From Neuroskeptic at Discover blogs:
Retraction Watch reports on three scientific papers (1,2,3) that have been retracted or deleted after I reported that they were plagiarized.
…
The papers, in different fields, did not pass a plagiarism softwear scan.
Every case I reported was a serious one. The percentage of unoriginal text ranged from 44-90%, with an average of about 65%. What’s more, I didn’t count overlap with the authors’ own work (i.e. self-plagiarism) as this is sometimes seen as less serious. Likewise, I only looked at review papers, because plagiarism is arguably less serious in experimental papers when the data is new.
Yet despite the severity of the problems I reported, most journals never replied to my emails. A few did acknowledge my concerns, and promised to investigate, but nearly a year later, only three papers have been retracted. I don’t know of any expressions of concern or corrections either. More.
Usually, when plagiarism is the charge, it is the plagiarized writer who is the accuser. Is it possible that in some fields, the plagiarized writer accepts it beau she plans to do it herself when convenient? And it’ best not to make a scene in that case?
Then, of course, there is the citation ring.
Meanwhile, the public is told we ought to “trust science” more.
self-plagiarist = bore Not a serious science offense, just a social sin
See also: Plagiarism in science text, not just journals?
Peer review and citation ring busted
and
Peer review “unscientific”: Tough words from editor of Nature
Follow UD News at Twitter!