What should I do about self-plagiarism?
October 5, 2015 9:07 PM Subscribe
It's 2015, and more and more academic articles from pre-Internet times are getting scanned, indexed, and shared. Back in the day, you might have been able to publish essentially the same paper in journals with mainly domestic subscriber lists in two different countries, and nobody ever would have been the wiser. Somebody did this. The intersection of subscribers was probably less than 25 libraries in this case back then. Twenty years later, and a reader noticed. Author is now a big cheese. My gut tells me to treat this just like any other case of major plagiarism--notify the author, allow them to respond, but then likely public retraction as self-plagiarism and notify employer and journal where Author is now editor.
OK. So, Name Author is now a big cheese academic and lead editor of a respected journal. But, 20 years ago Author probably needed to rack up those peer-reviewed publications.
Publication A (where I have some responsibility) ran an article in 199x that is essentially a subset of article in Publication B that ran the previous year. Author did not cite that previous paper.
I am not asking if self-plagiarism is plagiarism. No complete paragraphs are identical, but whole chunks of text are the same throughout, not just in the lit review and methodology section. Swap a synonym and a hedge here and there, and it's word for word in many or maybe a majority of sentences. There are a few new refs added to Publication A, but all data in Publication A was in Publication B with even identical headings for the tables. The discussion of implications and conclusion are basically the same and Publication A adds nothing new there. Article length limits were shorter for A than for B.
COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics makes some allowances if the self-plagiarism is minor and the article aimed at different audience/different purpose. Just add a cite of the previous article. The audience was a different country back in the days of print, but the type of audience is identical. I tend to think this rises to major self-plagiarism as intentional (why not cite their own work?). That means public retraction etc. Also, Publication A requires all articles be not previously published and authors sign a statement to that effect.
Not asking whether it is plagiarism: I believe it is. But, some have suggested there should be a "statute of limitations" on this stuff that would that tend to make this minor. Digitizing archives is only going to turn up more of this over time. If the standards of today are applied to the past, many heads will roll. On the other hand, even 20 years ago, this was unethical and the author should have known it wasn't kosher. I tend to be harsh on these things and prefer to treat this as deceitful, intentional major plagiarism.
Should we?
OK. So, Name Author is now a big cheese academic and lead editor of a respected journal. But, 20 years ago Author probably needed to rack up those peer-reviewed publications.
Publication A (where I have some responsibility) ran an article in 199x that is essentially a subset of article in Publication B that ran the previous year. Author did not cite that previous paper.
I am not asking if self-plagiarism is plagiarism. No complete paragraphs are identical, but whole chunks of text are the same throughout, not just in the lit review and methodology section. Swap a synonym and a hedge here and there, and it's word for word in many or maybe a majority of sentences. There are a few new refs added to Publication A, but all data in Publication A was in Publication B with even identical headings for the tables. The discussion of implications and conclusion are basically the same and Publication A adds nothing new there. Article length limits were shorter for A than for B.
COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics makes some allowances if the self-plagiarism is minor and the article aimed at different audience/different purpose. Just add a cite of the previous article. The audience was a different country back in the days of print, but the type of audience is identical. I tend to think this rises to major self-plagiarism as intentional (why not cite their own work?). That means public retraction etc. Also, Publication A requires all articles be not previously published and authors sign a statement to that effect.
Not asking whether it is plagiarism: I believe it is. But, some have suggested there should be a "statute of limitations" on this stuff that would that tend to make this minor. Digitizing archives is only going to turn up more of this over time. If the standards of today are applied to the past, many heads will roll. On the other hand, even 20 years ago, this was unethical and the author should have known it wasn't kosher. I tend to be harsh on these things and prefer to treat this as deceitful, intentional major plagiarism.
Should we?
I'm unsure what you're hoping to achieve other than public humiliation and personal/professional devastation. Why not just let the author know you know? That would certainly shame them. They can't do it anymore because of digital submission.
What's your rationale? Punish/expose/have fired?
I'd consider writing a letter to them and tell them they're no longer welcome to submit ever ...but this seems almost jealously spiteful so long afterwards.
