Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Plagiarism: a symptom of epistemopathy
- Alberto E D'Ottavio (10 November 2007)
-
"If you fail to plan, you plan to fail."
- BM Hegde (12 November 2007)
-
When plagiarism is criminal
- Michael Pyshnov (15 November 2007)
-
The Kurjak plagiarism case: the vicious circle of academic corruption
- Matko Marusic (10 December 2007)
-
Zagreb School of Medicine lets its country down
- Harvey Marcovitch (13 December 2007)
-
Plagiarism: Roots of Evil
- Slaven Leticas (19 December 2007)
-
The world is watching ...
- Miguel Roig (19 December 2007)
-
Re: Plagiarism: Roots of Evil
- Ljiljana Vuckovic-Dekic (20 December 2007)
-
Plagiarism and punishment – role of public awareness
- Anđelko Karlovic (24 December 2007)
-
Clarification
- Miguel Roig (24 December 2007)
-
International editors, journals and ethics
- Karen Shashok (27 December 2007)
-
The Case and The Consequences
- Vladimir J. Simunovic (8 January 2008)
-
The Croatian Medical Journal and Zagreb Medical School.
- Robert Stallaerts (12 January 2008)
-
Professionalism and serenity above all
- Mirko Petrovic (16 January 2008)
|
|
|||
|
Alberto E D'Ottavio, Medical teacher and researcher Faculty of Medical Sciences and Rosario Research Council, UNR, 2000 Rosario, Argentina
Send response to journal:
|
Arts and sciences are prolific field for plagiarism, defined by Fiona Godlee (Editor BMJ) as “one of the three high crimes of research fraud”. In turn, I guess that one of its most singular expressions is self- plagiarism, a reprehensible practice used for augmenting the curriculum vitae. Other known case may involve to unethical reviewers who retain during a “prudential” time certain original findings made by other authors on their theme until their own are first published. An extra situation may be performed by distinguished researchers taking advantage of results published in journals written in a different language than English or in journals of lesser impact and circulation. Finally, researchers chosen for evaluating projects may fall in the temptation of getting hold of other investigators’ ideas. These examples, far from exhausting every possibility in this regard since most of them are listed in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),resemble once again to my knowledge a symptom of a current sickness baptized epistemopathy (1,2) by us and resulting, as we think, not only from the increasing scientific professionalization but from the more and more bureaucratic demands included. References 1 AE D'Ottavio, LI Carrera, GT Enría, C Staffolani: Fakes in research: a growing sickness? (Response to News: Lynn Eaton: Norwegian researcher admits that his data were faked, BMJ 332: 193-a, 2006) British Medical Journal on line 332:7535:193-a, 1 Feb.2006 2 GT Enría, C Staffolani, LI Carrera, R Etchepare, J Barragán, AE D’Ottavio: Epistemopatía: una enfermedad del neoliberalismo. Revista Foro Educacional (Chile) 9: 65-74, 2006 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
BM Hegde, Retd. Vice Chancellor Mangalore 575 004, India
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor, Right time for an editorial on plagiarism; the latter should be condemned in no uncertain terms. To include republishing one’s own material as plagiarism does not seem to fit in, though. The very definition of plagiarism excludes one’s own material publication. One cannot steal from one’s own material. People have got away with even praise for plagiarism. Wagner Juregg got his Nobel in 1927 for inventing fever therapy for GPI. Hippocrates wrote up fever therapy long before that. The malaria vaccine, which Juregg used to produce hyperpyrexia, killed the majority of patients in the trial due to falciparum that was not recognized then. Those facts were suppressed in the final report. Plagiarism has been with us for a long time. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means: “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own, to use (another's production) without crediting the source, to commit literary theft , to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.” I am at a loss to understand as to how patients suffer due to plagiarism and how could patients die due to plagiarism to make it a criminal offence. Any stolen idea, if already published, would have caused all that we attribute to plagiarised piece in the first place. How then does the latter cause death of patients? If one were to ask for criminal punishment for plagiarism what about the deception by many other players in the field including medical education, recently exposed in many publications? (1) Some of it had been well documented by Marcia Angell in her