Author A of a 2008 review article in our journal claims her article was used as the "framework" for a 2013 review article on the same subject in an open access journal by a former student of hers, author B. There was no verbatim overlap but the format (comparison of two common conditions) was indeed similar (differential diagnosis, management, pharmacotherapy, and implications for practice).
Author A sent me the articles for comparison and stated that she thought this was plagiarism and that, furthermore, her student had no experience caring for these patients so she had misrepresented herself as an authority on this topic. The student (author B) was the first author, the second author was a physician who was well published on this topic, and "writing assistance" had been provided by a professional medical writer and paid by a pharmaceutical company that manufactures drugs in this therapeutic class. I checked both papers through iThenticate and there was no verbatim overlap between the two. I had nine members of my editorial board review and compare the articles in question along with the complaints of author A. I asked for specific comparisons (quantity and quality) of overlapping material and whether or not any overlap constituted plagiarism of ideas (not words). The editorial board concluded, as did I, that this format is fairly standard for clinical articles; content overlap likely resulted from similar content in practice guidelines for these conditions; neither article is ‘conceptually original’; and that updates of clinical review articles are a common practice (there was a 5 year gap between the articles). We found multiple articles in the literature on the same or related topics with similar resources, content, and format.
与此同时，作者A联系了开放访问期刊，说明她正在咨询律师，她希望作者B的文章“被拉和审查诚信和严谨”。在投诉的8天内，我写了一个指出，我们没有找到抄袭的证据，我不会通过索赔保护文章版权，因为我不相信它没有相信它被侵犯。作者A对我的回答并不满意，并声称她有两个同事们“确认”，这些同事在文章之间存在着惊人的相似之处。我重申了基于应对抄袭的指导方针和定义，我可以做到这一点bob官方app。与此同时，开放访问期刊回应了作者A的电子邮件，他们通过来自他们的网站的作者B“删除了”违规文章（实际上它仍然存在），并且他们建议她联系作者，因为作者保留了版权。我将作者A提交给我的出版经理，自从开始以来已经评估了这项调查，如果她希望进一步追求这一调查。
Questions for the COPE Forum
(1) Do I have an obligation to contact the open access journal with my findings? I am reluctant to do so given there are legal implications (lawyer contacted by author A); author B's paper has not actually been removed; and there are professional medical writers and a pharmaceutical company involved in author B's paper. I had never contacted the open access journal myself and they have not contacted me but I "feel" that I might have some responsibility to let them know that we are not making any claim.
The editor updated the Forum that the paper by author B has now been removed from the publisher’s website, with no notice of formal retraction, although it is still possible to find the paper by a search of PubMed.
The Forum suggested that the style of writing of review articles may mean that this type of issue arises. Author B may have been commissioned to write the review and asked to format it in a specific way. The Forum noted that it is possible to have plagiarism of ideas and not just words, although harder to prove, and author A may feel this is the case in this instance.
但实际上，这是开放访问期刊的问题，而不是编辑的期刊。编辑觉得开放访问期刊真正试图做正确的事情，但刚刚无法正确处理这种情况。本文实际上是否已被删除？有没有抄袭？通过删除纸张，没有发出缩回，文献尚未得到纠正，如果纸张没有抄袭，那么可能是合理的纸张不再可用。由于法律诉讼威胁，是由作者A和/或其出版商删除本文的开放式访问期刊的编辑吗？
Is author B aware that his paper has been pulled from the journal’s website? Author B and his colleagues may have legal redress against the open access journal. But it is up to the open access journal to inform author B.
因此，建议是编辑到达另一个编辑的建议，也许讨论如何以不同的方式处理。关于论坛观众的民意调查，一半以上同意编辑应该向另一个编辑达成，获得他们的故事，然后建立如何正确纠正文学的正确纠正。
在应对论坛的建议下,编辑或者说是ote to the managing editor of the online journal clarifying that the journal did not find any plagiarism with their published article and that the editor would not pursue any claims against the journal. The editor also noted that the article in question was missing from the home page of the journal on the publisher’s website but that it remained available on the PubMed Central site for their journal. The editor asked that the journal update her if they were conducting an investigation themselves and offered information on the COPE guidelines.
管理编辑响应了感谢编辑的澄清和解释发布者提出的决定，以从他们的网站上删除文章以“避免法律并发症”，这是由抱怨作者威胁的“避免法律并发症”。他说他确实理解，不建议应对这篇文章的删除，但由于这些文章仍然在他们的日志上列出和可检索，他们认为这是一个合理的解决方案。他说他会向主编和出版商转发编辑的信，以了解这是否会改变决定;但是，情况保持不变。文章没有收回，编辑没有从日记管理编辑或主编中听到的。
跟进（2014年12月）：
有问题的文章状态没有变化，没有来自作者或开放访问发布者的进一步沟通。该文章仍然可广泛可用。编辑现在考虑了现在关闭的情况。