(-Postgrad student loving Endnote.)
posted by taff at 10:17 PM on October 5, 2015 [23 favorites]
What's your rationale? Punish/expose/have fired?
I'd consider writing a letter to them and tell them they're no longer welcome to submit ever ...but this seems almost jealously spiteful so long afterwards.
(-Postgrad student loving Endnote.)
posted by taff at 10:17 PM on October 5, 2015 [23 favorites]
20 years ago? Is this something still going on today? If not, let it go. I won't debate the ethics since you are convinced, but it's really not something worth messing with someone's life over unless this is something that continues.
Agreeing with taff that this seems jealously spiteful. (Not "almost.")
posted by jzb at 10:34 PM on October 5, 2015 [13 favorites]
Agreeing with taff that this seems jealously spiteful. (Not "almost.")
posted by jzb at 10:34 PM on October 5, 2015 [13 favorites]
"Back in the day, you might have been able to publish essentially the same paper in journals with mainly domestic subscriber lists in two different countries, and nobody ever would have been the wiser."
Leaving aside outright evil intentions, could reaching a wider audience back in the days of print been part of a semi-honest reason for doing this? I'm also not sure what you're trying to accomplish. As you note yourself, the working standards for self plagiarism were different back then - why harangue someone for not foreseeing how standards would change in 20 years?
Let it go and focus more on actual evil doing.
posted by permiechickie at 10:37 PM on October 5, 2015 [10 favorites]
Leaving aside outright evil intentions, could reaching a wider audience back in the days of print been part of a semi-honest reason for doing this? I'm also not sure what you're trying to accomplish. As you note yourself, the working standards for self plagiarism were different back then - why harangue someone for not foreseeing how standards would change in 20 years?
Let it go and focus more on actual evil doing.
posted by permiechickie at 10:37 PM on October 5, 2015 [10 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, it may not be as clear in this edited version of the post, but OP really wants to hear from people who have worked at academic journals and understand the specific context here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:39 PM on October 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:39 PM on October 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
"Self-plagiarism" is not plagiarism -- you aren't interested in that question specifically, but it's relevant to what sort of sins should be dug up and publicized after 20 years. Plagiarizing someone else's work is heinous enough that perhaps there is no statute of limitations. Recycling some of your own prose is not.
I think you are simply misunderstanding the COPE findings, in a way that is rather mean towards the famous author.
Audiences in different countries, which read different journals, are different audiences. You make the point yourself when you say that, at the time, there was very little overlapping readership. You suggest that they are the same kind of audiences, but you're interpolating. This is nowhere in the advice, and nor should it be. Publishing almost the same article in two journals which share an audience is (among other things) wasting people's time. Publishing almost the same article in two journals with disjoint audiences isn't wasting anyone's time, even if those two disjoint audiences are the same "kind of audience." If the academic communities are separate (as they were at the time), it's hard to say that either journal or its readership got screwed.
If you go public with this, I think you will embarrass yourself.
posted by grobstein at 10:44 PM on October 5, 2015 [41 favorites]
I think you are simply misunderstanding the COPE findings, in a way that is rather mean towards the famous author.
Audiences in different countries, which read different journals, are different audiences. You make the point yourself when you say that, at the time, there was very little overlapping readership. You suggest that they are the same kind of audiences, but you're interpolating. This is nowhere in the advice, and nor should it be. Publishing almost the same article in two journals which share an audience is (among other things) wasting people's time. Publishing almost the same article in two journals with disjoint audiences isn't wasting anyone's time, even if those two disjoint audiences are the same "kind of audience." If the academic communities are separate (as they were at the time), it's hard to say that either journal or its readership got screwed.
If you go public with this, I think you will embarrass yourself.
posted by grobstein at 10:44 PM on October 5, 2015 [41 favorites]
You say a reader noticed - are they also likely to go public with this in a big way? Because that could escalate this even faster and might change your response.