recent book. (2) Do we have double standards in science? This takes us to the next question. How good is the good statistical science of medicine? How reliable are our gold standards like randomized controlled studies (RCTs)? While a single drug is studied for a defined disease under standard conditions in RCTs lasting for up to five years at the most, in reality drugs in combination, sometimes up to twenty, are prescribed to patients in totally different life situations with multiple pathologies most of the time. Where is the evidence base for poly- pharmacy? Is this also punishable? I am not aware of any long term study of RCT (say 15-20 years) of any of the drugs before we “scientifically” prescribe those very drugs life long to healthy individuals in the fond hope of controlling “risk factors” like elevated sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure etc. Adverse drug reactions (ADR) are high up in the list of causes of death in audits done in the US. (3) Most ADRs crop up after prolonged use of drugs in society, especially in combinations. Where is the scientific basis for our predicting the unpredictable future of this dynamic system, the human body, using our linear statistical scientific data with reference to regular check up of the apparently healthy? How scientific is our definition of “normal” in the first place? (4), (5) A recent definition of a “patient” was funny: “A human being who sees a doctor becomes a patient. S/he rarely ever, if ever, becomes a human being again!” Were these discussed in the Paris meeting where plagiarism was condemned to be included in the criminal law system? I think it is time to take stock of our very scientific basis. Should we not have a serious debate on those gray areas? Our future generations might not forgive us if we did not do that. Medical history tells us that we have been barking up the wrong tree many times in the past to the detriment of the hapless patients. The caption of this letter is an old proverb that says it all. We were treating SMON (sub acute myelo-optico neuropathy) as a slow virus disease even when many were dying of an ADR due to quinoline derivative anti-diarrhoeal drug. It was a family doctor, Dr. Kano, whose keen observations saved this world from another drug induced disaster in SMON! Were we not treating Beri Beri and Pellegra as bacterial diseases for a long time with dangerous drugs? (6) One can go on and on. “History” wrote Cicero, the Roman thinker, “repeats itself; if we do not learn from history we will have to relive history.” How very true? 1) Angell M. Is academic medicine for sale? New Engl. J Med. 2000; 342: 1516-18. 2) Angell M. Truth about drug companies. 2004. Random House, New York. 3) Starfield B. Is US medicine the best in the world? JAMA 2000; 284: 483- 485. 4) Firth WJ. Chaos-doctors predicting the unpredictable. BMJ 1991(26th December Xmas issue. 5) Smith R. The screening industry. BMJ 2003;326(7395): (26 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7395.0 6) Duesberg P. Inventing the AIDS virus. 1996. Regnery Publications USA. Yours ever, bmhegde Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael Pyshnov, none; retired none
Send response to journal:
|
There are cases when a professor who supervised a PhD student, had plagiarised/stolen the student's research and ideas. In some of these cases this was done before the student even published the research, i.e. by using the supervisor's knowledge of the student's research and not by plagiarising from an already published paper. This is an aggravating circumstance that puts this type of plagiarism in criminal code, along with fraud and other crimes of dishonesty. One of the horrendous consequences of such plagiarism is that it prevents the true author from publishing this same research, as now the true author will appear as plagiarist. This type of plagiarism also constitutes a falsification of the student's academic record, it denies academic credit. In 2001, US court ruled that PhD supervisor has fiduciary obligations toward a student researcher (http://law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0035.html). Plagiarising research when being in a fiduciary position that demands highest degree of honesty, is another aggravating circumstance and one more aspect of fraud. I agree with the BMJ article, but I think that some types of plagiarism can already, without additional legislation, be treated as crime. I also believe that the current definitions of plagiarism are not sufficiently describing the act, its meaning in academia and its legal meaning. I propose this definition: "Plagiarism is a falsification of the fact of authorship". Michael Pyshnov.
