Subject: Re: (off-topic) self-plagiarism From: Al Bregman <al.bregman@xxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:12:23 -0400 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>Dear Ramin, I think yours is the most sensible comment so far on the subject of multiple publications of the same material. Thank you for your fair-mindedness. Al ------------------------------------------------------------------- Albert S. Bregman, Emeritus Professor Psychology Department, McGill University 1205 Docteur Penfield Avenue Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 1B1. Office: Phone: (514) 398-6103 Fax: (514) 398-4896 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2009/7/10 Ramin Pichevar <Ramin.Pichevar@xxxxxxxx>: > Hi Joe, > I think you've got a very valid point here. I think the best way would be to > share your and other reviewers' concerns with the authors through the editor > and ask them to further explain and clarify the matter. In any fair judiciary > system, people are allowed to defend themselves. I don't see why this shouldn't > be the case in the scientific review process. The editor and the reviewers can > then take corrective actions (if necessary) based on the authors' > clarifications. > Regards, > Ramin > Quoting Joe Sollini <joe@xxxxxxxx>: > >> Unfortunately I couldn't find the other four. Of the two I have read he >> does use actual data in one, but as you rightly point in the other he talks >> about it's application but does not actually model any data. It sounds like >> you have a very good case to suggest this is repetition (self-plagiarism). >> I share your disbelief at how this has happened, it's possibly due to the >> shifts in domain/scientific fields that this model traverses. Although >> given you found 6 with a google search of the title this shouldn't be to >> much of a barrier. >> >> Joe >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception >> [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Laszlo Toth >> Sent: 10 July 2009 13:27 >> To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: (off-topic) self-plagiarism >> >> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Joe Sollini wrote: >> >> > Sorry to bring this up again but having had a look for through these >> papers >> > Instead of finding six papers I was only able to find 3 (but six links >> > to papers). >> >> I found seven papers with virtually the same abstract (the one I received >> for review is the 8th). Unfortunately, I have access to the full text only >> in 3 cases (plus the one for review, but I keep that one in secret...), so >> this is why I have to judge based mainly on the abstracts. >> (I can send you a list, maybe you can help me get the remaining ones.) >> >> > If he has a model with a wide range of applications and >> > applies this model to fields as disparate as face recognition and virology >> > it could perhaps be deemed as fitting that they need to be published in >> > journals that people practising in the respective fields read? >> >> I definitely agree with that. But this would require the content of the >> paper to be: >> 1. We claim that we have a new theoretical model and that it is >> applicable to the field of the journal (conference). >> 2. The description of the newly proposed model. >> 3. Empirical justification on data taken from the specific field. >> >> This doesn't hold in this case, as I'll explain below. >> >From the 7 paper titles of 3 says "a fast ... model", and 4 ones go like >> "a fast model applied to the field of ...". So, the titles themselves accord >> with your description above. However, let's move on to the abstracts. >> >From the 7 abstracts 5 starts with the sentence: "This paper >> presents a new approach to speed up the operation of <model>". >> So the topic of the papers (according to the abstract) is NOT the >> application of the model to a new domain, but a theoretical result on how >> to compute it faster than earlier. Although the other two abstracts start >> with "this paper presents an intelligent approach to detect...", >> the remaining text is the same in all seven cases: "it is proved >> theoretically and practically that the number of computation required >> <by the new method> is less than that needed by the <old method>. So >> although the paper titles claim the the method will be tested on a new >> domain, there is no word about that in the abstract! >> Theoretical chapter of the three papers: these are word-by-word the same >> in the 3 papers I have access to. Notice again that the formulas are about >> the speed-up factor (number of operations required) of the method compared >> to the old one, so these again agree with the abstract, not the titles. >> Now, the funniest part: the experiments. In two of the papers the numbers >> are given in diagrams, in one in tables, so I cannot really tell if they >> are different or the same. However, these results are clearly ALL about >> speed-up ratios. So while the titles say that we will apply the method to >> a new domain (virus detection, code detection, record detection, etc.). >> there are NO detection results given at all! Just speed-up results, >> (as promised by the abstract). No proof that it works, only proof that it >> can be faster than before. And the most shocking part: none of the papers >> says ANYTHING about the test data! Only that these are Matlab simulations. >> But it is not stated at all that the data were domain-specific. I simply >> can't believe that these went through a review process. Ah, and finally, the >> Conclusions: its again the same in all papers, stating that "computations >> have shown that <new model> requires fewer compuation stepts that <old >> model>". Which is true, but thas nothing to do with the claim of the >> titles that the model will be applied to a new domain. >> Again, I can't say anything about the remaining 4 papers, but based on >> their abstracts I suspect that they were also "generated" with the "let's >> adjust the title and the first sentence to the domain" method. (which, >> as I said, would be acceptable if the experiments were also adjusted...) >> >> Laszlo Toth >> Hungarian Academy of Sciences * >> Research Group on Artificial Intelligence * "Failure only begins >> e-mail: tothl@xxxxxxxx * when you stop trying" >> http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/~tothl * >> >> >> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment >> may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: >> you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the >> University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. >> >> > --