In September 2018, I wrote to the managing editor of FEBS Letters with my concerns about the extensive textual overlap between a 2011 article by Sonia A. Melo and Manel Esteller and other articles, including some that were not cited, such as a 2009 article in the Annual Review of Pathology by Yong Sun Lee and Anindya Dutta.
The Melo and Esteller article has received considerable attention, and has been cited more than 375 times.
My initial efforts were met with a response that the iThenticate software they used only identified overlap with the published Melo and Esteller article. I then had to guide the editor in the proper use of the program – including searching for partial overlap – that would lead to the finding of a 29% overlap with Lee and Dutta.
On October 4, 2018, after seeing the results, the journal said they would look into the matter.
In April 2019 I asked for an update. There was no answer.
I asked again in May 2021. I received a response the following month thanking me for the reminder and saying they were reexamining the issue.
Then, on July 26, a Corrigendum was finally published:
In the final version of the review, the authors inadvertently left uncited several sentences used in early versions of the manuscript that were supposed to be only used as reference points to be particularly developed by the authors in the writing process with the proper citation. These wordings should have given full attribution to the excellent review written by Lee and Dutta [[1]]. The authors sincerely apologize for the unintentional mistake that does not affect the scientific content of the review.
That was wholly inadequate and misleading.
It was not “several sentences” that were copied from the uncited article by Lee and Dutta. The overlap spanned the second half of Section 4, half of Section 5, the beginning and end of Section 6, almost all of Section 7, the beginning of Section 9, most of Section 10, and much of Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Furthermore, a large proportion of the rest of the article was copied from other sources – none of which are mentioned in the corrigendum. The duplication also includes the abstracts of original research articles–a practice I have criticized.
The “scientific content of the review” is not the issue. The facts that Melo and Esteller were not the originators of the majority of the text and that the journal allowed them to cover up that reality with prevarications are the problem.
I sent my concerns about the Corrigendum to the journal. I received the following response from the new Editor-in-Chief, Michael Brunner:
Thank you for your email. We went through this case again, and discussed whether we may have made the wrong decision. We did follow the COPE guidelines step by step and used several case studies for further information. This process confirmed that an article should be retracted when it is misleading for the reader, either because the information within is incorrect, or when an author induces the reader to think that the data presented is his own. As this is a Review, copied from other Reviews, the information within does not per se mislead the reader, as the primary literature is still properly cited. We agree that this Review was not written in a desirable way, and that the authors plagiarised a large amount of text, but according to the guidelines the literature must be considered from the point of view of the reader, and retractions should not be used as a tool to punish authors. We therefore concluded that a corrigendum was the best way forward. Hence, we confirm our decision on this case.
Thank you again for flagging this case in the first place, which allowed us to correct the record and gain deeper insights into publishing ethics, even though this led to a solution we do not necessarily like.
There is, as they say, a lot to unpack here. First, Dr. Brunner should be highly commended for his willingness to engage and explain the processes of the journal.
Nevertheless, the logic of his message is troubling. The authors engaged in what is defined by COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics) as “Major Plagiarism” for which the prescribed action is retraction of the published article and contacting the institution of the authors.
And yet the journal did not retract.
Dr. Brunner states “the authors plagiarised a large amount of text,” and yet, “We therefore concluded that a corrigendum was the best way forward.” I can’t understand why.
This was not the only paper of Melo’s that demonstrated significant overlap with the Lee and Dutta review. In a 2012 paper, there is overlap between the last paragraph of each of the “Background” and “Therapies that restore tumor-suppressive miRNA function” sections as well as the entire “Off-target effects” section of Melo and Kalluri with Lee and Dutta. Lee and Dutta is not cited. I notified the editor of Clinical Cancer Research about this problem in October 2018, but nothing has happened to the article.
I understand that a journal editor would only be interested in evaluating the evidence concerning the individual article being considered. But as I have noted elsewhere, “Individuals engaged in one form of unacceptable behavior frequently display others.” It is not uncommon for authors of articles where there is evidence of plagiarism to also be authors of multiple articles that display image or data manipulation.
There are even numerous examples of an article exhibiting both plagiarism and image manipulation. I note that the first author of the reviews under consideration (Melo) has been featured in articles on Retraction Watch and elsewhere. Despite being made aware of this evidence, the editor did not apparently consider it in his decision.
