The Nature Journal says Daneshjou duplicated an earlier paper!

Jun 18, 2005
10,889
5
#21
and Daneshjou is a full professor. So he should not have problems with the tenure track. I think in this case he simply got cheated by his own student and he was too big of a dumbo to realize it and whats more is that he put his name first on that paper so he is going to get the shit for it.

Justice served. :--biggrin

With that said, all his papers should be investigated.
 

Qahreman

Bench Warmer
Oct 18, 2002
2,105
0
#22
I don't know what kind of Conferance and .... you submit your paper but NO ONE who has LITTLE BIT of integrity does that.
It has nothing to do with integrity or cheating. If the work is of your own or from your research group there is nothing wrong with using similar introductions, definitions, etc. When it gets to copy and pasting its a different story...but still it happens every so often

I'm sure advisors that have IEEE lifetime achievement awards know better about what to do and what not to do.
 

shahinc

Legionnaire
May 8, 2005
6,745
1
#23
It has nothing to do with integrity or cheating. If the work is of your own or from your research group there is nothing wrong with using similar introductions, definitions, etc.

I'm sure advisors that have IEEE lifetime achievement awards know better about what to do and what not to do.
You are wrong.

If the work is your own, then you can use similar introduction. If the work is a paper that is from your group, then you have to refrence it even if you change few words here and there. Changing a word does not make it OK. It is the idea , it is the theme that you are stealing. If writing introduction is so easily, then why copy !!!


As far as everything else, be it figure, table and ... even if it is your own work and it was published earlier, you have to refrence it.
 

Qahreman

Bench Warmer
Oct 18, 2002
2,105
0
#24
You are wrong.

If the work is your own, then you can use similar introduction. If the work is a paper that is from your group, then you have to refrence it even if you change few words here and there. Changing a word does not make it OK. It is the idea , it is the theme that you are stealing. If writing introduction is so easily, then why copy !!!


As far as everything else, be it figure, table and ... even if it is your own work and it was published earlier, you have to refrence it.
Well if thats the case then I guess a lot of people have gotten very very lucky in their life...
 
Jun 18, 2005
10,889
5
#25
Well if thats the case then I guess a lot of people have gotten very very lucky in their life...
Can you give us an example of these "a lot of" people?

Look as for the introduction, you can report on already known facts from previous papers with citations but you can not copy paste from another paper's introduction.

So you are saying it is ok to cheat on your own group? Like the whole group gets together to write the introduction? As Deerouz said, you can not even plagiarize yourself, let alone the group.
 

arashinho

Bench Warmer
Oct 18, 2002
2,194
1
Berkeleyish
#26
unfortunately this is not as rare as one would hope, even in biological sciences. check out this resource that has used an algorithm to scan thousands of medline articles. the number of duplicate articles is astounding. especially since a substantial number of them fall in the same category as this discussion where someone just copied another's work without permission. if the field you are in is big enough and you republish something in a no-name journal there is a good chance that it won't be caught.

http://spore.swmed.edu/dejavu/

this article by the group that made the program is fascinating since they send out questionnaires to people who did the cheating and to those whose work was copied.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5919/1293

We recently introduced an automated process to identify highly similar citations in MEDLINE (3, 4). Our detection of duplicates relies heavily on human inspection in conjunction with computational tools including eTBLAST (5, 6) and Déjà vu, a publicly available database (7, 8). As of 20 February 2009, there were 9120 entries in Déjà vu with high levels of citation similarity and no overlapping authors. Thus far, full-text analysis has led to the identification of 212 pairs of articles with signs of potential plagiarism. The average text similarity between an original article and its duplicate was 86.2%, and the average number of shared references was 73.1%. However, only 47 (22.2%) duplicates cited the original article as a reference. Further, 71.4% of the manuscript pairs shared at least one highly similar or identical table or figure. Of the 212 duplicates, 42% also contained incorrect calculations, data inconsistencies, and reproduced or manipulated photographs.
Some responses:
Authors of earlier article
"I have been a research scientist for more than 50 years, and this is the first time I've ever experienced
such a blatant case of plagiarism. It sure was an eye-opener!"
"I have no statement. I cannot prove that this is plagiarism. Even if it is, what can be done?"
"[My] major concern is that false data will lead to changes in surgical practice regarding procedures."
"We were very sorry and somewhat surprised when we found their article. I don't want to accept them
as scientists."
Editors of journal publishing earlier article
"It's my understanding that copying someone else's description virtually word-for-word, as these
authors have done, is considered a compliment to the person whose words were copied."
The two articles" are the same patients, the figures are the same, and the writing is blatant plagiarism.
One of these papers is a false publication. We cannot let this one go unaddressed."
"We were not aware of this duplicate publication, and would not have given permission for this, as it
clearly violates copyright."
"I have been Editor for 14+ years and this is the first time this issue has been raised."
"It is clear that the subsequent author frankly, fraudulently used identical data … in writing the second
article. There is no way under the stars that we could have picked that up ourselves."
Authors of later article
"I would like to offer my apology to the authors of the original paper for not seeking the permission for
using some part of their paper. I was not aware of the fact I am required to take such permission."
"There are probably only 'x' amount of word combinations that could lead to 'y' amount of statements.
… I have no idea why the pieces are similar, except that I am sure I do not have a good enough
memory--and it is certainly not photographic--to have allowed me to have 'copied' his piece…. I did
in fact review [the earlier article] for whatever journal it was published in."
"I know my careless mistake resulted in a severe ethical issue. I am really disappointed with myself as
a researcher."
"It was a joke, a bad game, an unconscious bet between friends, 10 years ago that such things …
happened. I deeply regret."
"I was not involved in this article. I have no idea why my name is included."
Editors of journal publishing later article
"Looks like [the author of the later article] did it again in 2001. This example is a bit more
embarrassing because the author of the original paper is [the] editor of the journal where [the author of
the later article] published the copied work. Looks like we will have to publish two retractions."
"Believe me, the data in any paper is the responsibility of the authors and not the journal."
"I really appreciate your work and your e-mail has promoted us to exercise more strict control over
duplicate publication."
"There can be no doubt that this is willful and deliberate plagiarism. Like the chance of monkeys typing
out the works of Shakespeare, it would be incredible that the similarities could arise by chance."
"The news has taken us by surprise and a sense of deep concern. We are calling an emergency meeting of the editorial board to discuss the matter. [Our journal] deeply condemns the act and we stand firm to take necessary actions against the authors."
 
Jan 23, 2003
3,619
0
#27
You should consider yourself very lucky. We had a PhD student that was kicked off the program because he simply copied from books and review articles in his Thesis introduction. This is simply plagiarism. You can not copy others work be it from research article, Review article, Books or internet. Rule of thumb is you can not have 5 consecutive words similar to another published work. The student I mentioned above was caught by one of his committee member and was exposed during his Thesis defense. 5 year went down the drain for just being lazy.

You should not do that, and prey no one find about this because you can simply lose you degree.
I remember I used thesaurus to change words but yes probably I had more than 5 consecutive words the same as the books! But anyway that was eleven years ago they are welcome to take away my degree if they want!.... baa degreemoon hich pokhi nashodim hala biyan begiranesh..digeh farghi nemikoneh!