In one month we have received 11 manuscripts (9 case reports, 1 original study and 1 letter) written by authors from a European Union country. The manuscripts were submitted by the same corresponding author (author A) who was also the first author in all of the 11 manuscripts. Another author was the second author (author B) in 10 of the manuscripts. There were two other authors (authors C and D) in two of the manuscripts.
Four of these manuscripts (manuscripts 1, 5, 6 and 8) were rejected after the editorial review because they were not found to be original. One has been sent to reviewers and 6 are with associate editors for initial review. One of the associate editors has advised that the manuscript they had been reviewing (manuscript 10) has a similarity index of 97% The editor in chief checked the manuscript and found that the author had completely copied it from a previously published article although it was stated in the cover letter that the material had not been previously published or submitted elsewhere for publication. The author only changed the author names and added their own and the second author's names (A and B). There were no common authors, and the plagiarised article was published 6 years ago by authors from an Asian country.
In line with the COPE flowchart on suspected plagiarism in a submitted paper the corresponding author was asked for an explanation. The response stated that there had been a mistake and that the author wished to withdraw the manuscript. The editor in chief replied to say that the editorial board was not satisfied with the explanation, and that they wanted to consult with COPE.
The editor in chief also checked the other submissions, including the rejected ones. Three of the rejected manuscripts (1, 5 and 8) and another manuscript under review (2) had verbatim texts, comprising 50–94% of the related manuscript. The other two manuscripts (6 and 9) were duplicated from previously published articles containing more than 50% verbatim text where author A is a common author. Therefore, manuscripts 1, 2, 5, 8 and 10 are plagiarized manuscripts, and manuscripts 6 and 9 are self-plagiarized manuscripts.
The editor in chief has halted the review process of the 11 manuscripts until the matter has been resolved. They feel that they cannot trust the corresponding author anymore and wish to reject all their manuscripts, including the remaining 4 manuscripts (3, 4, 7 and 11), which do not contain verbatim text. Additionally, they intend to contact the author and coauthors’ institutions and proposed not accepting further submissions from author A for at least 5 years.
We have shared the case with other editors at WAME's listserv however the recommendations varied. Some advised to evaluate each case separately and continue to review the other manuscripts without having any problem; some advised to combine and reject all of them.
Questions for COPE Council
- Is it possible to combine all of the cases for evaluation?
- Can the editor in chief reject all of the papers, even the ones without problem just because they have lost trust in the author?
- The corresponding author is a resident at the institution’s hospital. Does that matter?
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.
Council would caution that the editor has an obligation to consider the merits of each manuscript individually; rejecting all is not justified. COPE does not recommend banning authors for ethical infractions, so if the author is not banned, it seems logical that each submission must be evaluated carefully. The editor is probably correct in suspecting the worst, given the history of this author, but that should just prompt a careful review, perhaps plagiarism checking all manuscripts before the review process begins rather than after. If there is a significant match, as defined by the software, it is always worth checking that the match is real, for example, excluding quotes and references.
The editor should contact the authors' institutions, particularly because this individual is a resident, so that corrective action can be taken before this author gets out into the competitive work world where pressure to publish can create the incentive to cut corners. This behaviour needs to be corrected at source.