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Matko Marusic, Editor in Chief Zagreb University School of Medicine, Salata 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Send response to journal:
|
The cloud now hanging over Croatia's research community (1) is dark indeed. The Court of Honour of Zagreb University’s Medical School has dismissed proven allegations of Professor Kurjak's misconduct (2) on the grounds that his misconduct had occurred long ago, that the culprit had already apologised, and that he recently retired (3). The decision of the Court of Honour did not refer to the fact that the national Committee for Ethics in Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Croatia (4) had confirmed the allegations made in Chalmers’ article published in the BMJ last year (2), and had found additional examples of Kurjak’s unethical practices after evaluating his whole publication opus (5). Nor did the Medical School’s Court of Honour mention that, in July this year, the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports suspended the funding of Kurjak's research grant (6). Following the publication of Chalmers’ allegations of Kurjak’s recurrent plagiarism, the BMJ and Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) were asked to investigate Kurjak’s articles they published (7). As co-editor in chief of the CMJ, I wanted to exclude any, even perceived conflict of interest, and asked the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) for their expert opinion on the articles by Kurjak which had been published in our journal. This investigation revealed unacknowledged duplicate publications (8,9). A report documenting this was sent to the Dean of the Medical School, Prof. Nada Cikes, on 14 March 2007. I was surprised to discover that my report was not mentioned in the ruling of the School’s Court of Honour, but hoped that it might be in the full report produced by the Court. However, at the meeting of the School’s Council, held on 27 November 2007, I learned that my report and findings in the CMJ had not been mentioned in the full report either. When I asked about this omission, Prof. Branimir Jaksic, the president of the Court of Honour, replied that the Court had never received my report. When I asked the Dean why my report had not been sent to the Court of Honour, she told me that she cannot recall ever receiving my report; this despite the fact the report had been filed officially with the School authorities. On 7 December 2007, I received a different explanation from the Dean: this time she stated that she had received my report on the Kurjak case and had sent it on to the School’s Committee for Academic Integrity, although she did not specify when this had happened or what the outcome of this referral, if any, had been. Certainly, I have heard nothing from the Committee for Academic Integrity. At the School’s Council meeting, I learned that the Court of Honour also did not receive the national Committee for Ethics in Science’s report on the Kurjak case (5), although Dean Cikes told to the BMJ in May 2007 that “it [the report] would be considered by the university’s court of honour” (10). Another aspect of the Kurjak affair that bears scrutiny is the way in which it has been handled by Dean Cikes in the Croatian media. After the president of the School’s Committee for Science, Professor Boris Labar, had spoken publicly about the Committee’s investigation of Kurjak, and after I had spoken about the state of affairs at the Zagreb Medical School, Dean Cikes issued a faculty-wide ban on any further communication with the media. As our journal represents three Croatian medical schools in addition to the Zagreb School of Medicine (11), I protested about her ban at a meeting of the Zagreb Medical School Council. At that meeting Professor Kurjak disclosed that Dean Cikes had allowed him to appear on TV after her ban had been issued, and had advised him on how to handle his interview. I reported Cikes’ ban to Minister Dragan Primorac and to the Rector of the University – Professor Aleksa Bjelis. The former forwarded the complaint to the latter, who forwarded it to Dean Cikes to “process the complaint”. The Economist recently suggested that “the concept of conflict of interest is little understood” in Croatia (12). The actions of the University of Zagreb and the Medical School suggest that the academic community in Zagreb believes that its autonomy provides it with immunity from its responsibility to the public. Invited to comment on Kurjak’s misconduct during a TV show, University Rector Bjelis stated that plagiarism was a benign problem and that the University had more important problems to address. Institutional failure to deal with research misconduct occurs in other academic communities (13), but a worrying aspect of the failures described above is their possible impact on the prospects for Croatia’s accession to the European Union (14). I welcome the spotlight that has been provided by international exposure of the scientific misconduct of a Croatian academic, and of the events which followed, in the BMJ. My response to the decision of the Court of Honour of Zagreb University’s Medical School is neither a cry for help, nor an attempt to pursue further allegations of Kurjak’s scientific misconduct. It is simply a first-hand testimony that many Croats detest certain aspects of the status quo in Croatia and wish to fight it, but that it is difficult to confront entrenched academic attitudes during the transition from authoritarian to more democratic and accountable structures. Matko Marusic Editor in Chief Croatian Medical Journal Zagreb, Croatia 1. Godlee F. Plagiarism and punishment. BMJ 2007;335, doi:10.1136bmj.39392.602523.47. 