Plagiarism, etc., in Journal publications : some of our experiences

1
Plagiarism, etc., in Journal publications some
of our experiences

• H R Krishnamurthy
• Department of Physics
• I I Sc, Bangalore 560 012, India
• Editor
• PRAMANA-Journal of Physics

Published by
2
Case study 1

• Paper entitled "Slipping stream instability in
  curved magnetic field submitted to PRAMANA on
  4th Dec 98 and sent for refereeing.
• Referee says that the paper is a plagiarized
  version of one of his earlier papers published in
  Physics of Fluids!
• The referee also says that the same paper was
  earlier submitted to Indian J. Pure and Appl.
  Phys. where again he was the referee, pointed out
  the plagiarism to the editor of that journal
  where upon the paper was rejected.
• A copy of referee's paper that appeared in
  Phys. Fluids was provided to us. A comparison
  told us that the case for plagiarism was indeed
  very strong.

3
Case study 1(continued)

• PRAMANA wrote to the author saying
• It has been suggested to us that your manuscript
  is plagiarised from the paper Diocotron
  instability in curved magnetic field by ,
  published in Physics of Fluids 1993. This is a
  very serious charge that you should worry about.
  Irrespective of whether the charge is true or
  not, this does mean that your manuscript can not
  be considered by our journal, because the results
  of your paper are already available in the
  literature.
• Same Author submitted another paper to PRAMANA
  entitled Technique for the measurement of ion
  temperature in a discharge of argon on 15th Feb
  1999
• PRAMANA wrote saying
• In connection with a paper you had submitted to
  PRAMANA earlier, we had written to you that a
  charge of plagiarism had been levelled against
  you. You did not respond to our note and clarify
  your position. We are apprehensive about
  processing this further until we receive such a
  clarification.
• We have not heard from the author since that
  time.

4
Case Study 2

• A Referee wrote to editor of Proc. Math. Sci
  of the Indian Academy of Sciences pointing out
  that
• The paper A note on absolute summability
  factors by author O published recently in the
  journal was very similar to the one that had been
  sent to him for refereeing sometime ago (titled
  A study on local properties of Fourier series
  by author B) which he had rejected.
• Authors O and B are from the same university in
  Turkey, and seemed to be collaborators
• Author B seems to have published umpteen papers
  with essentially similar content, Each time
  adding a new factor to a previously defined
  summability and proving some silly result.

5
Case Study 2 (continued)

• An editorial note was published in Proc. Math.
  Sci. retracting the article by Author O published
  in the journal, saying
• It was brought to our attention that the paper
  mentioned above was almost identical in content
  to the paper entitled entitled "...." published
  by the same author in Dynamic systems .... .
  After verifiying that this was indeed the case, a
  formal letter was sent to the author seeking
  clarification. The author responded by e-mail,
  expressing regret over the matter. His
  explanation amounts to the following He was
  simultaneously handling several of his own
  manuscripts of a similar nature and also
  corresponding with different journals at the time
  of communication of his article, consequently
  leading to this unfortunate situation.
• As is the practice in all research journals, we
  do not re-publish articles from other journals,
  nor do we allow papers from our journal to be
  published in another journal without explicit
  permission from us.

6
Case Study 3

• A note was received from an author A about a
  paper under consideration for publishing in
  PRAMANA, saying
• A paper, it appears, is going to be published
  soon in PRAMANA on Spectroscopic studies of
  Dergaon Meteorite........ with reference to
  data presented in a conference held in BHU. I
  was one of the coauthors in the conference
  presentation and it so happened that I collected
  the meteorite sample myself last year and got it
  registered as a Dergaon meteorite in the
  Meteoritical Bulletin. Now I have come to know
  that my name has been omitted in the paper to be
  published in PRAMANA and relegated to a place in
  the acknowledgement.
• I take a serious view of the matter and feel
  strongly that I do not want to share the sample
  with the people who could so unethical. The way
  the thing is done does seem to be befitting a
  wholesome scientific culture. Please do the
  needful as per the norms followed by your
  prestigious journal on such matter.

7
Case Study 3 (continued)

• What the journal did
• We talked to author A on the phone. She said
  she will talk to the other authors and get a
  letter sent to us signed by all authors for
  including her name in the authorship, and wanted
  15 days time.
• But author A never got back to us and the paper
  was eventually published.