With a date gap this big between self-plagiarism (and barring other evidence of them doing this continually), the usual route is to notify the author and give them a chance to respond before doing anything. It is such a big time gap that it could be accidental: their response will give you a starting point to work this out. But going public as a first step is not usually done, unless you have some other major signals that something is up and a past record of self-plagiarism to go on
posted by lesbiassparrow at 11:03 PM on October 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
With a date gap this big between self-plagiarism (and barring other evidence of them doing this continually), the usual route is to notify the author and give them a chance to respond before doing anything. It is such a big time gap that it could be accidental: their response will give you a starting point to work this out. But going public as a first step is not usually done, unless you have some other major signals that something is up and a past record of self-plagiarism to go on
posted by lesbiassparrow at 11:03 PM on October 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
I can think of at least three researchers of various levels off the top of my head who have published different versions of pretty much the same paper more than once (one big name published five versions of the same review within three years for example, one student published the same data in two different but overlapping ways, etc etc), all openly and without problem and within the last 7-10 years. Sometimes the previous work was referenced, sometimes not (because of limits on reference numbers), and all was published well after everything was online and readily available via google scholar etc. And that's just with a few minutes thought over my morning cup of tea.
Don't be surprised if no one else gives a shit is what I'm saying.
posted by shelleycat at 11:16 PM on October 5, 2015 [11 favorites]
Don't be surprised if no one else gives a shit is what I'm saying.
posted by shelleycat at 11:16 PM on October 5, 2015 [11 favorites]
Best answer: Seems like with the different audiences it would have been fine to publish if only the paper in Pub A had cited the previous paper in Pub B.
Does Pub A have a process for running corrections or addenda? If so that's what I would suggest. Of course this means most people are unlikely to notice, but anyone else who shares your belief would in principle have access to the information. The author would get informed (and thus shamed a little, at least privately) and have a chance to respond. And the academic record would be corrected.
I would also be curious if the author has done this more than once. It would be fairly trivial to pull all of his pubs to check. Of course what you choose to do with that info, if it doesn't affect the journal(s) you have responsibility at, is up to you.
Speaking of, yes, I could read some jealousy here. Ask yourself honestly if others in your field know already that you have it out for this person (even just if you do research that supports conclusion 1 while he does work on conclusion 2). If so, I think you should pass this info, and the responsibility to deal with it, to someone higher up the editing chain than yourself (you are more than just a reviewer for journal A, I assume, so you should be able to do this). Recuse yourself if there's personal interest, and honestly I would consider doing so if even the appearance of personal interest is possible.
posted by nat at 11:18 PM on October 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
Does Pub A have a process for running corrections or addenda? If so that's what I would suggest. Of course this means most people are unlikely to notice, but anyone else who shares your belief would in principle have access to the information. The author would get informed (and thus shamed a little, at least privately) and have a chance to respond. And the academic record would be corrected.
I would also be curious if the author has done this more than once. It would be fairly trivial to pull all of his pubs to check. Of course what you choose to do with that info, if it doesn't affect the journal(s) you have responsibility at, is up to you.
Speaking of, yes, I could read some jealousy here. Ask yourself honestly if others in your field know already that you have it out for this person (even just if you do research that supports conclusion 1 while he does work on conclusion 2). If so, I think you should pass this info, and the responsibility to deal with it, to someone higher up the editing chain than yourself (you are more than just a reviewer for journal A, I assume, so you should be able to do this). Recuse yourself if there's personal interest, and honestly I would consider doing so if even the appearance of personal interest is possible.
posted by nat at 11:18 PM on October 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
Response by poster: I've been fighting the urge to threadsit, but to answer a few questions.
1. It may still be going on. That's the next thing we have to look into. So far one current editor recalls reading several articles by Author that all seemed very, very similar. Extremely prolific author.
2. Yes, the reader who reported this is very likely to go public--and in a very noticeable way. Reader is generally respected and considered a rational and reasonable person.
3. Yes! We would certainly 100% contact the author first! Sorry if I gave the impression we wouldn't.
4. This gives me no joy, and I have no personal or professional animus against Author. We've never met, but my general impression at a distance is likely a nice person. We do not compete or conflict in any way. I truly believe I have nothing to gain. I'm just on a committee that this gets sent to. If I seem spiteful, maybe it's hangover from the last couple times I had to handle plagiarism. But, just hating the waste of volunteer editor time and NPO financial resources republishing something that was revised with a thesaurus. Maybe that is just me, and I should cut it out!
