Thank you for your comment. It is emblematic for the present state of affairs, as it clearly demonstrates a pile of misconceptions which deserve to be addressed.
RE: â€œ"Science" is not asking for more dollarsâ€쳌
Respectfully, allow me to disagree. The evidence that your statement is INCORRECT is in the above article where anyone can read:
â€œUnited for Medical Research (UMR), an advocacy group that seeks steady increases in NIH fundingâ€쳌.
RE: â€œI also fail to see how duplication is any sort of misconductâ€쳌
Unlike you, The U.S. Office of Research Integrity points out 4 (fours) major problems with this. Please, check this out http://ori.hhs.gov/education/p...
Here are some points:
(i) â€œa paper that appears in two different journals robs other authors the opportunity to publish their worthwhile work. Moreover, duplicate or redundant publications waste the time and limited resources of the editorial and peer review systemâ€쳌
(ii) â€œredundant and duplicate publication must be avoided, for it has the potential for distorting the existing data base, possibly resulting in the establishment of flawed public health policiesâ€쳌
(iii) "copyright infringement, because data or text (or both) appearing in one copyrighted publication will also appear in another publication whose copyright is owned by a different entity"
Mick(ey), obviously, you have never been informed about these issues, which is clear indication for a major flaw of your supervisor and/or institution.
I know that this issue is a bit complex and difficult for you to comprehend, but please note that Duplication in science publishing is NO different than duplication of money or duplication of art, for example. Do you suggest that duplicating dollar bills and spreading these among the public isnâ€™t any sort of misconduct? Or duplicating a painting (even when it is done by the original author) and presenting duplications to the public as original isnâ€™t any sort of misconduct? Please note that the purpose for presenting ANY duplication is always one and the same: Personal benefit by deceiving the other party.
Duplicate publication (1):
â€œWhat we mean by social determinants of healthâ€쳌, Navarro V, Int J Health Serv. (2009),
â€œWhat we mean by social determinants of healthâ€쳌, Navarro V, Glob Health Promot. (2009), PMID: 19276329
Iâ€™ll appreciate if someone could explain to me: What is the purpose of this duplication?
Apart from the problems pointed out from ORI, there is one more here:
There is a great deal of confusion not only among the readers, but among other authors as well, since some of them cite GHP (the earlier publication) while more of them cite IJHS (the later publication).
Who benefits from this mess? One thing is for sure: Itâ€™s not the Science, neither the public.
Herewith, I suggest that this case can be used as an etalon for duplication, i.e. 1 Navarro = 100% duplication. For example, other duplications can be, say 0.7 Navarro (for major duplication), or, say 0.07 Navarro (for minor duplication).
Duplicate publication (2):
The paper â€œWelfare state, labour market inequalities and health. In a global context: An integrated framework. SESPAS report 2010â€³ published in Gaceta Sanitaria 2010; 24(Suppl 1):56â€“61, contains two figures (the core of the paper) which appear in earlier publication of the same authors, however, without any reference to the earlier publication entitled â€œEmployment Conditions and Health Inequalitiesâ€쳌, Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), 20 September 2007, available here: http://www.who.int/social_dete...
Fig. 1. Macro-level framework and policy entry points on p. 57 from the above mentioned paper in Gaceta Sanitaria is identical to Figure 13. Policy entry points in the macro-theoretical framework on p. 109 from â€œEmployment Conditions and Health Inequalitiesâ€쳌, Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), 20 September 2007;
Fig. 2. Micro-level framework and policy entry points on p. 58 from the above mentioned paper in Gaceta Sanitaria is identical to Figure 14. Policy entry points in the micro-theoretical framework on p. 109 from â€œEmployment Conditions and Health Inequalitiesâ€쳌, Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), 20 September 2007.
Apart from the identical figures, there are striking similarities in the texts of these two publications.
WHO Report, 2007:
Figure 2 provides a micro conceptual framework from which we can assess the potential links between employment conditions and health inequalities through a number of behavioural, psychosocial, and physiopathological pathways. Potential exposures and risk factors are classified into four main categories: physical, chemical, ergonomic, and psychosocial. axes such as social class, gender, or ethnicity/race are key relational mechanisms that explain why workers will be exposed differently to risk. the key axes generating work-related health inequalities can influence disease even though the profile of risk factors may vary dramatically. Material deprivation and economic inequalities, exposures which are closely related to employment conditions (e.g., nutrition, poverty, housing, income, etc.), may also have an important effect on chronic diseases and mental health.
