Correction of the literature

Case

Victim of article theft wants correction to list their name, not retraction

18-17

Author A contacted us claiming that an article published in the journal recently by author B was stolen from an article author A had earlier submitted to two different publishers, publisher A in 2016 and publisher B in 2017. Author A provided the PDFs of the manuscripts they had submitted to those other publishers. The version submitted to us 2018 by author B was very similar to that submitted to publisher B.

Case

Possible plagiarism

19-03

We received an email from a whistleblower notifying us about possible plagiarism in two chapters published by us, both authored by the same two authors. The whistleblower accused the authors of substantial plagiarism.

Case

Self-plagiarism and suspected salami publishing

18-13

Journal A accepted a manuscript with six authors in June 2017, which was published in January 2018. Several months later, the editors of journal A found that journal B had published paper B, which shared striking similarities to paper A. Journal B accepted paper B in November 2017 and published it in February 2018. The first author of paper B was different but the remaining four authors were from paper A.

Case

Inconclusive institutional investigation into authorship dispute

18-07

After publication of an article, Author A contacted the journal asking to correct their surname. Author A’s name consists of two parts, but only one was included in the publication. The editor accepted this request but asked all authors to agree to publication of an erratum. Author B (the corresponding author) immediately replied, disagreeing with publication of such an erratum.

Case

Undisclosed conflict of interest

18-05

We published two peer-reviewed articles—one protocol and one paper with the results of a comparative analysis comparing a group of people associated with a specific “complementary medicine health care organization” (CMG), with the general population, which concludes that the group has “unusual health indicators” (more favourable than the general population).

About this resource

Full page history

  • 14 September 2021

    Reassigned to Forum discussion topic filter

Case

License for using a published scale

18-01

A researcher has published a paper in our journal using a scale published in 2008. She wrote to the scale developer in 2014/2015 at least three times (emails are on file) before the start of the project, but the scale developer did not respond despite repeated email reminders. No indication of the need for a license was received.

About this resource

Full page history

  • 6 July 2021

    Authors information removed from 'About this resource'. (The PDF lists author contributions and acknowledgements.)

  • 19 November 2020

    Minor edits of About this resource

  • 19 November 2020

    Updated 'About this resource' info.

  • 19 November 2020

    Link in body of page to newer V2 PDF updated.

  • 19 November 2020

    Design edits and metadata added to PDF.

  • 17 May 2020

    Text replaced with summary text from 2019 guidelines.

  • 13 December 2019

    case edits

  • 13 December 2019

    Editing for case

  • 13 December 2019

    Title case

  • 11 December 2019

    2019 updated Retraction Guidelines replace version 1 as pdf.

Case

Unhelpful institution report

17-13

An allegation of data fraud was not satisfactorily resolved by correspondence with the authors. We then went to the lead institution and asked for an investigation. Within 10 days we had a report clearing the authors, but interestingly using some of the exact same phrases the authors used in their responses to us. We felt that the report was too superficial and approached the other institution involved.

Case

Potential figure manipulation with corresponding author uncontactable

17-12

A reader contacted the journal to raise concerns about a paper containing a potentially manipulated figure. The editor-in-chief agreed with the assessment that the figure had been manipulated and attempted to contact the corresponding author, without response. Following further contact with the co-authors and institution, it was established that the corresponding author had retired after publication of the paper, and no current contact details could be found.

Pages