The editors received an unsolicited systematic review and the paper was assessed for suitability for peer review, as is the usual procedure for this journal. The editor who assessed the manuscript noticed similarities with a systematic review published in the same journal last year and investigated the extent of overlap further.
The new paper covered a more specific aspect of the previously published review, but the format is identical and large portions of the text are either directly copied or only slightly modified from that review. The authors refer to the previous review in their introduction but do not attribute any of the copied material to it. There is no overlap in authorship between the two reviews.
Even if re-written, the editors would not be interested in sending this paper out for peer review as there would not be enough new material to represent a sufficient advance beyond the previously published review. However, the editors wanted to ensure that the authors are aware of the seriousness of plagiarism and that the paper is not published in its current form in another journal.
The editor contacted the corresponding author to inform him/her that overlap in the text had been noticed and asked in a neutral way for an explanation. The corresponding author replied that owing to language difficulties and intensive reading of papers on this topic, the format and wording might be more or less the same as in the previous review. The editor has responded to the corresponding author, acknowledging the language difficulties and explaining the seriousness of plagiarism and that it is an unacceptable practice. The editors also informed him/her that they do not wish to consider this paper further.
Should the editors take further action — eg, inform the authors’ institution about the plagiarism?
The Forum agreed that the editor had acted correctly and there was probably little else that could be done. The Forum commented that the misconduct was likely based on ignorance rather than malice and that the authors may have misunderstood what was required. All agreed that the authors should be educated rather than chastised. The general consensus was that no further action was required.