2. Chalmers I. Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak. BMJ 2006;333:594-6. 3. Kmietowicz Z. University drops case against Croatian academic accused of plagiarism. BMJ 2007; 335:1014, doi:10.1136/bmj.39392.474711.4E. 4. Puljak L. Croatia founded a national body for ethics in science. Sci Eng Ethics. 2007;13:191-3. 5. National Board for Ethics in Science and Higher Education, Republic of Croatia. Ruling on the Kurjak case [in Croatian]. Available at http://www.azvo.hr/Default.aspx?sec=142. 6. Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia. Public statement of 23 July 200 [in Croatian]. Available at: http://public.mzos.hr/Default.aspx?art=8009&sec=2998. 7. Godlee F, Marusic M. Re: journals are also responsible. Rapid response to Chalmers I, BMJ 2006;333:594-595. Available at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/333/7568/594. 8. Marusic M. Notice of retraction: "Intervillous blood flow in patients with missed abortion" (Croat Med J. 1998;39:41-4). Croat Med J. 2007;48:390. 9. Marusic M. Notice of retraction: "What do contrast media add to three-dimensional power Doppler evaluation of adnexal masses?" (Croat Med J. 2000;41:257-61). Croat Med J. 2007;48:145. 10. Watts G. Croatian academic is found guilty of plagiarism. BMJ 2007;334:1077. 11. Marusic M, Bosnjak D, Rulic-Hren S, Marusic A. Legal regulation of the Croatian Medical Journal: model for small academic journals. Croat Med J. 2003;46:663-73. 12. Charlemagne. Post-enlargement stress. The Economist, 8 November 2007. Available at: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10097850. 13. Brumfiel G. Misconduct? It's all academic... Nature. 2007;445:240 -241. 14. Economist Intelligence Unit Briefing. Croatian crackdown. The Economist, web edition, June 19, 2007. Available at: http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9356168&CFID=26019686&CFTOKEN=52967019. Competing interests: I am co-editor in chief of the Croatian Medical Journal. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Harvey Marcovitch, Chairman, Committee on Publication Ethics PO Box 39, Harleston IP20 9WR
Send response to journal:
|
In November 2006, the editors of the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) asked the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)to assist it in dealing with allegations against Prof. Asim Kurjak of duplicate and/or redundant publication. These were quite separate from the previous allegations of plagiarism by this author. An investigation by COPE concluded in February 2007, in regard to the papers submitted to it by the journal, that 'there is strong evidence that Prof Kurjak (and/or his co-authors) committed publication misconduct in at least three occasions in relation to papers submitted to the CMJ. In two cases papers co-authored by Prof Kurjak were submitted to CMJ after simialr papers had been accepted by another journal, and in one case it appears the material published in CMJ was inappropriately republished in another journal.' COPE advised the editors of the CMJ to send its report to the University of Zagreb requesting they conduct an enquiry into the allegations. One problem that has beset COPE since it was founded in 1997 has been the apparent reluctance of some institutions to take seriously complaints made to them by editors about probable publication misconduct by their staff or employees. It now seems the University of Zagreb is one of them. COPE is appalled by Dr Marusic's revelation that the report was swept under the carpet by those entrusted with maintaining the integrity of research at the University's medical school. Far from protecting the name of the University and its medical school, this action only serves to diminish their reputations and to cast doubt on the undoubted body of reliable and honest research carried out there. COPE has written to the Dean of the medical school, the Rector of the University and the Croatian Minister of Health, Prof. Primorac, expressing its dismay. Let us hope that the Minister directs that the Court of Honour at Zagreb University be reconvened to consider the complaint from the CMJ. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Slaven Leticas, Professor of health economics and medical sociology University of Zagreb School of Medicine, 10.000 Zagreb, Rockefellerova 4
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Mrs. Godlee, First of all please allow me to briefly introduce myself. I am a professor at the Zagreb University School of Medicine (I have had tenureship at the medical sociology and health economics department since 1984), the same university you wrote about in your editorial titled Plagiarism and Punishment (BMJ 2007, 335, 10 November). For the last for years I have been an independent member of the Croatian Parliament so I was only engaged in the basic class obligations at the School of Medicine and was not taking part in the faculty debates and decisions regarding plagiarism and other unlawful actions of my colleague Professor Asim Kurjak . Nevertheless, I am personally familiarized with the case and know all the key figures of that sad and damaging story which undermines the reputation and credibility of our University. On the most part I agree with your comments that "plagiarism is one of the three high crimes of research fraud"; the other two being fabrication and falsification. By "the most part" I mean that there are also some other grievous sins or crimes deserving of the "high crimes" title: (a) sterility, laziness and incompetence of scientists; (b) exploitation and prevention of professional development of junior colleagues; (c) ghostwriting and "honorary authorship"; (d) the invisible