Thanks, all! And, I will butt out.
posted by Gotanda at 11:32 PM on October 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
1. It may still be going on. That's the next thing we have to look into. So far one current editor recalls reading several articles by Author that all seemed very, very similar. Extremely prolific author.
2. Yes, the reader who reported this is very likely to go public--and in a very noticeable way. Reader is generally respected and considered a rational and reasonable person.
3. Yes! We would certainly 100% contact the author first! Sorry if I gave the impression we wouldn't.
4. This gives me no joy, and I have no personal or professional animus against Author. We've never met, but my general impression at a distance is likely a nice person. We do not compete or conflict in any way. I truly believe I have nothing to gain. I'm just on a committee that this gets sent to. If I seem spiteful, maybe it's hangover from the last couple times I had to handle plagiarism. But, just hating the waste of volunteer editor time and NPO financial resources republishing something that was revised with a thesaurus. Maybe that is just me, and I should cut it out!
Thanks, all! And, I will butt out.
posted by Gotanda at 11:32 PM on October 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
Best answer: I think you should talk with the editorial board as to how they perceive this. This is different from putting a paper in a book. This is double-publishing papers, and imagine if everyone did this (said Kant!). If I were the editor, I'd give the author the evidence he did what he did and give him a chance to retract the paper; and if he won't, retract it yourself. Either way, he takes it off his CV and a note gets published in the journal.
posted by persona au gratin at 12:05 AM on October 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by persona au gratin at 12:05 AM on October 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
Best answer: Btw, I'm an academic, and this is not OK. Not at all. They burnish their rep while crowding out others' papers? Fuck them.
posted by persona au gratin at 12:06 AM on October 6, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by persona au gratin at 12:06 AM on October 6, 2015 [16 favorites]
Best answer: Recycling from articles to a monograph, with due references, is done all the time. I've done it myself. Recycling between articles without a reference? Totally icky, no matter whether it's 20 years back or a week ago. As to how to act, I would notify the author that someone is likely going to make a stink, let the author deal with it.
[writer of scholarly writ, two times editor of a peer-reviewed journal here.]
posted by Namlit at 2:18 AM on October 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
[writer of scholarly writ, two times editor of a peer-reviewed journal here.]
posted by Namlit at 2:18 AM on October 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
1. It may still be going on. That's the next thing we have to look into. So far one current editor recalls reading several articles by Author that all seemed very, very similar. Extremely prolific author.
Secondly, you may want to use a concordancer or some other online or offline plagiarism tools to check the author's corpus of work against itself in what may only take a few minutes.
Or do it by hand.
posted by sebastienbailard at 2:21 AM on October 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Secondly, you may want to use a concordancer or some other online or offline plagiarism tools to check the author's corpus of work against itself in what may only take a few minutes.
Or do it by hand.
posted by sebastienbailard at 2:21 AM on October 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mod note: A couple of comments deleted. Just to reiterate LobsterMitten's note above, OP is interested in hearing from people who have worked at academic journals and dealt with this sort of situation (or if not, it would fall within their professional purview). Answers that are general "my feeling about this" or general Wikipedia-type links about self-plagiarism not as helpful. Assume the OP is familiar with the code of ethics for their publication. Thanks all.
posted by taz (staff) at 2:44 AM on October 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 2:44 AM on October 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Best answer: I think I quiet retraction due to previously published work would be both honest and kind. This is coming from my experience as an academic librarian and an obsessive reader of Retraction Watch.
posted by mskyle at 5:08 AM on October 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by mskyle at 5:08 AM on October 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
Best answer: In my field even 20 years ago the thing you describe would not have been ok, at all. I also concur with persona au gratin -- this wasn't a "victimless" crime, so to speak. This person's publishing very likely came at the expense of someone else getting into the same journal and contributing to their career. And finally, after having a lot of friends in the last year struggling on 3-month/6-month/12-month contracts while elder academics just keep coasting in their permanent positions, I'm inclined to say "Fuck 'em! Throw 'em to the wolves and try to open up a position for someone more deserving."
