Subject: Re: (off-topic) self-plagiarism From: "Bruno L. Giordano" <bruno.giordano@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:57:48 -0400 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>Dear Ajay and Pierre, the reviewers are not the only ones to be blamed if a journal publishes material that was already out there. A journal should take steps to avoid sending reviewers at least close-to-perfect replicates: it is better if only one person in the editorial offices runs the necessary simple checks rather than having two or three reviewers doing so. It is only less clear cut cases of self-plagiarism that should be left to the judgment of reviewers and to their knowledge of the field, which, depending on how carefully they have been chosen, should be up-to-date. Humbly, my two cents. Best regards, Bruno Divakaran, Ajay wrote: > 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 > > __________ NOD32 4219 (20090705) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > >