In a concerning development, a total of 11 manuscripts, comprising 9 case reports, 1 original study, and 1 letter, flooded our submissions within the span of a single month. What's particularly alarming is that all 11 manuscripts were penned by a single corresponding author, identified as author A, who also held the position of first author across all submissions. Moreover, author B appeared as the second author in 10 of these manuscripts, with two additional authors, authors C and D, contributing to two of the manuscripts.
Disturbingly, editorial scrutiny unveiled that four of these manuscripts (manuscripts 1, 5, 6, and 8) lacked originality and were promptly rejected. Of grave concern is manuscript 10, currently under review, flagged by an associate editor for bearing a striking 97% similarity index with a previously published article. Shockingly, upon further investigation, it was discovered that author A had shamelessly copied verbatim from the said article, despite assurances in the cover letter regarding its originality, merely altering the author names.
Delving deeper, it became evident that three rejected manuscripts (1, 5, and 8), alongside manuscript 2 under review, contained verbatim texts comprising a staggering 50–94% of content from related manuscripts. Equally disconcerting, manuscripts 6 and 9 were outright duplicates of previously published works, with more than 50% verbatim text overlap, wherein author A was a common contributor.
In response to this egregious breach of academic integrity, the editor in chief has promptly suspended the review process for all 11 manuscripts pending resolution. Additionally, a proposal has been put forth to contact the respective institutions of the author and coauthors to address this misconduct. Notably, a recommendation has been made to abstain from accepting further submissions from author A for a minimum of 5 years.
In light of these developments, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) underscores the need for meticulous evaluation of each manuscript, refraining from blanket rejections. While ethical breaches must be addressed, banning authors outright is not encouraged. COPE advocates for preemptive measures such as plagiarism checks before the review process commences and urges communication with authors' institutions to rectify such behavior at its root.
This unsettling episode serves as a stark reminder of the importance of upholding ethical standards in scholarly publishing, safeguarding the integrity of scientific discourse from deceit and malpractice.