Comments on: Plagiarism flushes sanitation paper

By: AllOutWar

AllOutWar — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 22:51:09 +0000

And this is EXACTLY where Thomson Reuters has a part to play in responsibility. By having this gambling system, called the Impact Factor, based on the level of referencing, should the 10 or the 7 be excluded from “number of citations”? The fact that both 7 and 10 continue to be included, shows how the system is so gravely gamed. The IF will almost inevitably go up when fraud is factored into the equation… it should be adjusted to A/B = C – FRAUD! Someone needs to start asking tough questions to Thomson Reuters…

By: SKA

SKA — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:49:02 +0000

The original study was cited 10 times, the plagiarized version 7 times. So basically, 7 citations were abducted from the original author. Would it be appropriate to count citations as pertaining to the original paper? If so, one might demand that corrections to the 7 citing articles are published so that they don’t reference retracted work.

By: AllOutWar

AllOutWar — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:58:54 +0000

What actually happens to the retracted paper? I mean, what happens post-mortem? I suspect the claims against Indian (and Indian sub-continent) scientists is going to EXPLODE after two recent posts on this blog. Mega fireworks ahead… Many papers I personally know written by Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi scientists are FULL of plagiarism, “apparently undetected” by the publishers. So, once again, publishers are RESPONSIBLE (to some extent).