A review paper covering the prevention of a certain type of infection was submitted to Journal A. One of the reviewers identified that the paper was based word for word on a report that had published guidelines on the same area. The authors of both pieces are different. The only significant differences between the submission and the original paper were in the introduction and conclusion. The editor of Journal A contacted the corresponding author by letter, email, and subsequently mobile phone. During the telephone conversation, the corresponding author acknowledged that there was some overlap, but the telephone call ended abruptly at that point. The editor has been unable to contact the joint authors who work at the same institution. The editor subsequently contacted the lead technical writer/editor of the report who considered this scientific misconduct and is to present the case to her editorial board. Should the editor inform the director of the institution from which the paper emanated? Should s/he inform other people who have published papers with these authors? Should s/he publish details of this episode in the journal and identify the sources?
_ This is a serious case which warrants persistence. _ The editor should go ahead and contact the head of the authors’ institution but needed to notify the author of that. _ The editor should wait to hear back from the institution before contemplating further action. _ If the institution’s response were inadequate, publishing details of the episode in the journal may be appropriate. _ The editor may wish to coordinate any published response with the editorial team of the original report.