Advertisement

Rampant Plagiarism in Two Journals

An investigation by The Scientist reveals blatant misuse of open-access articles.

By | May 22, 2013

WIKIMEDIA, GEORGY90Two journals appear to be involved in plagiarizing scientific articles that have been published elsewhere. In one case, a publisher called Science Reuters—which puts out the journal Pharmacologia—listed papers from PLOS journals and elsewhere in the table of contents of numerous issues of its Science Reuters journal. Another publisher, Insight Knowledge, also published parts of papers in Insight Biomedical Science that appeared in PLOS ONE and the African Journal of Biochemistry Research. Researchers whose papers were in Science Reuters's table of contents say they had no idea their work was being used by the journal.

“That is distressing, because we've never submitted an article to Science Reuters,” said Mark Johnson, an associate professor at Brown University. “I'm not even aware that Science Reuters is a journal.”

Subha Ganguly, the editor-in-chief of Science Reuters, which is not affiliated with the news organization Reuters, resigned his position a mere day after being contacted by this reporter about the re-published titles. Ganguly, a researcher at West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences in Kolkata, India, said he was unaware that Science Reuters was using other journals' papers as its own. “After hearing from you about all such irregularities in publication from the Science Reuters editorial office, I am withdrawing my name permanently from the position of editor-in-chief for the 'Science Reuters' journal magazine,” Ganguly wrote in an email to The Scientist.

No one responded to messages sent to general email addresses at Science Reuters and Pharmacologia.

It's unclear whether Science Reuters ever actually published the plagiarized papers or simply listed them on their website.

Most of the republished articles came from various PLOS publications, which publish under the Creative Commons Attribution License, in which others can use the work, as long as the authors and source are cited. There is no mention of PLOS in the Science Reuters tables of contents.

Insight Biomedical Science, which shares a physical address with Science Reuters and is published by Insight Knowledge, also published research that has appeared in other journals. A paper from its 2012 issue appeared in the open-access African Journal of Biochemistry Research, while another paper appeared in part in PLOS ONE.

After an inquiry from The Scientist, Insight Biomedical Science posted on its website that the plagiarized papers have been withdrawn (although as of publication, the PDFs of these papers are still available). It's unclear what role the authors and the publisher played in the plagiarism at Insight Biomedical Science.

When questioned about the re-published papers, Sherri Dow, a support liaison for authors, editors and reviewers at Insight Knowledge, wrote in an email: “We reproduced mentioned articles in the journal just to circulate it around the world. Because these papers are published on the basis of Open Access. But we also mentioned the original source of the papers.” (Again, no mention of PLOS or the African Journal of Biochemistry Research appears on the site.)

Masoud Ghorbani at the Pasteur Institute of Iran and his colleagues authored both of the plagiarized papers. In an email to The Scientist, Ghorbani said that his colleague had initially attempted to publish the research studies in Insight Biomedical Science. But after not hearing from the journal for 2 months, they assumed the papers were not accepted and they published their work elsewhere. “We tried to communicate with them for withdrawal or even corrections, revisions, or anything else, we got no response,” said Ghorbani. “We were not aware of publishing the paper in [Insight Biomedical Science] until recent notices.”

The Scientist reached out to several of the listed editorial board members of Insight Biomedical Science, but all of them were unaware of their participation. “Thank you for alerting me to the fact that a journal I was not aware of has my name on their website as a member of the editorial board,” said Rosemary Bass, senior lecturer at Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne in the U.K., in an email to The Scientist. “I will be instructing them to remove my name, and as I am not a member of their board do not have any insight into their practices.”

Hany Lashen, a clinical senior lecturer at the University of Sheffield, echoed Bass’s sentiment. “I am not aware that I am on their editorial board and cannot remember agreeing to be there,” he said. Coincidentally, Lashen was asked to be on the board only after The Scientist had begun its investigation of Insight's publishing practices. He said he will decline the invitation.

After The Scientist emailed Insight Knowledge about the papers by Ghorbani, it deleted its list of editorial board members.

In a statement emailed to The Scientist regarding the suspect journals, PLOS said that “the lack of attribution is concerning.” David Knutson, a spokesman for PLOS, said over the phone that such widespread misuse of its articles is “pretty rare.” Knutson added that PLOS's general council is sending a letter to the publishers expressing their displeasure and also attempting to contact the journal authors.

Johnson Lin, the editor of the African Journal of Biochemistry Research and a professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa, said his journal is conducting an investigation to determine whether the authors knowingly published in two places. “If so, this article will be retracted from [our] journal,” he said.

Another journal, called Pharmacologia, put out by the publisher of Science Reuters has published original research. Rolf Craven, a cancer researcher at the University of Kentucky, published work on the DAP1p family of proteins in the yeast Candida albicans in 2012. “The experience was totally standard for a low impact journal,” he said. He added that Pharmacologia appealed to him because it was free to publish. Craven said that the reviewers' comments clearly came from experts in the field. His only complaint was that the paper was not indexed in Medline, and therefore does not get cited.

Björn Bauer, an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, has been a member of Pharmacologia's editorial board since 2011, and he said his impression of the journal is “fishy at best.” His only involvement was fielding a complaint from a researcher who tried to submit a paper. “I've never received anything to review for them,” Bauer said. “I already thought [before The Scientist's request for an interview] that I'm some sort of an alibi for some sort of a strange thing that I don't understand.” Bauer said he'd like to remove his name from the editorial board, “but I doubt I would even get a response from them.”