theft and piracy of others' ideas during the peer reviews process; (e) nepotism; (f) human and professional corruption etc. Nevertheless, I fully agree with your following statement: "Unless the Dean of the Zagreb Medical School, Nada Cikes, shows that she takes Kurjak's offences seriously, the scientific integrity of the whole institution is in question and a cloud will remain over Croatia's research community". However, as a professional scientist, researcher and university professor with experience in law-making I simply cannot agree with your opinion that the declaration of plagiarism as a felony under Croatian Criminal law would solve the problem of unethical behaviour of our fellow scientists – in Croatia or elsewhere. Or, as you put it: "If we made it (plagiarism – S.L.) a criminal offence, subject to a country's criminal law, it would have to be taken seriously". My deep belief is that prevention problem of plagiarism, as well as a method of dealing with it, must primarily remain a problem of both national and global scientific communities which must discover, and which already has discovered, practical and efficient methods and techniques for discovering, preventing and sanctioning of all forms of research fraud. The inclusion of the State and its repressive institutions and methods into the resolution of research fraud problems would endanger the principles of scientific and academic autonomy and freedom far more than it would contribute to the elimination of the evil of plagiarism. When it comes to the specific cases of Professor Kurjak's plagiarism, as a medical sociologist I must say that they, at least partly, must be analysed as a part of a much broader theoretical discussion (based upon the results of specific empiric research!) about the socio-cultural sources of plagiarism in ex communist countries including Croatia. Namely, there was simply no culture of respecting private ownership in such countries and such societies. There was only a dogma of state ownership, or, in the case of the former Yugoslavia, social ownership. There was something of an intellectual anarchy in a part of the intellectual communities, including the research communities. Intellectual piracy was almost a legitimate professional method when it came to "borrowing" (in fact stealing) "small parts" of text, images, data or tables from international scientific and expert publications, without permission of the author and/or the editor. The language barriers made it possible for a number of "scientists" to steal, commit intellectual theft, piracy and pick pocketing without any legal sanction or condemnation of his fellow colleagues or the scientific community. Moreover, the practice of mass plagiarism is still quite common in journalism, politics, art, popular music, graphic designing or bureaucracy (bureaucratic plagiarism). I am personally aware of a few cases of "respected scientists" in the field of social sciences who published university textbooks in the 1960s and 1970s which included parts which were literally copied (up to 50% of the text) or stolen from foreign published textbooks. The paradox lies in the fact that these works, although in a quite absurd way, were culturally and educationally useful as they presented a chance for pupils and students to have at least some access into quality literature at a time when almost no one spoke the foreign "capitalist" languages. The situation has dramatically improved in the last fifteen years or so when it comes to honouring copy rights and also when discussing the sensitivity of the research communities and the media when it comes to cases of scientific fraud and plagiarism. An important part of this has also been the attention given to the Kurjak case by BMJ. The roots of his plagiarism also go back to the Communist era, to the year 1974. The Croatian medical and scientific community and the general public have experienced the Kurjak case as a symptom of a serious ethical crisis of modern Croatian science, as well as global science. The price that Professor Kurjak has already paid for his scientific piracy and plagiarism – measured in a dramatic loss of reputation and the loss of all professional positions in both Croatian and international scientific and medical communities and general public – is costly enough to be educational and serve as an example to the rare few Croatian scientists who still believe that plagiarism is only a benign offence. We should never forget that it was Professor Kurjak himself who was a personification of professional excellence and success in a small research community such as Croatia for more than three decades, success in all fields, clinic, publicist, managing, teaching and financial. All of this was jeopardized by his plagiarism! This really is no small price he has paid, rightfully so, for his scientific fraud and is no argument in the thesis of BMJ that our University has not taken the "Kurjak case" more seriously. Yours truly,
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Miguel Roig, Associate professor of Psychology St. John's University
Send response to journal:
|