I am an editor at an academic journal. It's a recent one and doesn't have archives back as long as you, but if we found out that one of our earlier articles was a self-plagiarism, I would absolutely push my co-editors for a retraction. We do a lot of work for our authors, really, and what we expect in return is that we're really getting original writing, research, case studies, and results! We're not where you throw your off-cuts or take-2s, and if your stuff is already out there in the exact same form go peddle it somewhere else.
posted by barnacles at 5:08 AM on October 6, 2015 [7 favorites]
I am an editor at an academic journal. It's a recent one and doesn't have archives back as long as you, but if we found out that one of our earlier articles was a self-plagiarism, I would absolutely push my co-editors for a retraction. We do a lot of work for our authors, really, and what we expect in return is that we're really getting original writing, research, case studies, and results! We're not where you throw your off-cuts or take-2s, and if your stuff is already out there in the exact same form go peddle it somewhere else.
posted by barnacles at 5:08 AM on October 6, 2015 [7 favorites]
The time from submission to publication can be really long. Is there a chance that both papers were submitted simultaneously and one ended up published first?
posted by Dip Flash at 6:00 AM on October 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 6:00 AM on October 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Came in to say what Dip Flash said: it is even possible that the short version was submitted first. 20 years ago, in my field, "Letters" type journals would offer the opportunity for rapid publication of significant results, which could then be expanded to a "full" paper in a different, but related, journal (which would, though, have an overlapping audience). Of course the design does not always work and short paper could be delayed or have a criminally long lead time to publication.
But I am sure you checked the submission dates.
posted by gijsvs at 6:10 AM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
But I am sure you checked the submission dates.
posted by gijsvs at 6:10 AM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
I would notify the current chief editor of the two journals. How acceptable this is depends in part on the specific policy of the journals at that time. You cited the policy of journal A but journal B received the plagiarized text. The editors of the journals can make the decision as to what degree the rules were broken.
Furthermore, if it is as bad as you say, I'm guessing it happened more than once. Is it possible to do a PubMed (back-checking you didn't specify Biomed research) and look at two articles that may have the same problem? I would think they would be easy to identify. The first in a major journal, the second in the European International Society of ... a year later with a variation on the same name.
I would not directly notify the person. Can the person make your career more difficult?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:36 AM on October 6, 2015
Furthermore, if it is as bad as you say, I'm guessing it happened more than once. Is it possible to do a PubMed (back-checking you didn't specify Biomed research) and look at two articles that may have the same problem? I would think they would be easy to identify. The first in a major journal, the second in the European International Society of ... a year later with a variation on the same name.
I would not directly notify the person. Can the person make your career more difficult?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:36 AM on October 6, 2015
A few years ago there was an infamous case of self-plagiarism in chemistry which ended with a retraction. Those papers were published closer in time than your case, however.
I still think of this as the space-dinosaur case.
posted by invokeuse at 6:44 AM on October 6, 2015
I still think of this as the space-dinosaur case.
posted by invokeuse at 6:44 AM on October 6, 2015
I've published papers in scholarly journals and have assisted the editor of a major scholarly journal on a part-time basis. I would be very interested in whether your author has recycled material in this way more than once. The one time, and internationally, might lead me to consider whether there was just some kind of fairly innocuous lapse here, and try to figure out where it occurred. It could even have been on the part of one of the journals. I can envision contacting the author and hearing a somewhat satisfactory explanation. (Forgive me if I missed it, but does the editor who accepted the article for your publication have any comments? Maybe ask the other one?) I would still be inclined to publish some kind of note in your journal pointing out that another article was published with the same information.
If this person is a repeater, I think you do what the best practices are within your field. Does your professional association have a publications committee that oversees this sort of thing? I would call that person up.
posted by BibiRose at 7:02 AM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
If this person is a repeater, I think you do what the best practices are within your field. Does your professional association have a publications committee that oversees this sort of thing? I would call that person up.
posted by BibiRose at 7:02 AM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Best answer: "Self-plagiarism" is not plagiarism -- you aren't interested in that question specifically, but it's relevant to what sort of sins should be dug up and publicized after 20 years. Plagiarizing someone else's work is heinous enough that perhaps there is no statute of limitations. Recycling some of your own prose is not.