Uncovering and seeking measures against articles or books that display substantive plagiarism is not a highly rewarding endeavor. It is an undertaking, however, to which I have devoted some effort. I am not alone in this enterprise; see, for example, a book by Michael Dougherty, one of the real leaders in the field.
By not taking firm action on articles that contain plagiarized text, editors are encouraging misconduct. Scientists can always increase their productivity if they don’t actually have to write the words of their articles. Those researchers who follow the rules are left at a competitive disadvantage. Also, editors are rewarding those who violate scientific norms and are likely to be involved in other forms of unacceptable behavior. Plagiarism should not be regarded as venial.
David A. Sanders is an associate professor of biological sciences at Purdue University.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
I’m intrigued by this part of Brunner’s response “an article should be retracted when it is misleading for the reader, either because the information within is incorrect, or when an author induces the reader to think that the data presented is his own.”
Aside from the antiquated pronoun usage, plagiarism fits perfectly under the umbrella of “inducing the reader to think data are their own”. By COPE and Brunner’s own reasoning, they should retract.
This pronoun usage is used all the time. Even today. Just look at a query for recent articles for the common phrase “to each his own”:
https://news.google.com/search?q=%22to%20each%20his%20own%22&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
Why do you think it is sensible to describe it as ‘antiquated’?
“Why do you think it is sensible to describe it as ‘antiquated’?”
Using a masculine pronoun (like “his”) to refer to some unspecified person, who could be male or female, has been outdated for a while. Typically, in formal speech, either a clunky “he/she” or “his/her” has been used in such a context, or the language has been rephrased so that plurals such as “they” or “them” can be used. In less formal speech, a singular “they” is often used, e.g. “Someone left their coat here” or “to each their own”. Indeed, that usage of the singular “they” long precedes its usage as a pronoun for those who identify as no non-binary.
It looks like their position is that a review article doesn’t involve any original data, so the issue of misrepresentation of ownership is moot.
That is a disgrace. The Editorial Board of FEBS should be hounded mercilessly for dereliction of duty.
Have the plagiarized authors weighed in? Plagiarism is not victimless!
I fully agree with Paul Brooks’ points. Moreover, the views of the new editor in chief do not appear to me to be consistent with the language of the corrigendum, which as it currently stands, misleads the reader about the true extent of the authors’ transgressions. If the article will not be retracted, shouldn’t the corrigendum be clarified for purposes of truly ‘correcting the record’?
And, I fully agree with Sander’s position: “By not taking firm action on articles that contain plagiarized text, editors are encouraging misconduct”.
Corrigenda are unintentional errors, typically in printed materials. If it’s plagiarism you’re concerned with, then you ought to simply use the word “plagarism”.
Robert, surely you realize that plagiarism can also be unintentional, and rightly or wrongly, it seems that that is the way the editor has interpreted the authors’ transgressions. However, as currently written and by the editor’s own words, the corrigendum vastly understates the extent of the plagiarism and it is, therefore, misleading to the reader. If “… an article should be retracted when it is misleading for the reader …”, perhaps so should a corrigendum so that it may be replaced with a more transparent version.
Miguel, I disagree that plagiarism can be unintentional, especially at this magnitude! You know when you are using CTRL+C and CTRL+V, and if you planned to “rewrite” the passage and got interrupted, then it is still plagiarism! Rewriting a passage does not make it yours. Why should this author get credit for a publication that is essentially the hard work of other researchers?
Hi Debora, in my comment to Robert I was referring to plagiarism in its broader spectrum and had cryptomnesia in mind. I agree with you that it is a far stretch to consider this particular case as unintentional. However, I do believe that it is entirely possible to copy-paste segments of text with the intent to change it, but forget to do so. Of course, such instances are still plagiarism, but as Steven St. John eloquently points out below, whether intentional or unintentional is largely irrelevant at the professional level.
I don’t know the applicable laws in Spain, where the authors reside, but plagiarism is one of the 3 types of research misconduct officially codified by the ORI in the US: https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct
If this work were funded by US federal $s, the authors would have to be investigated by their institution, and potentially referred to ORI. Now, the editor-in-chief of this journal is in Germany. However, already 2 decades ago, Germany also codified plagiarism as research misconduct: https://www.science.org/content/article/germany-adopt-misconduct-rules
And surely everyone is well familiar with the number of German theses **retracted** (not “corrected”) due to plagiarism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VroniPlag_Wiki#Current_cases
So, the editor-in-chief’s comments appear even more strange in this context.