8
Case Study 4

• A reader wrote to PRAMANA expressing doubts
  about the validity of a recent paper on Cosmic
  Ray Air Showers published in PRAMANA stating the
  following reasons
• The array apparatus used in the experiment
  would have difficulties observing the results
  claimed.
• There is no mention about the statistics of air
  shower events used in the analysis. So one cannot
  check the statistical errors quoted in the paper,
  which appear to be too low.
• Result not consistent with other measurements
  including earlier results by the same group
  (published in IL Nuovo Cim.)
• Array is not in operation during the last few
  years as far as he knows!
• Many publications by the group are repetitive,
  presenting the same measurements in slightly
  different way in different publications including
  journals such as Nucl. Instrum. Meth, IL Nuovo
  Cim, Can. J.Phys., J. Phys. G (References
  Provided).

9
Case Study 4 (Continued)

• PRAMANA wrote to the referee who had accepted
  the paper saying
• A reader of PRAMANA has sent the following
  feedback on the above paper published in March
  2003 issue of PRAMANA. As you may please recall
  the paper was refereed by you and on the basis of
  your recommendation on the revised version we
  have published it. Your reports along with the
  paper is attached with this mail for your
  reference. In view of the serious concerns
  expressed by this reader, the editors were keen
  to get your reaction to this. We shall appreciate
  if you could please send us your reactions as
  early as possible.
• PRAMANA also wrote to two other experts in this
  area saying
• This is about a paper entitled "Cosmic ray air
  showers " by published in the issue of
  PRAMANA (pdf file attached). The editors decided
  to publish the paper on the basis of careful
  scrutiny and recommendation by a referee after
  two rounds of refereeing. However we have now
  received a comment from a PRAMANA reader
  expressing serious doubts about the results
  presented in the paper (comment reproduced
  below). In view of this, our editors are keen to
  get this checked. They were wondering if you
  could help with your inputs and advice in the
  matter.
• We are awaiting their response

10
Case Study 5

• The Editor of Publications of The Indian
  Academy of Sciences received the following letter
  from Author G saying
• This is to bring to your kind attention that we
  have published the following paper in Int. J. Mod
  Phys D Higher Dimensional Charged Null Fluid
  Collapse .. by author G and author S.
• The paper was submitted to Int. J Mod. Phys. D
  on May 31, 2001 and was published in February
  2002.
• I was shocked to see the following paper being
  published by author P with slight adjustment and
  different title Gravitational Collapse in
  Higher-dimensional . in PRAMANA in March 2003.
  
• Author P submitted the paper to PRAMANA on
  March 28, 2002 after the publication of our
  paper. Further, author P was a Ph.D. Student of
  author S, who is a co-author of our paper, and
  also acknowledges his help. I feel that author P
  was fully aware of our paper.
• I am sending a copy of our paper for your
  perusal and request you to take appropriate
  action. I believe both the papers can be sent to
  same referee again for his opinion.

11
Case Study 5 (Continued)

• We also received a note from co-author S saying
  
• P s results published in PRAMANA are
  duplicates of our results proved nearly a year
  earlier.
• P has mentioned my name and also name of
  another of my colleagues in the acknowledgement
  of his paper. The fact is that he never contacted
  us about this paper and we had no discussion
  about it. Had he done that, I would have
  definitely told him that this work has already
  been done by G and myself.
• Since I am one of the authors in the paper
  published in IJMP D, and since I saw my name in
  the acknowledgement of P 's paper, I thought it
  necessary to clarify my position in this regard.
• Any step / clarification / decision in this
  regard that will be taken by you may please be
  conveyed to me.

12
Case Study 5 (Continued)

• We wrote to author P saying
• This is in connection with your paper entitled
  "Gravitational ." published in PRAMANA Vol
  2003. It has been brought to our notice that
  almost the entire content and results have
  already been published by Author G and author S
  in Int. J Mod. Phys. D Vol 2002 with the title
  "Higher ". Please see the enclosed letters.
• As per the standard norms and ethics of
  scientific publication followed by the journals
  published by the Academy, submission of a paper
  is held to imply that it represents the results
  of original research not previously published and
  also that it is not under consideration for
  publication elsewhere.
• In view of the serious nature of the complaint,
  we request you to respond to it urgently (within
  a fortnight), so that the problem can be resolved
  at the earliest.