This is...not remotely true.
I work for an academic journal, and we would (and have, even recently) had to publish retractions when authors self-plagiarize. They sign statements attesting that the material they are submitting has not been duplicated/published elsewhere, in part or in full. If they are lying when they sign that statement (a legal document regarding copyright), then that is fraud.
I don't know what you would do after 20 years, but this would seem like something to take to the EIC and the Editorial Board. I know that in some cases, publishing an erratum that adds a reference to the nearly identical article and framing it as simultaneous publication in two journals can work as a patchwork remedy that isn't quite as scorched earth as an actual retraction.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:12 AM on October 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
This is...not remotely true.
I work for an academic journal, and we would (and have, even recently) had to publish retractions when authors self-plagiarize. They sign statements attesting that the material they are submitting has not been duplicated/published elsewhere, in part or in full. If they are lying when they sign that statement (a legal document regarding copyright), then that is fraud.
I don't know what you would do after 20 years, but this would seem like something to take to the EIC and the Editorial Board. I know that in some cases, publishing an erratum that adds a reference to the nearly identical article and framing it as simultaneous publication in two journals can work as a patchwork remedy that isn't quite as scorched earth as an actual retraction.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:12 AM on October 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
DipFlash, submitting the same paper to two places simultaneously is not allowed.
posted by medusa at 4:57 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by medusa at 4:57 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
I have worked for two academic journals, and I have seen a retraction issued when only a figure was duplicated from a previous publication, so I think considering a retraction is in order here. This is academic misconduct, and I don't see any way it could be accidental. As far as a statute of limitations goes, the author is apparently still active, so I would think it would be appropriate to pursue this. His number of publications still matters. This does seem to be something that your Editorial Board will ultimately need to decide on though, and you may need to seek legal counsel as well.
posted by FencingGal at 6:39 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by FencingGal at 6:39 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thanks All,
Just a quick update and one explanation.
This journal is one of three publications produced by an academic professional group. There is a committee of the current editors, a member of the board of directors of the group, and a former editor. A big thank you to nat for pointing out that recusing oneself might be a good idea. It turns out two of the current editors have had connections with the author and were really freaked out about this. So, they are off all communication on this issue. We set up an ad hoc committee of the remaining members plus another former editor who has no potential grounds for professional bias. Almost all of the external Editorial Advisory Board could probably be recused on one grounds or another, so they are hard to go to on this. Editors who read both articles closely agree that they are substantially similar. They were probably submitted simultaneously or near simultaneously, even though the journal required original publication and this requirement was clearly stated at the time. We're very carefully drafting a letter asking the author to explain.
Thanks FencingGal for pointing out that legal advice may be needed. That may be difficult for us in this case, but we will at least get the letter reviewed by a legal expert before sending it.
And, as far as rationale for this goes, I should not have referred to the author as a "big wheel" or "big cheese." I think I was just trying to minimize a bit out of fear and stress. Even though it was twenty years ago, as barnacles pointed out, duplicate publication is far from a victimless breaking of the rules. Especially in print, accepting one paper meant turning another away. It can make a big difference in a career and life to lose that peer-reviewed publication when you needed it. All of this would be so much easier if author was retired or not a significant person in the field. We could just retract if needed and probably nobody would ever notice. Any action (public retraction, quiet retraction, author voluntarily retracting, sweeping under the rug--not advisable and not possible!) will be noticed. Author has wrapped up as lead editor at one significant journal and just now taken up lead editor position at another maybe even more significant journal. Thanks for the help.
posted by Gotanda at 1:07 AM on October 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Just a quick update and one explanation.