Jeffrey Beall, a University of Colorado Denver librarian who maintains a compilation of “potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers” has included Insight Knowledge on his list. “To become a scholarly publisher, all you need now is a computer, a website, and the ability to create unique journal titles,” Beall wrote in 2012 article in The Scientist. Science Reuters and Pharmacologia are not, as yet, included on Beall's list.

This story is still developing. Check www.the-scientist.com for updates.

Advertisement
Keystone Symposia
Keystone Symposia

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Howard A, Doughty

Howard A, Doughty

Posts: 11

May 22, 2013

I don't want to sound too political, but it's clear something is happening in higher education and research publication. I call it "neoliberalism" or, if you prefer, the imposition of a market model on scholarship.

Colleges and universities are surrendering academic standards and giving in to notions of "customer satisfaction" as they "brand" their institutions and gear their "product" to a marketplace of "curriculum consumers" who, to be polite, are not aware of, much less impressed by, ideas of authentic education in the humanities, the social sciences, the life sciences and the physical sciences.

At least the latter two can breath comparatively easily since training in biology, physics, computer science, etc. is touted as a preferable route to employability. Still, the pervasive utilitarian-vocational-win at any cost ideology that infects students, administrators, teaching professors and researchers alike (and is interested in research only insofar as it can be "commercialized" are combining to do perhaps irredeemable damage to the ivory towers, bricks-and-mortar or even the online manifestations of "academe."

The range of sleazy author-pay, witlessly "open source" and merely the immense increase in honest (if poor quality) "journals" makes it impossible to claim that there are legitimate (and legitimating) standards for publication anymore. The lines are so blurred and the culture of corporate capitalism (there, I've said it!) so insideous that only the most prestigious of the elite publications or the most transparent and honourable of the "outsider" or "marginal" journals can be trusted ... and, on second thought, I'm not so sure about them.

 

Avatar of: Eric J. Murphy

Eric J. Murphy

Posts: 12

June 19, 2013

I am not sure how to reply to the response below as it really doesn't address the key issue brought out by this emerging story.

The real issue is the proliferation of "journals" that publish in Open Access mode.  In the old days, journals were supported by learned societies.  American Journal of Physiology, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Lipids, Journal of Lipid Research and the list goes on.  We knew that the editor was a person of high standards selected by members of the society to lead the journal.  This person recruited outstanding editorial board members.  Papers published in these journals were vetted by reviewers who were more often than not members of that given society. 

Sure there were commercial journals such as BBA, Brain Research and you can pick your favorites.  These journals were owned by publishing houses, yet still worked to have an editor who was outstanding in the field.  Hence, there was still the idea of publishing only quality work.

Fast forward to our current situation.  People have figured out you can make a whole lot of money by running a journal.  Any person with a computer can now run a journal.  Open Access is absolutely a wonderful runaway train that no one can quite figure out how to stop.  We went from very reputable Open Access journals to people figuring out exactly what these Open Access pioneers figured out, we can make tons of money by running these journals.  We offer minimal services, have no typesetting costs, minimal copyediting costs, so the profit margin if I charge $2000 to $3000 to publish an article are huge.  The more articles I publish the more money I make.  

However, the concept of Conflict of Interests obviously escapes these people as well as the authors submitting their work to these journals.  Have we all stooped to the point where we publish work that would never meet the metric in REAL journals?  Cash gets it published and oh by the way we take plastic. 

So why use the strategy to republish as illustrated above,   Well, many of use might just look and see what kind of papers are being published and by whom. Hence, recycling papers tends to be a means by which these flim flam artists have unsuspecting individuals providing an endorsement of the journal.  This drives people to publish therein.  The more positive advertising by the unsuspecting individuals through this clever but highly unethical means drives profit margins. 

To be honest, Open Access isn't all bad, but it is hard to figure out how to stop the runaway train. Despite my journal offering this as an option, something that I do support, the overall concept is not one that I support.  I figured out years ago where it might just lead us and unfortunately the article above illustrates that point. You CANNOT change human nature and the role that greed has in forming a key element in peoples decision making processes.   As long as people have cash to pay to have whatever they potentially create no matter how bad published, these journal will exist.  As long as there are flim-flam artist, these journals will exists. 

 

Avatar of: LeeH

LeeH

Posts: 31

June 19, 2013

This appears to be mostly a case of a few bad actors in dubious "new" online journals that want to fill their pages and don't mind borrowing from other journals to do so.  Hopefully this and other issues will shake out over time.   Most of the scientific world knows the difference between good and bad journal options, but not all.

Avatar of: Sticky

Sticky

Posts: 1

June 20, 2013

Niyi Awofeso. Ethics of Artificial Water Fluoridation in Australia Public Health Ethics (2012) 5 (2): 161-172 first published online August 21, 2012 doi:10.1093/phe/phs016

and

Niyi A. Artificial Water Fluoridation: Environmental and Human Health Effects. Health and the Environment Journal, 2012, Vol. 3, No. 2 Published 1 July 2012

are duplicate articles. Although they appear to be different authors it is in fact the same person.

R

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist