Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology (CREST) has retracted a paper on biofuels for “improper citation methods.”
Given the journal’s track record, we’re guessing this is just another euphemism for plagiarism. (Also because the retraction notice flags a “breach of warranties made by the authors with respect to originality.”) In 2013, CREST retracted two papers for failing to use “proper citation,” which earned it top billing in our Lab Times column about publishers’ seemingly allergic reactions to the P-word.
Here’s some of the notice for “Promising Unconventional Pretreatments for Lignocellulosic Biomass”, which described new ways to process plant biomaterials into fuel:
We, the Editor and Publisher of Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, are retracting the following article:
Zumar M. A. Bundhoo, Ackmez Mudhoo, and Romeela Mohee, “Promising Unconventional Pretreatments for Lignocellulosic Biomass” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 43.20 (2013): 2140–2211, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2012.672070
This article has been retracted, as per the request of its authors, due to improper citation methods.
This action constitutes a breach of warranties made by the authors with respect to originality.
A member of the journal’s editorial board gave us an email address for the editor in chief, Terry Logan, who apparently lives in Sarasota, Florida, and publishes novels on Amazon. We contacted him, as well as a Taylor and Francis rep and the corresponding author, and will update if we hear back.
Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.
I think it is about time for the Retraction watch to start collecting euphemisms for plagiarism to publish a handy guide for journal’s editors in the end of the year.
CREST may not like the”P Word” but it does seem to have a plagiarism problem!
Or in some cases a duplicate publication problem. Take the following paper in CREST: “Effect of Elevated CO2 on Wheat Crop: Mechanism and Impact” by S.K. Dubey, S.K. Tripathi & G Pranuthi. This was published on 20th January 2015.
Abstract:
In this manuscript, an effort has been made to analyze the 19 research studies with 82 experiments being conducted in 9 countries of the world. Selected studies based on growth, yield and yield components of Wheat (Tritium aestivum L.) crop under various CO2 levels. Only the recently published real research studies (excluding models and mathematical tools based research) were considered in the study. More than 90 percent of research findings proved that elevated CO2 have positive impact on growth, yield and its components. Majority of the observations confirm that the elevated CO2 improved the yield of crop due to significant increase in growth and growth parameters like leaf area index, plant height, leaf area duration etc. No doubt elevated CO2 have positive impact on various growth and yield parameters but when we consider the impact of climate change (elevated temperature, drought, and increasing concentration of anthropogenic gases like CO, CH4 etc.) the response of CO2 will become negative. Even though elevated levels of CO2 has potential to compensate the impact of other changes in climate and may create a path in future to meet the demand of burgeoning world population.
But compare it to the paper “Impact of Elevated CO2 on Growth and Yield of Wheat Crop: A Review“, by the same authors, published in the International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology on the 29 September, 2014 (PDF).
Abstract:
In this manuscript, 19 research studies with 79 experiments from 9 countries of the world based on growth, yield and their components of Wheat (Tritium aestivum L.), under various CO2 levels was analyzed. Only the recently published research studies (excluding models and mathematical tools based research) were considered in the study. Most of the selected experiment confirmed that elevated CO2 have positive impact on growth, yield and its components. Majority of the observations confirm that the elevated CO2 improved the growth & development processes as well as the yield & yield attributes of Wheat crop. No doubt elevated CO2 have positive impact on various growth and yield parameters but when we consider the impact of climate change (elevated temperature, drought, and increasing concentration of anthropogenic gases like SO2, CO, CH4 etc.) the response of CO2 will become negative. Even though elevated levels of CO2 has potential to compensate the impact of other changes in climate and may create a path in future to meet the demand of burgeoning world population.
The two papers have a great deal of overlap to say the least!
The other reviews and book chapters by the last two authors shoud be examined very carefully.
“This article has been retracted, as per the request of its authors, due to improper citation methods”
In another case, the same authors denied any claims of plagiarisms: http://www.lexpress.mu/article/allegations-de-plagiat-romeela-mohee-se-defend
Still, it is quite interesting and informative of why this stuff happens.
In the newsaper article the last author on the retracted paper is cited as claiming there are rules in all universities of the world that you can copy up to 300 words of others.
In the original French: “Ces pratiques sont communes à tous les universitaires du monde. Nous sommes autorisés à inclure des extraits contenant jusqu’à 300 mots.”
Also a quite telling quote: “Les extraits ont été référencés à deux reprises dans le rapport. Et dans une conclusion, il n’y a pas lieu de référencer:”
That is, Mohee says the two extracts were referenced in two places in the report and that in a conclusion you do not cite.