13
Case Study 5 (Continued)

• Author P wrote back to us clarifying that
• He had sent his paper first to Physical Review
  D for publication on 12th Sept 2001, five months
  earlier than the publication of the paper by G
  S. His paper code was DJJ803 and we could verify
  this on the status inquiry of Physical Review D.
• After rejection of his paper by P R D he
  resubmitted the paper to PRAMANA. While
  submitting the paper to PRAMANA he was not aware
  of the work of S G, because he did not meet S
  in this period.
• He , S G had earlier published a paper "
  Strong curvature in 1999. His new paper which
  has been published now is straight forward
  generalization of this earlier paper, as also
  mentioned in the ABSTRACT of the new paper.
• Since the new paper was a generalization of
  their previous paper, to give credit and to
  honour his teachers, he had given an
  acknowledgement to them in his paper. His mistake
  was that he did not ask them at that time.
• It is a fact that that the two papers do
  overlap substantially, but he has not copied the
  other paper since he had sent his paper to PRD
  earlier to the publication of the paper by G S.

14
Case Study 5 (Continued)

• Co-author S wrote to us saying
• Please refer to my mail sent to you on 5th
  May,2003, about P s paper published in your
  journal in March 2003.
• P has replied to your letter asking for
  clarification and he has forwarded his reply to
  me. I sincerely believe that whatever he has said
  in his reply is true.
• P has not copied our work since he sent his
  paper first to Phys. Rev.D in Sept.2001, before
  our paper was published. Since our paper was not
  put on the net, he could not have known about it.
  
• The only mistake P did was that he put my name
  in the acknowledgement without showing me his
  work. He has accepted his mistake.
• Hence I hereby request you NOT to take any
  action against P except perhaps to ask him to
  write an addendum clarifying the situation.
• I hope that you will be sympathetic to P.

15
Case Study 5 (Continued)

• We contacted Author G, who had complained
  first, and his position was similar that of S.
• We have taken no further action, assuming this
  to be a genuine case of unknowing and independent
  duplication of work.

16
Case Study 6

• PRAMANA was about to publish the proceedings of
  a conference
• We received a letter from author X asking us to
  block publication of one of the articles by
  authors C, D, M and L as the material in this
  paper is based on his thesis work, and has not
  been adequately acknowledged. He included some
  documentary evidence in support of his claim,
  and alleged that this was a case of plagiarism by
  author D who was his thesis supervisor.

17
Case Study 6 (Continued)

• We wrote to D informing him about the letter
  and said
• Since the time for publication is very short,
  and the allegations very serious, D should get in
  touch with X immediately and sort out the
  objections, either by including X as a co-author
  or by adequately acknowledging his thesis work in
  a way acceptable to X
• We must obtain the final manuscript after
  modifications acceptable to him and X within the
  next few days. Otherwise it would not be possible
  for us to include the paper in the proceedings.

18
Case Study 6 (Continued)

• D happened to be coming to Bangalore the next
  day, and dropped into the PRAMANA office for
  discussions with the editor
• He was very reluctant to include X as a
  co-author because of some past history which he
  explained
• But he agreed to remove two of the figures in
  the paper which had been taken from Xs thesis,
  so as to protect Xs interests, and also to
  substantially revise the paper, so as to
  adequately acknowledge and credit Xs thesis work
  wherever appropriate.
• X, who also happened to be in Bangalore at that
  time, would not make the time to talk to the
  editor either in person or on the phone and
  resolve the matter, but simply insisted on being
  made a co-author.

19
Case Study 6 (Continued)

• D submitted the revised manuscript promptly,
  and after satisfying ourselves that it had been
  revised as promised, and that it longer discussed
  unpublished work from Xs thesis without giving
  him due credit, it was published in the
  proceedings.
• X was very unhappy, and sent several e-mails
  protesting, threatening PRAMANA with legal
  action, and also a global campaign..., in
  order to expose the collusion between the
  journal and D to cheat X
• We just sent one e-mail to X explaining that
• PRAMANA had given serious consideration to Xs
  complaints
• The paper as published protects the interests
  of all the parties concerned as best as possible
  under the circumstances
• What-ever decisions we as the editors of
  PRAMANA have taken have been completely above
  board and ethical to the best of our judgment,
  and we would be willing to defend them publicly
  in any forum.

20
What do we learn?

• Need to be circumspect in dealing with
  complaints of plagiarism etc.
• All cases not necessarily deliberate.
• Lack of easy access to published papers makes
  it harder for referees to prevent plagiarism or
  duplication.
• Can some accord and new software for sharing
  information between journals be set up to help?
• Can common policies be evolved to deal with
  proven cases?