This journal is one of three publications produced by an academic professional group. There is a committee of the current editors, a member of the board of directors of the group, and a former editor. A big thank you to nat for pointing out that recusing oneself might be a good idea. It turns out two of the current editors have had connections with the author and were really freaked out about this. So, they are off all communication on this issue. We set up an ad hoc committee of the remaining members plus another former editor who has no potential grounds for professional bias. Almost all of the external Editorial Advisory Board could probably be recused on one grounds or another, so they are hard to go to on this. Editors who read both articles closely agree that they are substantially similar. They were probably submitted simultaneously or near simultaneously, even though the journal required original publication and this requirement was clearly stated at the time. We're very carefully drafting a letter asking the author to explain.
Thanks FencingGal for pointing out that legal advice may be needed. That may be difficult for us in this case, but we will at least get the letter reviewed by a legal expert before sending it.
And, as far as rationale for this goes, I should not have referred to the author as a "big wheel" or "big cheese." I think I was just trying to minimize a bit out of fear and stress. Even though it was twenty years ago, as barnacles pointed out, duplicate publication is far from a victimless breaking of the rules. Especially in print, accepting one paper meant turning another away. It can make a big difference in a career and life to lose that peer-reviewed publication when you needed it. All of this would be so much easier if author was retired or not a significant person in the field. We could just retract if needed and probably nobody would ever notice. Any action (public retraction, quiet retraction, author voluntarily retracting, sweeping under the rug--not advisable and not possible!) will be noticed. Author has wrapped up as lead editor at one significant journal and just now taken up lead editor position at another maybe even more significant journal. Thanks for the help.
posted by Gotanda at 1:07 AM on October 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Response by poster: Update!
Just for the record...
We wrote a carefully worded letter asking author for an explanation and had it vetted by several editors.
Author replied, fully accepting responsibility for the double publication. In brief, Author had prepared two articles based on the same study. One was the duplicate article published by us and the other journal. The second, different article was digging deeper into the methodology. Author believes they mistakenly sent copies of the same paper to both rather than one to one journal and one to the other. Author was in the midst of an international move at the time (established fact) and this was pre-email days when you could see what you had sent. Author should have realized the error during communication with the journals, but apparently the other journal published it pretty much as submitted, and only we edited the article. That's why their version saw publication first. Chances are international postal communication from the other journal criss-crossed during Author's move. What happened to the other methodology article is unknown, but many years ago, busy academic, international move, new and demanding job, etc.
Author was quite surprised to hear from us because one of our previous editors had contacted him 15 years ago or so with the same question. Author apologized then and gave the same explanation. We finally managed to reach our former editor (retired), and he confirmed this generally. Though one could make the argument that the paper should have been retracted 15 years ago, it was not.
We had our chance to retract and did not. It might have been good for Author to retract at that point, but Author did not. It is unfair to subject Author to "double jeopardy," so it seems public retraction is not a good course of action. Silently removing the article will actually raise more questions and attention since it is cited and our very careful reader has raised the issue. Author was forthcoming and apologetic, and it seems that this has been an ongoing embarrassment for Author for many years. Author has quite a few other very, very similar papers, but none with us.
The paper will not be retracted. Author was sloppy and too busy, but our editor 15 years ago bears significant responsibility for this current state of affairs. The paper will stand as the least bad outcome, but we still have some smaller issues to resolve. Should we include a brief notice along the lines that the article was published in error/a version of a previously published article so that future readers will not raise this again? We may negotiate the wording of this with Author if we go this way. And, will this satisfy the careful reader who reported the issue so they do not pursue the matter further? There is a distinct possibility they might, which will be embarrassing for everyone concerned.
The most important results:
* Remember that even though the journal and ethical publication standards were the same, conditions were very different in the past and what seemed really dubious when viewed through current communication tools, was quite possible before. Someone "accidentally" submitting and publishing the same article seems impossible now, but it may have been possible before.
* We need better record keeping on our part.
* Also, authors, though this scenario is unlikely to happen today, it is often better to retract a paper yourself if there is a simple error. It will never go away, and the consequences may only get worse.
* Next time, just ask the Author and wait before worrying about it.
* Don't let previous intentional, devious, lyingscumbag plagiarists (I have dealt with them) get me too suspicious.
