The 2013 article in the International Review of Law discusses how different Arab countries regulate intercepting telecommunications, and how to balance public safety with the right to privacy. According to the notice, it ripped off two other articles by author Nazzal Kisswani, published in 2011 and 2010. “Although it is not an exact copy of a previously published article, it contains parts of it,” the retraction explains.
Here’s the notice for “The “Right to Privacy” v. telecommunications interception and access: International regulations and implementations in the Arab Region”:
The article ‘The “Right to Privacy” v. telecommunications interception and access: International regulations and implementations in the Arab Region’ by Yaser Khalaileh and Nazzal Kisswani, published in International Review of Law (2013:10) is for the most part identical in theory and concept to two other articles by Nazzal Kisswani;
‘Telecommunications (interception and access) and its regulation in Arab countries’ (Int. J. Liability and Scientific Enquiry, Vol.4, No.1 (2011))  and ‘Telecommunications (interception and access) and its Regulation in Arab Countries’ (Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology Vol. 5, Issue 4 (2010)) 
The editorial board and publisher believe the paper belongs to the category of redundant publication. Redundant publications are also called repetitive publication and refer to the publication of copyrighted material that contains additional or new material. Thus, although it is not an exact copy of a previously published article, it contains parts of it.
Redundant publications are unethical and represent an infringement of copyright laws, poor utilization of resources including reviewers’ and editors’ time and journal pages, overemphasizing results, and future interference with meta-analyses. The most common motive behind these types of publications involves academic advancement by apparently increasing productivity. 
In addition, the editors and publisher wish to add a note of concern about the possible misuse of plagiarism detection software at the authoring stage of the 2013 paper.
Kisswani N. Telecommunications (interception and access) and its regulation in Arab countries, Int. J. Liability and Scientific Enquiry, Vol.4, No.1 (2011)
Kisswani N. Telecommunications (interception and access) and its Regulation in Arab Countries, Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology Vol. 5, Issue 4 (2010)
Benos DJ, Fabres J, Farmer J, et al. Ethics and scientific publication. Advan Physiol Edu 2005;29:59 –74
Castillo M. Editor’s Comment: On Redundant and Duplicate Articles. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2007;28(10):1841–1842.
Christopher Leonard, head of academic and journals publishing for the Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation, which puts out International Review of Law, explained the bit about plagiarism detection software:
We were concerned the manuscript had been submitted to Turnitin on more than one occasion to edit down it’s similarity and likelihood of being flagged up as plagiarised.
We’ve contacted corresponding author Yaser Khalaileh, and will update if we hear back. Editor in chief Jon Truby declined to comment.
Update 4/29/15 3:49 p.m. eastern: We’ve heard from EIC Jon Truby, who sent us this statement:
The International Review of Law always undertakes checks to ensure the originality of any article. In this case, the repetition remained undiscovered by the anti-plagiarism software until further checks following the article’s publication. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) independently verified the findings of the journal and its publishers following investigation and recommended retraction. We have now improved our processes to undertake additional preventive measures to detect plagiarised content at the first instance and have adopted best practices proposed by COPE. It is most disappointing that the authors involved belonged to the same academic institution as the journal’s funders.
Update 4/30/15 11:53 p.m. eastern: We heard from Karim Mohammed, an “independent external reviewer connected with the publishers,” who had reviewed this case. He told us:
Possible misuse of plagiarism detection software means that the authors were suspected of repeatedly entering their article through plagiarism detection software in order to sufficiently change the wording (though not the content) to minimize the percentage of potentially plagiarized text.
They went further by ensuring the previous articles were only found in journals requiring a subscription or purchase, so that most plagiarism detection software – or indeed people investigating this breach – would be unable to access the original versions.
It seems the authors knowingly went to significant efforts to hide their violations….The authors had claimed in their written defence that the reason why a virtually identical article was published in both 2010 in the IJLSE and in 2011 in the ICLT was because: “The first publisher, the IJLSE, has concluded an agreement with the second publisher, that is ICLT, to re-publish certain papers already in the IJLSE.” On verifying this claim with the journals, it was found to factually untrue.
Hat tip Rolf Degen
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.