Obituary – Death – Cause of Death News : A case of plagiarism in an architecture journal’s review article has led to the resignation of a member of its editorial board due to the journal’s failure to address the issue promptly. Dirk H. R. Spennemann, from Charles Sturt University in Australia, expressed disappointment in the delayed resolution of the plagiarism case that occurred from November 2022 to September 2024.
The article in question, titled “A Review on Building Design as a Biomedical System for Preventing COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published in a special issue edited by Spennemann. The plagiarism was brought to light by Marco Spada, a senior lecturer in architecture, who noticed extensive similarities with two previously published works.
You may also like to watch : Who Is Kamala Harris? Biography - Parents - Husband - Sister - Career - Indian - Jamaican Heritage
Despite efforts to address the issue, the journal did not inform Spennemann of the allegations promptly, leading to a prolonged investigation process. Spennemann’s resignation was a result of the journal’s lack of transparency and proactive handling of the plagiarism case.
The delayed response and lack of editorial rigor by the journal were highlighted in Spennemann’s resignation email. The case reflects a need for improved processes and responsiveness within the publishing industry to address plagiarism issues efficiently.
The retracted review article, which has garnered 15 citations, underscores the importance of timely and thorough investigation of plagiarism allegations in academic publishing. The incident serves as a reminder of the need for journals to uphold ethical standards and address misconduct promptly to maintain credibility within the academic community. MDPI has taken steps to streamline the retraction process for articles across all their journals, resulting in significant improvements. In response to a case involving plagiarism, all journal staff are undergoing training on post-publication case management and retraction procedures, with specific staff assigned to handle ethics cases moving forward.
When asked for comment, an MDPI representative explained that they adhere closely to guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when retracting articles due to plagiarism. Investigations involve coordination between editorial staff, authors, editorial board members, and external stakeholders, which can cause delays in the retraction process.
You may also like to watch: Is US-NATO Prepared For A Potential Nuclear War With Russia - China And North Korea?
Regarding how an article rejected for plagiarism in one MDPI journal was accepted in another, the publisher clarified that their submission system, SUSY, is designed to link prior submissions of a manuscript across MDPI journals. However, substantial changes made by the authors to the original submission can result in the paper not being flagged as previously rejected.
Overall, MDPI is committed to maintaining integrity in scientific publishing and ensuring that ethical standards are upheld. By addressing issues such as plagiarism promptly and implementing new procedures for handling retractions, they aim to continue providing high-quality, reliable research to their readers and the scientific community.
Editorial board member quits over journal’s handling of plagiarized paper – Retraction Watch
Have you heard about the recent controversy surrounding a journal’s handling of a plagiarized paper that led to an editorial board member resigning? Let’s delve into the details behind this shocking situation.
The editorial board member in question decided to quit their position due to the way the journal dealt with a paper that was found to contain plagiarized content. This incident has raised questions about the integrity and credibility of the publication, as well as the ethical standards upheld by the editorial board.
What exactly led to the editorial board member’s resignation? According to reports, the board member was dissatisfied with the journal’s response to the discovery of plagiarism in a recently published paper. The member felt that the journal did not take appropriate action to address the issue and uphold academic honesty.
How did the journal handle the plagiarized paper? The journal initially issued a correction notice acknowledging the plagiarism, but the board member believed that this was not a sufficient response. The member expressed concerns about the impact of allowing plagiarized content to remain published without proper retraction or apology.
What does this incident reveal about the importance of ethical publishing practices? It highlights the need for journals to have robust policies in place for handling cases of plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct. It also underscores the responsibility of editorial board members to uphold the integrity of the publication.
As readers, what can we take away from this situation? It serves as a reminder to critically evaluate the sources we rely on for information and to hold academic journals accountable for maintaining high standards of integrity. By staying informed and vigilant, we can help ensure that scholarly publications uphold the values of honesty and transparency.
In conclusion, the resignation of the editorial board member over the handling of a plagiarized paper serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of ethical publishing practices. It also prompts us to consider the role we play as consumers of academic content in upholding the principles of integrity and honesty in research.
Source: [Retraction Watch](insert hyperlink)