I would agree with Paul Brookes’ take on the subject also. Perhaps the Advisory Board of FEBS Letters should think about another EIC etc… Reviews present new points of view from a look at the literature – they have news ideas. Plagiarising text from these is taking the ideas of others & misrepresenting them as those of someone else. This is scientific misconduct & should be seen as such as an editorial level. Retraction is the solution here IMHO. The journal has not done its reputation any good by the soft stance it has taken here.
I have an idea that RW editors may or may not found useful.
Why not formally ask COPE about their opinion on this specific case and update this post if they provide one?
At least in the US (I don’t know about elsewhere), all writing is automatically copyrighted once it is written (even without registration.) Does anyone know if copyright has been used as a legal stick to prompt journals to do the right thing? If “the authors plagiarised a large amount of text” (and then presumably transferred the copyright to the journal), could the original authors seek a retraction as part of a copyright violation claim? Actually pursuing a case would likely be too costly, but the threat and hypothetical costs to the journal could be substantial enough to prompt a retraction. (Of course, this assumes that the original author or current copyright holder of the original article is willing to make the threat.)
I’d love to see a museum owning a forged painting to try a parallel rationale: “according to the guidelines the [art] must be considered from the point of view of the reader, and retractions should not be used as a tool to punish [the art forger].”
“I’d love to see a museum owning a forged painting to try a parallel rationale: “according to the guidelines the [art] must be considered from the point of view of the reader, and retractions should not be used as a tool to punish [the art forger].”
Well said.
Eric, I have spoken to people responsible for academic integrity at a number of publications. The publishers are aware that they could potentially sue, but they are afraid (and I am sure rightly so) that they themselvs have plagiarisms, and so everyone “keeps their feet still”, as we say in German.
Dear David,
That’s a great article and all, but let me tell you a story.
In September 2018, I wrote to the managing editor of FEBS Letters with my concerns about the extensive textual overlap between a 2011 article by Sonia A. Melo and Manel Esteller and other articles, including some that were not cited, such as a 2009 article in the Annual Review of Pathology by Yong Sun Lee and Anindya Dutta.
The Melo and Esteller article has received considerable attention, and has been cited more than 375 times.
My initial efforts were met with a response that the iThenticate software they used only identified overlap with the published Melo and Esteller article. I then had to guide the editor in the proper use of the program – including searching for partial overlap – that would lead to the finding of a 29% overlap with Lee and Dutta.
On October 4, 2018, after seeing the results, the journal said they would look into the matter.
In April 2019 I asked for an update. There was no answer.
I asked again in May 2021. I received a response the following month thanking me for the reminder and saying they were reexamining the issue.
Then, on July 26, a Corrigendum was finally published:
In the final version of the review, the authors inadvertently left uncited several sentences used in early versions of the manuscript that were supposed to be only used as reference points to be particularly developed by the authors in the writing process with the proper citation. These wordings should have given full attribution to the excellent review written by Lee and Dutta [[1]]. The authors sincerely apologize for the unintentional mistake that does not affect the scientific content of the review.
That was wholly inadequate and misleading.
It was not “several sentences” that were copied from the uncited article by Lee and Dutta. The overlap spanned the second half of Section 4, half of Section 5, the beginning and end of Section 6, almost all of Section 7, the beginning of Section 9, most of Section 10, and much of Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Furthermore, a large proportion of the rest of the article was copied from other sources – none of which are mentioned in the corrigendum. The duplication also includes the abstracts of original research articles–a practice I have criticized.
The “scientific content of the review” is not the issue. The facts that Melo and Esteller were not the originators of the majority of the text and that the journal allowed them to cover up that reality with prevarications are the problem.
