Journal X was contacted by Author A, who claimed that a paper published in that journal ten years previously (by Author B) was plagiarised from Author A’s article in Journal Y published approximately ten years prior to that. Author A requested the retraction of Author B’s paper.
Journal X has run plagiarism software on both papers to see the degree of text replication and it is not significant (10%, from scattered bits of Author A’s paper). The degree of text replication is low - Author B has properly cited and referenced the prior work, and the data are not replicated, as the material under study is different. However, Author B has done a thorough job paraphrasing the text because the concepts are the same, and the structure of the paper is nearly identical – the equations used (as well as their placement in the paper) are the same, the two figures (graphs of the data) are in the same position, and the ideas/concepts throughout are the same but paraphrased. In the journal’s opinion, the biggest cause for concern is this mirroring of structure and ideas.
The journal has followed the COPE flowchart and are having difficulty deciding how to proceed. They have contacted Author B regarding the issue to ask for their response. They have replied and their response was reasonable.
Among the members of the journal’s editorial team, the general consensus is to not retract Author B’s paper, as it does bring new data into the literature.
Question for COPE Council
- How should we address this situation? Would an editorial announcement or an update to the Journal X paper be appropriate?
Advice on this case is from a small number of COPE Council Members. Most cases on the COPE website are presented to the COPE Forum where advice is offered by a wider group of COPE Members and COPE Council Members. Advice on individual cases is not formal COPE guidance.
COPE Council noted that plagiarism is not a black and white issue. Editors cannot interpret the extent of plagiarism based on a CrossCheck percent. The identical equations, both in typesetting and placement, could raise concern. However, duplication of the equations need not be problematic so long as they are attributed. On the other hand, the graph and figures are in the same position; are they the same? In particular, do the data support the graphs/figures, given the identical equations? While the COPE flow charts are there as a guide, there is no substitute for common sense in looking at particular cases.
The editor is going to have to determine if there is sufficiently 'new' information (in terms of new data and results) to make the call on issuing a correction or a retraction (not an Expression of Concern where an outcome is not resolved). The editor could ask an Editorial Board Member to look at the two papers and issue an opinion on whether there is anything sufficiently 'new' presented for the article to still stand (with a correction acknowledging the overlap). It is possible to 'correct' for plagiarism and be transparent about acknowledging the contribution to the concept for the study provided by the previous work where similar results were reported but emphasising the new data (if there are new data). If there are not sufficiently new data, and given the plagiarism, a retraction would be warranted.
If the editor thought it appropriate after so many years have passed, he could send an admonishing email to author B, stating that this sort of lazy borrowing of an article outline is not appropriate.
Another suggestion was that the editor could also make readers (and potential authors) aware of this type of transgression by means of an Editorial.