Subject: Re: (off-topic) self-plagiarism From: "Divakaran, Ajay" <adivakaran@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:02:22 -0400 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>Dear All, I once got a conference paper that looked remarkably like something I had reviewed a few weeks prior. I felt I had to inform both conferences, and so I did. The paper was rejected by both conferences even though I gave it a good review for its technical content. I would have been happier in some sense if the paper had not been technically good. My feeling is that if the reviewer presents concrete evidence of self-plagiarism, no editor can overlook it. In this case, the papers are already out there in public view, so just including the references to the paper in the review and recommending rejection should suffice. You can also send a special note to the editor about this. Usually a journal is obliged to communicate the complete set of reviews to all the reviewers along with the decision so once you have pointed it out in a review explicitly, it is not easy to overlook. I say this as an editor of a journal myself. I would like to think that the papers that get multiply published do so because of honest oversight by reviewers, and not because anyone is condoning self-plagiarism. Best Regards, ajay Ajay Divakaran, Ph.D. Technical Manager Vision and Multi-Sensor Systems Sarnoff Corporation 201 Washington Road PO Box 5300 Princeton, NJ 08543 adivakaran@xxxxxxxx www.sarnoff.com Phone: 609-734-2204 Fax: 609-734-2662 -----Original Message----- From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Stefan Strahl Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:58 PM To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: (off-topic) self-plagiarism > The old-school model supported by Dr. Divenyi doesn't work. As evident from > notorious cases in the past, it never did. - Lance Nizami PhD There is the option to ask the editor of a journal to retract an article, see for example http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sigpro.2005.07.019 So Laszlo could contact the journals and ask them to reevaluate the publication knowing of the existance of the five other articles. :) stefan