======= Date Modified 23 Nov 2012 16:54:04 =======
xxx

1) If material in one paper is reused in another then the second paper should definitely cite the first.  The 30% overlap seems reasonable as long as that data is used as supporting evidence in the findings of the second paper.  The use of one figure seems reasonable, but again this should cite the paper it was taken from. 

However, 90% reuse does seem way over the top and unless that extra 10% data produces a significant new finding, then the author is wasting paper space and other people's time by producing the second paper.  In such a case, the author should probably be looking at a short communication instead, citing the first paper to demonstrate the new finding.

The activity you describe can be done simply due to the reviewers and editors not being aware of a parallel submission, thus the author manages to effectively publish the paper twice in different papers.  Such a situation would be unethical.

2) Citing an earlier paper should only be done where the data or findings support the earlier paper and not at random to increase citations for earlier papers.

--------

I am aware of cases of fraudulent data and of omission and selective use of data by an author to support a 'finding' that omitted data might disprove or bring into question.  A former colleague of mine spotted a senior researcher omitting inconvenient data that may have disproved a finding the senior researcher wanted to publish. It's wrong and in ideal world, such people should be dealt with and papers retracted (also PhD revoked if necessary) without repercussions for the whistle blower.

However, you'll know by now that academia especially closes ranks as Universities and academics will seek to protect their profiles rather than readily admit to a fraud or wrongdoing.  Basically, the wrongdoer will see out their contract before being quietly moved on, though will probably have all duties removed from them.  Their data may remain in the public domain as retraction is further bad publicity and may affect findings of others in later papers (i.e. domino effect as findings in papers by others relying on the fraud's work become shaky or worthless). 

The problem is the whistle blower will also be quietly moved on, having initially attracted the bad publicity.


Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ - you might find this blog interesting on what is and isn't acceptable.

======= Date Modified 19 Nov 2012 10:34:16 =======

Sorry, this one just a few down made me smile!!!

"Veterinary journal pulls semen paper published (you guessed it) prematurely" :-)

Of those retracted, how many remain in circulation that shouldn't be there? Those listed on retraction watch represent only a fraction of those published and in likelihood a small number of those where the paper has significant 'problems'.


Ian (Mackem_Beefy)