extracts from that work which subsequently appeared in the retracted articles. The authors were therefore in breach of the rules of submission for Journal of Vibration and Control and Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems, and of the warranties made to both SAGE and Taylor & Francis regarding originality.
It is noted that the Editors of Journal of Vibration and Control and Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems published the now retracted articles in good faith. The duplicate articles were submitted to both publications at the same time, and then reviewed, accepted, and published simultaneously.
An online (temporary) retraction was initially issued alongside the Journal of Vibration and Control article and the retraction notice appeared in the earliest edition (September).
Soeffker was Al-Sweiti’s PhD advisor at the University of Duissberg-Essen, in Germany. Al-Sweiti is now at Palestine Polytechnic University. We’ve contacted the authors, and will update with any new information.
Hat tip: Rolf Degen
Linking to the Soeffker page, the “catch-phrase” that the university (Universität Duisburg-Essen) uses is somberly hilarious: “Open minded”. No one is doubting the decision of SAGE and T&F, but surely they have the responsibility of publically showing EXACTLY what text was identical in a text-by-text comparison in order for the decision to be fair, open, public and transparent? Increasingly, we are seeing decisions being made by publishers about apparent plagiarism without any public proof. That is outrageous. Publishers should be forced to release such reports so that the scientific community can judge whether this “textual overlap” was in fact serious, or considerable, or even valid, or not. Was any commercial software used? If yes, then why was this not declared by the publishers? It is equivalent to a COI is indeed commercial software was used, but not declared, much the same as when a scientist uses chemicals or equipment within a scientific paper, but then fails to declare the manufacturer and the product details. Is a publisher-derived statement meant to substitute hard-core evidence? I think not. More and more we are seeing such decisions being made by “secret” groups or “ethics teams” (e.g., Springer), or closed door “negotiations” between two publishers (this case). Is this collusion in the name of academic justice, or in the name of saving the publishers’ and journals’ reputations?