![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)
Upon a thorough review of the situation involving the striking similarities between the recently published article in Journal A and a counterpart in Journal B, the Editorial Board has deliberated on the matter. The authors were promptly contacted to provide an explanation, and their response, while citing differences in datasets, raised concerns about the lack of communication and oversight.
Read more: Editorial Decision: Inadvertent Duplicate Publication
A recent case brought to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) involves a dispute over authorship, where an individual acknowledged in a paper claims to have played a substantial role in the data analysis and interpretation, arguing for inclusion as an author.
Read more: Navigating Authorship Disputes: COPE Guidance in Acknowledgement Controversy
In a recent case brought to the attention of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), a journal faced a clear instance of potential duplicate publication. The submitted article mirrored a piece published eight years earlier in a surgical journal, presenting identical data on haemodynamics and intestinal blood flow in pigs, albeit with altered graphical presentation and additional authors.
In a recent case brought to the attention of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), an author appealed the rejection of two manuscripts by a journal, challenging a particularly negative review. The editorial board sought the counsel of a board member, who reviewed the manuscripts and reports, ultimately affirming the rejection decision. The author, dissatisfied with the outcome, now requests access to the manuscript files, including reviewer names and details of those approached for reviews.
Dear esteemed authors,
We are thrilled to announce that the monographs and chapters from the renowned Publishing House, Scientific Route, are now indexed by Scopus, showcasing the exceptional quality and impact of our publications. Explore groundbreaking research at Scientific Route.
In a decisive move, a scientific journal uncovers a clear case of duplicate publication when a referee discovers striking similarities between a submitted article and a piece published eight years earlier in a surgical journal. The authors, presenting identical data with altered graphical representation and introducing three new contributors, argue that minor additions in the discussion justify the second publication.
Read more: Journal Takes Swift Action Against Authors in Clear Case of Duplicate Publication
In a recent editorial quandary, a scientific journal grapples with a request from an author seeking access to the manuscript files, including reviewer names, after two submissions were rejected based on negative reviews. The journal's adherence to a blinded peer review policy has prompted a refusal from the editorial office, citing concerns about violating reviewer confidentiality and potential hostility towards reviewers.
Read more: Journal Faces Dilemma Over Author's Request for Anonymous Peer Review Files
The journal published an original article in 2022. Recently, we received feedback from a third party that the paper is similar to the authors' other work published in 2019.
Read more: SHOULD WE RETRACT A PUBLISHED PAPER WITH A HIGH SIMILARITY MATCH?
An article was submitted to Journal A for publication. According to the journal’s policy, the article was scanned using anti-plagiarism detection software, which gave a 17% similarity result. As the journal allows up to 20% similarity, the article was sent for peer review to two reviewers. One of the reviewers noted that the article had been published in a similar form in a conference proceedings. The reviewer sent us the article downloaded from the conference website highlighting the overlapping paragraphs, which was nearly 80%.
Read more: DUPLICATE SUBMISSION OR SELF PLAGIARISM. IS THE AUTHOR TO BLAME?