Gaceta Sanitaria, 2010:
The â€œMicro Conceptual Frameworkâ€쳌 (fig. 2) identifies the links between employment conditions and health inequalities with reference to three different pathways: behavioural, psychosocial, and physio-pathological. Potential exposures and risk factors are classified into four main categories which are physical, chemical, ergonomic, and psychosocial. The specific mechanisms of stratification according to (for example) class, gender, and ethnicity/race explain how workers are exposed to risk in different ways. The axes generating work-related health inequalities can influence disease even though the profile of risk factors may vary dramatically. Exposure to material deprivation and economic inequalities, which are closely related to employment conditions (e.g., nutrition, poverty, housing, income, etc.), have important effects not only on acute conditions but also on chronic diseases and mental health.
Then, the very same figures appear once again in 2011 WHO publication http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publi... (p.165-195), once again with different titles and with absolutely no attribution to the earlier publications in Gaceta Sanitaria 2010, or WHO 2007.
The same figures appear also in another publication of these authors in another peer reviewed journal:
See â€œA Macro-level Model of Employment Relations and Health Inequalitiesâ€쳌 in International Journal of Health Services (IJHS) Vol. 40, No. 2, 2010, p. 215-221
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of employment relations and health inequalities: a macro-level model on p. 217
See â€œA Mesoâ€” and Micro-level Model of Employment Relations and Health Inequalitiesâ€쳌 in IJHS Vol. 40, No. 2, 2010, p. 223-227.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of employment relations and health inequalities: a micro-level model on p.225
The figures are always the same, they always appear with different titles and always there is absolutely no attribution. May be someone could explain to me: Is this an honest mistake or intentional deception?
Please note that Vicente Navarro from Example 1 is the Editor-in-Chief of IJHS in Example 2, and Carme Borrell â€“ the Editor-in-Chief of Gaceta Sanitaria, together with Joan Benach (one of the authors) were Faculty Mentors at The University of Toronto (the institution of the other author â€“ Carles Muntanes). Coincidentally they are all from Spain and are co-authors in numerous piublications.
RE: â€œScientific research has stringent controls relating to misconductâ€쳌
Prima facie â€“ Yes, but in real life â€¦itâ€™s just dust in the eyes of the public.
In an email to me the Vice Rector for Faculty Affairs at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra (institution of one of the authors) openly admits that â€œFigures 1 and 2 do not explicitly refer to the documentâ€œ and that â€œthe original report is not directly citedâ€쳌, but refuses to acknowledge this as misconduct?!?
Interestingly enough, the University of Toronto (institution of one of the authors) has Framework for dealing with misconduct, which states: â€œSpecifically, the following acts generally are considered instances of Research Misconduct: 4.1 m) Misleading publication, for example: ... 9. Portraying oneâ€™s own work as original or novel without acknowledgement of prior publicationâ€쳌.
See here: http://www.research.utoronto.c...
However, UoT refuses to acknowledge this misconduct and refuses to act according its own framework?!?
Elsevier, the publisher of Gaceta Sanitaria, declares that â€œOne of the conditions of submission of a paper for publication is that authors declare explicitly that their work is original and has not appeared in a publication elsewhere. The re-use of material, without appropriate reference, even if not known to the authors at the time of submission, breaches our publishing policiesâ€쳌. However, for almost one year now Elsevier is VERY reluctant to adhere to its own Policy in this case?!?
According to COPE website http://publicationethics.org/a...
"All COPE members are expected to follow the Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. COPE will investigate complaints that members have not followed the Code."
However, it has been almost one year after I have informed COPE about the above mentioned case and so far there was absolutely no action whatsoever from COPE?!?
RE: â€œIf anything research groups should be an example to societyâ€쳌
On top of the above mentioned, there are copyright irregularities, since at present three parties: WHO, Elsevier (Gaceta Sanitaria) and Baywood Publishing (IJHS) claim simultaneously the copyright on identical material!
So far, the research group in this case is an example of multiple misconducts.
RE: â€œWhat world do you live in?â€쳌
I live in the real world where according to ORI (see above) â€쳌the more publications authored by an academic, the better his/her chances of getting a promotion or tenureâ€쳌 (i.e. itâ€™s all about getting more from the hard-earned tax payers' money), while you Mick(ey) obviously live in Disneyland.