Thanks, all. Sorry if in good AskMefi style I freaked out at the start. I hope this will help someone in the future. And, I really hope the person who raised this with us will not take this to a more public stage.
posted by Gotanda at 8:35 PM on November 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Just for the record...
We wrote a carefully worded letter asking author for an explanation and had it vetted by several editors.
Author replied, fully accepting responsibility for the double publication. In brief, Author had prepared two articles based on the same study. One was the duplicate article published by us and the other journal. The second, different article was digging deeper into the methodology. Author believes they mistakenly sent copies of the same paper to both rather than one to one journal and one to the other. Author was in the midst of an international move at the time (established fact) and this was pre-email days when you could see what you had sent. Author should have realized the error during communication with the journals, but apparently the other journal published it pretty much as submitted, and only we edited the article. That's why their version saw publication first. Chances are international postal communication from the other journal criss-crossed during Author's move. What happened to the other methodology article is unknown, but many years ago, busy academic, international move, new and demanding job, etc.
Author was quite surprised to hear from us because one of our previous editors had contacted him 15 years ago or so with the same question. Author apologized then and gave the same explanation. We finally managed to reach our former editor (retired), and he confirmed this generally. Though one could make the argument that the paper should have been retracted 15 years ago, it was not.
We had our chance to retract and did not. It might have been good for Author to retract at that point, but Author did not. It is unfair to subject Author to "double jeopardy," so it seems public retraction is not a good course of action. Silently removing the article will actually raise more questions and attention since it is cited and our very careful reader has raised the issue. Author was forthcoming and apologetic, and it seems that this has been an ongoing embarrassment for Author for many years. Author has quite a few other very, very similar papers, but none with us.
The paper will not be retracted. Author was sloppy and too busy, but our editor 15 years ago bears significant responsibility for this current state of affairs. The paper will stand as the least bad outcome, but we still have some smaller issues to resolve. Should we include a brief notice along the lines that the article was published in error/a version of a previously published article so that future readers will not raise this again? We may negotiate the wording of this with Author if we go this way. And, will this satisfy the careful reader who reported the issue so they do not pursue the matter further? There is a distinct possibility they might, which will be embarrassing for everyone concerned.
The most important results:
* Remember that even though the journal and ethical publication standards were the same, conditions were very different in the past and what seemed really dubious when viewed through current communication tools, was quite possible before. Someone "accidentally" submitting and publishing the same article seems impossible now, but it may have been possible before.
* We need better record keeping on our part.
* Also, authors, though this scenario is unlikely to happen today, it is often better to retract a paper yourself if there is a simple error. It will never go away, and the consequences may only get worse.
* Next time, just ask the Author and wait before worrying about it.
* Don't let previous intentional, devious, lying
Thanks, all. Sorry if in good AskMefi style I freaked out at the start. I hope this will help someone in the future. And, I really hope the person who raised this with us will not take this to a more public stage.
posted by Gotanda at 8:35 PM on November 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Should we include a brief notice along the lines that the article was published in error/a version of a previously published article so that future readers will not raise this again? We may negotiate the wording of this with Author if we go this way. And, will this satisfy the careful reader who reported the issue so they do not pursue the matter further? There is a distinct possibility they might, which will be embarrassing for everyone concerned.
I think this is the perfect scenario that calls for an Erratum rather than a retraction. A small note that says that due to author and editorial miscommunication, the article was inadvertently simultaneously published in another journal, and then list a citation for the other publication. The erratum should be tied/linked/available in the online article record so that anyone who notices in the future will see that it has already been dealt with.
Memail me if you want to see some example text from a very similar scenario.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 6:31 AM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think this is the perfect scenario that calls for an Erratum rather than a retraction. A small note that says that due to author and editorial miscommunication, the article was inadvertently simultaneously published in another journal, and then list a citation for the other publication. The erratum should be tied/linked/available in the online article record so that anyone who notices in the future will see that it has already been dealt with.
Memail me if you want to see some example text from a very similar scenario.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 6:31 AM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older Android games for pre-teens learning English | Statistics; correlations for a subset of a... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by dinnerdance at 9:14 PM on October 5, 2015 [2 favorites]