[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (off-topic) self-plagiarism
Unless I missed something in these comments, no one has mentioned that one
usually signs a copyright release to the publishing journal that legally, not
just ethically, prevents the authors from submitting the same article to another
journal. I don't know if journals go to lengths to actually enforce these, but
pointing out the multiple copies to the journals that think they have copyrights
to the material wouldn't breach any confidentiality and might prevent further
Brandon Abbs, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Harvard Medical School
Brigham and Women's Hospital
1620 Tremont Street, BC-3-34 DWH
Boston, MA 02120
From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception
[mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruno L. Giordano
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] (off-topic) self-plagiarism
Dear Ajay and Pierre,
the reviewers are not the only ones to be blamed if a journal publishes
material that was already out there.
A journal should take steps to avoid sending reviewers at least
close-to-perfect replicates: it is better if only one person in the
editorial offices runs the necessary simple checks rather than having
two or three reviewers doing so. It is only less clear cut cases of
self-plagiarism that should be left to the judgment of reviewers and to
their knowledge of the field, which, depending on how carefully they
have been chosen, should be up-to-date.
Humbly, my two cents.
Divakaran, Ajay wrote:
> Dear All,
> I once got a conference paper that looked remarkably like something I had
reviewed a few weeks prior. I felt I had to inform both conferences, and so I
did. The paper was rejected by both conferences even though I gave it a good
review for its technical content. I would have been happier in some sense if the
paper had not been technically good.
> My feeling is that if the reviewer presents concrete evidence of
self-plagiarism, no editor can overlook it. In this case, the papers are already
out there in public view, so just including the references to the paper in the
review and recommending rejection should suffice. You can also send a special
note to the editor about this. Usually a journal is obliged to communicate the
complete set of reviews to all the reviewers along with the decision so once you
have pointed it out in a review explicitly, it is not easy to overlook.
> I say this as an editor of a journal myself. I would like to think that the
papers that get multiply published do so because of honest oversight by
reviewers, and not because anyone is condoning self-plagiarism.
> Best Regards,
> Ajay Divakaran, Ph.D.
> Technical Manager
> Vision and Multi-Sensor Systems
> Sarnoff Corporation
> 201 Washington Road
> PO Box 5300
> Princeton, NJ 08543
> Phone: 609-734-2204
> Fax: 609-734-2662
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception
[mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stefan Strahl
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:58 PM
> To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: (off-topic) self-plagiarism
>> 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
> There is the option to ask the editor of a journal to retract an
> article, see for example
> So Laszlo could contact the journals and ask them to reevaluate the
> publication knowing of the existance of the five other articles.
> :) stefan
> __________ NOD32 4219 (20090705) Information __________
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.