I sent my concerns about the Corrigendum to the journal. I received the following response from the new Editor-in-Chief, Michael Brunner:
Thank you for your email. We went through this case again, and discussed whether we may have made the wrong decision. We did follow the COPE guidelines step by step and used several case studies for further information. This process confirmed that an article should be retracted when it is misleading for the reader, either because the information within is incorrect, or when an author induces the reader to think that the data presented is his own. As this is a Review, copied from other Reviews, the information within does not per se mislead the reader, as the primary literature is still properly cited. We agree that this Review was not written in a desirable way, and that the authors plagiarised a large amount of text, but according to the guidelines the literature must be considered from the point of view of the reader, and retractions should not be used as a tool to punish authors. We therefore concluded that a corrigendum was the best way forward. Hence, we confirm our decision on this case.
Thank you again for flagging this case in the first place, which allowed us to correct the record and gain deeper insights into publishing ethics, even though this led to a solution we do not necessarily like.
There is, as they say, a lot to unpack here. First, Dr. Brunner should be highly commended for his willingness to engage and explain the processes of the journal.
Nevertheless, the logic of his message is troubling. The authors engaged in what is defined by COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics) as “Major Plagiarism” for which the prescribed action is retraction of the published article and contacting the institution of the authors.
And yet the journal did not retract.
Dr. Brunner states “the authors plagiarised a large amount of text,” and yet, “We therefore concluded that a corrigendum was the best way forward.” I can’t understand why.
This was not the only paper of Melo’s that demonstrated significant overlap with the Lee and Dutta review. In a 2012 paper, there is overlap between the last paragraph of each of the “Background” and “Therapies that restore tumor-suppressive miRNA function” sections as well as the entire “Off-target effects” section of Melo and Kalluri with Lee and Dutta. Lee and Dutta is not cited. I notified the editor of Clinical Cancer Research about this problem in October 2018, but nothing has happened to the article.
I understand that a journal editor would only be interested in evaluating the evidence concerning the individual article being considered. But as I have noted elsewhere, “Individuals engaged in one form of unacceptable behavior frequently display others.” It is not uncommon for authors of articles where there is evidence of plagiarism to also be authors of multiple articles that display image or data manipulation.
There are even numerous examples of an article exhibiting both plagiarism and image manipulation. I note that the first author of the reviews under consideration (Melo) has been featured in articles on Retraction Watch and elsewhere. Despite being made aware of this evidence, the editor did not apparently consider it in his decision.
Uncovering and seeking measures against articles or books that display substantive plagiarism is not a highly rewarding endeavor. It is an undertaking, however, to which I have devoted some effort. I am not alone in this enterprise; see, for example, a book by Michael Dougherty, one of the real leaders in the field.
By not taking firm action on articles that contain plagiarized text, editors are encouraging misconduct. Scientists can always increase their productivity if they don’t actually have to write the words of their articles. Those researchers who follow the rules are left at a competitive disadvantage. Also, editors are rewarding those who violate scientific norms and are likely to be involved in other forms of unacceptable behavior. Plagiarism should not be regarded as venial.
– Authored by Ryan T
Brilliant.
Your unique contribution to this issue is greatly appreciated!
I’m missing the point here. Judging by others’ reaction, Ryan T is making a brilliant point by copying David’s rant, adding “authored by Ryan T”.
Could someone explain the joke to me?
Seriously, I’m lost here.
Another example of plagiarism:
Corrigendum to “Interplay between personality and antisocial peer affiliation as prospective predictors of marijuana use and academic achievement in the transition into and out of college” [Addict. Behav. 114 (2021) 106736] Brian C. Reeves Diana R. Samek
The authors regret to note several sentences of this manuscript were copied from other sources word by word without proper attribution. The following list indicates the page number and the original wording in the manuscript, followed by the corrections indicating direct quotations.
This “excuse” sounds like one I hear in my freshman psychology classes. Whether their plagiarism is intentional or unintentional, they are freshman, and so it is an opportunity to educate them on the writing process.
When a professional scientist plagiarizes, however, the motivation (intentional or unintentional) is irrelevant. A manuscript is not ready for submission to a journal until it has been carefully scrutinized by the authors for any number of things, including proper citations and to make certain any sections copied “to be developed by the authors in the writing process” actually got, you know, developed. They signed their names to it, they submitted it – intentional or unintentional, they did something wrong either way.
It’s still plagiarism even if the source material was credited and even rewritten.
There’s no original thinking, originality of thought, in plagiarism.
There’s no law on plagiarism. In fact, all laws are works of plagiarism.
Copyright infringement is a different issue. There’s law on copyright.