审查员联系了A杂志A，指出，关于职业压力措施的一部分审查文件是近似逐字的逐步审查副本，这些副本是在不同的情况下，虽然相关的，但相关的专业较长的审查副本。期刊A的编辑确认这是这种情况。不仅是从以前的出版物中提出的措施的描述，而且还对其有用性等评价。上一篇的出版物被引用，但仅参考了一小部分，并不能提到的参考，表明了部分的批发再现纸。本文来自尊重的机构，相应的作者是一个高度重视的研究人员。大概起草了审查的第一作者是对该机构的研究奖学金。似乎共同作者似乎不知道第一作者的抄袭。Junice A编辑写给通讯作者以指出明显的抄袭并要求解释。相应的作者回答道，令人难以为错误而道歉，并说他会撤回这篇论文才能考虑，同时进一步调查。他解释说，整个小组被认为是没有更彻底检查纸张的错。 The author, a graduate student from another country who had written most of the paper, may have found that the language barrier made summarising findings from other papers into his/her own words difficult. There was probably no deliberate intent to copy chunks of the text without acknowledgement as indeed reference was made to the source. If warranted, however, the corresponding author would take action regarding present and future submissions from this author. New procedures would also be put into place to prevent a recurrence of this unfortunate event. Finally, the corresponding author felt that a positive aspect of this incident was that it demonstrated the high calibre of the reviewers, and thanked them for doing such an excellent job. The editor was also thanked for seeking the corresponding author’s views on the matter.
The whole discussion section of a submitted case report was almost identical to the discussion section of a previously reported, similar case written up by another group of authors in another journal. The only difference lay in the patient details. While the other paper had been referenced in the case report, the authors of this case report had not indicated that the whole discussion was identical to the previously published paper. The editors wrote to the chief executive of the author’s institution. He investigated the matter and agreed that each additional case concerning the same topic as that previously reported, had to be explained in a different way. He agreed that the authors had clearly made a mistake and asked that the case report be withdrawn. He also stated that in future any similarities (such as the discussion provided in the case report) would be avoided by members of his institution when publishing scientific material.
Advice:
_ This case provoked a great deal of discussion, but it was concluded that the chief executive had conducted a thorough investigation. _ But what was not clear was whether the editors had asked the authors to explain themselves before alerting the chief executive, which COPE feels they should have done. _ There are different cultural understandings of how duplicated material is handled.
_ plagiari的第三个审稿人没有发现sm, despite the similarities in both papers. The editor did not request the original data, and the committee acknowledged that the data could have been falsified. _ The presentation of the papers was similar, but drug companies often use the same format for reporting, so they would, in fact, look the same. _ The Cochrane Group finds it acceptable to use the methods section from one paper in another, but this must be acknowledged and cited in the paper.
The author apologised, and said that no deliberate attempt to plagiarise had been made, but the editor of Journal A contacted the author’s institution. A careful review was undertaken, concluding in the end that there was no intentional plagiarism. The editor, with consent of all parties, sent this to the author and the complainant, explaining that the journal did not intend to take any further action. Nothing further has been heard from the complainant.
有关跟进的建议：
编辑要求提交人的机构对该问题进行调查。编辑觉得该机构的调查甚至递过了彻底的。收入的派对已经写回来并制定了几点：（我）他觉得依靠雇主做出最终推荐是不合适的。我（ii）应对指南不包括审查条bob官方app款规则。（iii）应对“有意识”和“无bob官方app意识的抄袭”，应对指导方针没有区分。编辑表明，虽然雇主已经提出了建议，但她独自一人决定，这是基于她自己的判断，而不是雇主的决定。受到委屈作者强调的许多段落都是几个不同作者发布的思想和概念，而不是该作者的唯一来源。虽然雇主可能有既得利益，但这并不一定意味着他们是腐败的。有意识的抄袭的概念意味着抄袭是故意的;无意识的抄袭是无意的。 It is the former that attracts sanction, and the intention must be proven. The point of requesting an internal investigation is to provide the editor with the facts so that s/he may then make a judgement, and that there are no alternative mechanisms. The editor would write back to the aggrieved party detailing COPE’s discussion, stating that from the journal’s point of view, the case was closed.
A manuscript submitted to journal X was remarkably similar to a paper already published in journal Y. The similarities were noticed by one of the peer reviewers for journal X. The paper has been rejected by journal X but the editor has now written to each of the authors asking for an explanation and has told them that if a reasonable explanation is not forthcoming, she will inform the dean of the medical faculty from where the paper was submitted.
Does COPE think the editor has acted appropriately?
Advice:
COPE was advised that the paper has been rejected. The editor wrote to each of the six authors threatening them with being reported to the dean if their explanations were unsatisfactory. The editor received five replies with four different excuses. The editor was advised to write to the dean of the medical school and include the authors’ replies to the dean too.
Follow up:
The editor wrote to the dean of the relevant medical school enclosing the copies of the ?ve replies. A year later no reply has been forthcoming.
A researcher has written to us to point out that a paper published in a German journal in 1993 was put together almost verbatim from articles published in the BMJ in 1989 and the New England Journal of Medicine in 1992. About three quarters of the material in the article in the German paper comes from these two journals. It may be that the data are original but it seems unlikely. What should we do?
Advice:
The editors of both the BMJ and New England Journal of Medicine have been in correspondence and have written to the editor of the German journal. The editors should ask the author for the original data. Editors of all of the other affected journals should be informed and then a collective submission should be made to the author’s institute. If the allegations can be proved, the institution should be informed that if there is no action or explanation forthcoming on their part, then all the journals will simultaneously publish a notice of plagiarism.