The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has sanctioned an assistant professor of dermatology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland for plagiarizing from a grant application she was reviewing — which feels like a scientific version of insider trading — and a number of published papers.
According to the ORI’s findings, Pratima Karnik Continue reading Case Western dermatology department hit with second ORI sanction within 6 months
Irony alert: If you’re going to write a paper about face recognition technology, well, do we really need to go on?
A group of researchers in Wuhan, China, evidently didn’t quite realize they were walking into a ridicule trap when they agreed to have their paper, “Face Recognition with Learning-based Descriptor,” published in IERI Procedia. The article appeared in 2012 and was part of an issue devote to that year’s International Conference on Future Computer Supported Education, which took place in Seoul.
And now comes this: Continue reading That face rings a bell, but where have I published it before?
Our list of ways that authors and editors find to dance around writing the word “plagiarism” seems to grow longer by the week. Today, we can add “administrative error” to that collection of euphemisms, thanks to authors from South Africa and the editors of an education journal.
Here’s the notice for “Development studies students as constructors of classroom pedagogy in practice: Observed classroom dynamics from the Kingdom of Lesotho,” published in Educational Research in October 2010: Continue reading That’s not plagiarism, it’s an “administrative error”
The Journal of Neuro-Oncology has retracted a 2009 article on brain tumors for what’s clearly plagiarism — but which is called everything but.
The article was titled “Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of diffusion and perfusion imaging,” and it came from a group at the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, in Trivandrum, India.
Here’s the — rather laughable — retraction notice, which dances around the matter about as deftly as a freshman with the prom queen:
Continue reading Retraction notice for cancer paper gives wide berth to the “p” word
In our work here at Retraction Watch, we’ve seen a number of euphemisms for plagiarism. (See slides 18-22 of this presentation for a selection.) Today, in following up on a case we covered last month, we’ve learned of a new way to avoid saying the dreaded p-word.
We reported in June that sex researcher Willibrord Weijmar Schultz had retracted two papers. One was for “substantial overlap between this paper and an earlier published paper by Talli Yehuda Rosenbaum,” while the other was for “breach of warranties made by the authors with respect to originality” and failure to cite a dissertation.
Two more retractions from Weijmar Schultz, for exactly the same reasons as the second one above, have just appeared. One was of a 1991 paper in Sexual and Marital Therapy (now Sexual and Relationship Therapy), while the other was of a 2003 article in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy.
The Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy notice reads as follows: Continue reading What’s the difference between plagiarism and “unintended and unknowing breach of copyright?”
A PhD student at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business who had a paper retracted for plagiarism in March has had a second paper retracted.
Bloomberg BusinessWeek was first to report the new retraction by Eugene Z. Geh. The study, “Understanding the Antecedents to an Entrepreneurial Firm’s Intent to Engage in International Strategic Alliances,” originally published in the Journal of Enterprising Culture, now simply reads: Continue reading University of Virginia business PhD student has second paper retracted
Note to computer scientists: a publication is not a reconfigurable logic device.
The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers has retracted a 2010 article by a pair of Iranian researchers who put the paper together using previously published work that, simply put, they reconfigured for their own purposes.
The article, “Autonomous Group Testing Based Fault Tolerance in Reconfigurable Logic Devices,” was written (ostensibly, at least) by Javad Sababeh and Karim Mohammadi, of Iran University of Science and Technology, in Tehran.
But according to the retraction notice, much of the paper was taken from work by two computer scientists at the University of Central Florida: Continue reading Computer science paper retracted for plagiarism
A team of researchers including NASA scientists have retracted a December 2012 article because it plagiarized…a 2000 NASA report.
Here’s the notice for “A Fosmid Cloning Strategy for Detecting the Widest Possible Spectrum of Microbes from the International Space Station Drinking Water System,” published in Genomics & Informatics: Continue reading Paper by NASA scientists retracted for plagiarizing NASA report
The International Journal of Pest Management has retracted a 2007 article on spinosad pesticides by researcher who stole much of the material from the thesis of a Kansas State University masters student.
But the retraction comes more than five years after a correction indicating that plagiarism had occurred — an odd interposition that we can’t quite figure out.
The article, “Insecticidal effect of spinosad dust against four stored product insect species in different grain commodities,” was written by Amin Nikpay, who, according to this website, is now with Arak Islamic Azad University, in Iran. It was published in the spring of 2007, but a few months later the journal issued the following notice: Continue reading Pesticide paper pulled for plagiarizing prior publication
The Journal of Chemical Sciences, the journal of the Indian Academy of Sciences, has retracted a 2012 paper by a group of researchers in India and South Korea who stole material (and a lot of it) from a 2009 article for their reactant.
The retraction notice (it’s a pdf) speaks quite well for itself:
Continue reading “Clear case of plagiarism” forces retraction of chemistry paper