Dr. Divenyi and colleagues -
My name is Doctor Nizami, not Mister Nizami. My 3 degrees from the
University of Toronto are on record.
The rules that journals apply to submissions, which we are all aware of,
are based on a condition which all journals wisely state in their
submission policy, that is, that the material has not been submitted for
publication in any other peer-review journal, past or present. Sending
plagiarized material to a peer-review journal clearly violates that trust and
automatically voids any considerations of confidentiality. In the past, there
have been well-publicized cases in which overtly plagiarized material was
recognized by reviewers and the plagiarism was rightfully made public.
Dr. Divenyi suggests that the reviewer can only make the plagiarism evident
to the editor, and "share his views with the editorial board and the editor in
chief". What are the latter then supposed to do? Ignore an obvious breach of
ethics by the plagiarist? Chances are that if the plagiarized paper reviewed by
Dr. Toth was in fact published 6 times previously, then someone somewhere
probably realized it was fake - and did exactly what Dr. Divenyi suggested, with
the result that the paper came right back into circulation. The old-school model
supported by Dr. Divenyi doesn't work. As evident from notorious cases in the
past, it never did. - Lance Nizami PhD
In a message dated 7/7/2009 1:15:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Nizami has obviously misunderstood my earlier posting. All
consider any submitted paper confidential and often clearly state
reviewer should not divulge the paper's content. Now our colleague
Toth has a valid point but he can't tell us who the author is and
paper is about. The editor trusted him with the paper and expects
make a recommendation as to publish it, reject it, or recommend
Rejection in case of multiple publication is the obvious choice
can't do more than proposing rejection. He can also explain to
his reasons and could ask the editor to share his views with the
board and the editor in chief.
7/7/09 6:25 PM, "Laszlo Toth" <tothl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Pierre Divenyi wrote:
>> I respectfully
disagree with Peter. When a journal sends a paper for review,
is often explicitly but always implicitly implied that the paper and
>> content are confidential.
> As I said, I have
found the paper in many already-published versions,
> which are clearly
public. So its just an additional thing that I have an
> n+1th version
which is confidental. I might have found the self-plagiarism
accidentaly, just by browsing the web. I think it's not against any
law if I say: type the following sentence in google and compare the
> of the
> papers that come up.
proposed fast time delay neural networks"
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
> Research Group on Artificial Intelligence
* "Failure only begins
when you stop trying"