Journal A received a paper on a cross sectional study from six coauthors. It was reviewed, accepted and published. Two months later, a clinician contacted the journal and said that the material was taken from their thesis submitted to the same institution six years previously.
The corresponding author explained that the data were obtained from a large institution database and provided a letter from the university registrar that they had obtained proper approval to conduct this study, and data collection was four years ago, not six years ago.
Only then did the journal realise that this was a study conducted using a secondary dataset from the institution. In the paper, the authors described in detail the recruitment process and calculation of sample size, as if they were the primary researchers.
Questions for COPE Council
- Is this a form of plagiarism?
- Is it appropriate to claim authorship of research by not disclosing the source of secondary data (presumably data owned by the institution)?
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 does not necessarily see this as a form of plagiarism, as plagiarism is commonly understood to mean recycling of original ideas or expressions, not of data.
If the dataset is owned by the institution and the institution gave the authors permission, then use of the data appears to be acceptable. However, the authors should have declared on the paper that secondary data were used, provided the source of the data, and noted that the data were used with permission.
The journal claims to follow ICMJE recommendations, which include the following: "Authors of secondary analyses using shared data must attest that their use was in accordance with the terms (if any) agreed to upon their receipt. They must also reference the source of the data using its unique, persistent identifier to provide appropriate credit to those who generated it and allow searching for the studies it has supported. Authors of secondary analyses must explain completely how theirs differ from previous analyses. In addition, those who generate and then share clinical trial data sets deserve substantial credit for their efforts. Those using data collected by others should seek collaboration with those who collected the data. As collaboration will not always be possible, practical, or desired, the efforts of those who generated the data must be recognized."
www.icmje.org/journals-following-the-icmje-recommendations
www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/cli...
COPE agrees that the failure to disclose the source of this data was not appropriate, and the journal should consider publishing a correction to make it clear to readers that the study was conducted using a secondary dataset from the institution and also to acknowledge who collected the primary data.
While textual recycling was not directly noted here as an area of concern, if the journal has concerns about potential overlaps in the description of the recruitment process/sample size, and other details, the journal may wish to contact the institution to request a copy of the thesis for comparison.