Difference between revisions of "Resource:Ae70d213-bfc4-4def-b32b-ec04d8784f96"
From The Embassy of Good Science
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=Rampant Plagiarism in Two Journals | |Title=Rampant Plagiarism in Two Journals | ||
| − | |Is About=This factual case is about two journals | + | |Is About=This factual case is about two journals that were involved in plagiarizing scientific articles. Both journals republished open-access articles, in some cases without the original authors knowing, and did not properly refer to the original publication. Furthermore, the journals listed the names of various researchers as if they were members of their editorial boards. However, these researchers never agreed to these positions or did not have any editorial tasks, suggesting that the journal was merely using their name. |
|Important Because=The present case shows that plagiarism is not only committed by researchers, but also by publishers. Such plagiarism may not only harm the original authors of the articles by not attributing them for their work, but also the original publishers. It is important to recognize journals that do steal the work of others as fast as possible, so they cannot make many victims. This case may help to recognize such journals. | |Important Because=The present case shows that plagiarism is not only committed by researchers, but also by publishers. Such plagiarism may not only harm the original authors of the articles by not attributing them for their work, but also the original publishers. It is important to recognize journals that do steal the work of others as fast as possible, so they cannot make many victims. This case may help to recognize such journals. | ||
|Important For=Researchers; Journal publishers; Publishers | |Important For=Researchers; Journal publishers; Publishers | ||
Latest revision as of 14:50, 5 August 2021
ResourcesCases
Rampant Plagiarism in Two Journals
What is this about?
This factual case is about two journals that were involved in plagiarizing scientific articles. Both journals republished open-access articles, in some cases without the original authors knowing, and did not properly refer to the original publication. Furthermore, the journals listed the names of various researchers as if they were members of their editorial boards. However, these researchers never agreed to these positions or did not have any editorial tasks, suggesting that the journal was merely using their name.
Why is this important?
The present case shows that plagiarism is not only committed by researchers, but also by publishers. Such plagiarism may not only harm the original authors of the articles by not attributing them for their work, but also the original publishers. It is important to recognize journals that do steal the work of others as fast as possible, so they cannot make many victims. This case may help to recognize such journals.
