![International Collaboration in Health Research: Evaluating a Systematic Review on [Country's Name] by Non-native Authors](/media/djmediatools/cache/images/x723x274-crop-90-ikdaf2cd3qtv1rkqp1sj6ccnzuavwc6srudo0nxz_1.png.pagespeed.ic.HW7uSdT1rb.png)
![International Collaboration in Health Research: Evaluating a Systematic Review on [Country's Name] by Non-native Authors](/media/djmediatools/cache/images/x119x130-crop-90-ikdaf2cd3qtv1rkqp1sj6ccnzuavwc6srudo0nxz_1.png.pagespeed.ic.wrYLO_DTxU.jpg)
READ the monograph “FOOD TECHNOLOGY PROGRESSIVE SOLUTIONS” edited by Olesya Priss from Scientific Route OÜ.
In a shocking turn of events, suspicions arose regarding potential collaboration between a reviewer and an author, resulting in the controversial coauthorship of a submitted manuscript. The manuscript, originally a single-author submission, underwent standard processing within the journal's electronic submission system.
In a recent manuscript submission, a concerning issue arose regarding undisclosed conflicts of interest by a peer reviewer. Here's what transpired:
Upon manuscript submission, authors from a company suggested a peer reviewer who subsequently recommended acceptance without revisions. However, another reviewer suggested major revisions, while a third recommended rejection. This raised eyebrows for the editor, who investigated further.
Read more: Editorial Oversight: Addressing Undisclosed Peer Reviewer Conflict
In 2023, Google awarded a total of $10 million to researchers who found vulnerabilities in its products. The rationale? Allowing errors to go undetected could be far costlier, potentially leading to data breaches, refund claims, reduced customer trust, or legal liability.
Read more: Pay Researchers to Spot Errors in Published Papers: Introducing the ERROR Program
A series of troubling issues has come to light, suggesting potential serial misconduct by an author in relation to coauthors and other research activities. The complexities involve unauthorized paper submissions, ethical concerns in investigations, and suspicions of misappropriation from other publications.
Read more: Unraveling Allegations of Serial Misconduct: A Journal's Ethical Dilemma
An article submitted to Journal A was flagged by anti-plagiarism software, showing a 17% similarity index, which was within the acceptable threshold of 20%. However, during the peer review process, one reviewer identified that a significant portion (approximately 80%) of the article had been previously published in conference proceedings. The authors claimed that they had submitted their work to the conference under the condition that it would not be published in the proceedings. They provided emails to support their claim but were unaware that the article had indeed been published by the conference organizers. The authors sought to have the article retracted from the conference proceedings but received no response.
Read more: DUPLICATE SUBMISSION OR SELF-PLAGIARISM: IS THE AUTHOR TO BLAME?
In a shocking revelation, a recently published paper has been exposed as a verbatim copy of another work by a different author. This unsettling discovery unfolded through the vigilant efforts of a meticulous reviewer during the initial stages of the review process.
Read more: Academic Integrity Breached: Uncovering Plagiarism and Misconduct in Published Papers
Do you have developments on this topic? Publish them in the monograph!
Publisher: Scientific Route OÜ (Estonia)
All monographs are in open access.
Indexing: Scopus, Google Scholar, Zenodo, Digar and others (indexing details)
Copyright is reserved by the authors.
Special conditions - 50% discount for scientists from Ukraine
During the review process of a submitted manuscript, a vigilant reviewer brought to the editorial team's attention the discovery of a potential case of duplicate publication. The reviewer, while working on a related manuscript review, stumbled upon four articles not cited by the author under consideration.
Read more: Uncovering Duplicate Publication: A Lesson in Editorial Vigilance