An editorial in the latest issue of the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) (1) provides additional information concerning the Kurjak episode (2) and its continuing aftermath, a situation that now appears to threaten the very existence of that journal. I cannot help but point out the irony that a medical journal, which has been at the forefront in promoting scientific integrity, should now find itself challenged, even threatened, by powerful forces within the very community it is trying to protect. I am convinced that one of the reasons why academic dishonesty and scientific misconduct are often kept "hidden" by institutions is because of their potential for tarnishing institutional and personal reputations. Thus, it is not surprising that in a significant number of cases, there are serious adverse consequences for the whistle blower (3). This is why at least here in the US there is a certain degree of protection for those who expose misconduct (4). Even so, when the powerful are challenged there can be a heavy price to pay, particularly when there is a power differential favoring the perpetrator. Here, I am reminded of the sad case of a group of graduate students who had the courage to turn in their mentor for misconduct (5). I hope all of those involved in this ugly situation, and others who have an important stake in the survival of CMJ, take up the editors’ invitation to present their evidence and to dialogue about all relevant issues. The scientific and governmental authorities in Croatia need to realize the importance of settling these critical matters in a fair and transparent manner. They need to know that the world is watching and that a biased outcome can have serious repercussions for the future of Croatian science. 1. Marusic M, Marusic A. Threats to the Integrity of the Croatian Medical Journal. Croat Med J. 2007;48:779-785. Available at: http://www.cmj.hr/2007/48/6/18074411.htm. 2. Chalmers I. Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak. BMJ 2006;333:594-6. 3. Pascal C B. Complainant issues in research misconduct: The Office of Research Integrity experience. Exp bio & Med 2006;231:1264-1270. Available at: http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/full/231/7/1264. 4. Office of Research Integrity. Handling misconduct – complainant. Available at: http://ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/whistleblowers.shtml. 5. Couzin J. Scientific misconduct: Truth and consequences. Science 2006; 313:1222-1226. Competing interests: I carry out research and lecture in the area of academic and scientific plagiarism and I have met the editors of CMJ. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ljiljana Vuckovic-Dekic, Professor of Reserach 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
Send response to journal:
|
In the past, each case of (proven) violation of high ethical standards of science had shaken any scientific community, either large or small, like an earthquake. It happened also in Croatia when Professor Asim Kurjak, “personification of professional excellence” (1), was accused for repeated plagiarism (2). In his letter (1), Professor Letica argues that the violator is punished adequately, with which one can agree or disagree. However, I do not think that the communism is the root of evil: great majority of scientists in ex-communistic countries had lived (and had spoken at least one of “capitalist” languages!) under the same conditions as Professor Kurjak, but had never committed neither great scientific crimes, nor more benign breaches of ethics (so-called grey zone of misconduct). Besides, Professor Kurjak published more ethically questionable research articles after communistic era, and these articles were retracted by the journal which published them (3,4) I believe that a community is valued, among other, also on the basis how it deals with, and resolves, such highly unpleasant cases. As far as I understand the matter, in this particular case, the University of Zagreb authorities has reacted inadequately, trying to silence the case and sweep the dirt under carpet (5). This is an opportunistic attitude and therefore must be labeled as unethical. But I am much more concerned with what happened in due course – threats to the integrity of the Croatian Medical Journal and its editors (6). This journal is for more than one decade leading journal with respect to the introducing the culture of research integrity in this part of world (7), thus gaining respect of much larger audience. It seems that the University of Zagreb authorities found CMJ guilty for its strict adherence to good editorial practice, the obligation to correct the published literature record being an important part of it. What a paradox! Competing interest: None 1. Letica S. Plagiarism: Roots of Evil. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7627/0#184270 2. Godlee F. Plagiarism and punishment. BMJ 2007;335, doi:10.1136bmj.39392.602523.47. 3. Marusic M. Notice of retraction: "Intervillous blood flow in patients with missed abortion" (Croat Med J. 1998;39:41-4). Croat Med J. 2007;48:390. 4. Marusic M. Notice of retraction: "What do contrast media add to three- dimensional power Doppler evaluation of adnexal masses?" (Croat Med J. 2000;41:257-61). Croat Med J. 2007;48:145. 5. Markovitch H. Zagreb School of Medicine lets its country down. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7627/0#184270 6. Marusic M, Marusic A. Threats to the integrity of the Croatian Medical Journal (Editorial). Croat Med J 2007;48:779-85. 7. Petrovecki M, Scheetz MD. Croatian Medical Journal introduces culture, control, and the study of research integrity. Croat Med J 200142:7-13. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Anđelko Karlovic, Website editor www.hrvati-amac.com 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Send response to journal:
|
I am writing this response as a member of the European general public and as an editor of an international website which has supported the integrity of the Croatian Medical Journal and its editors (1). The most disturbing aspect of the case is the strategy of academic authorities which challenged the journal in order to diminish the international significance of the scandal and to sever the public access to information. Mishandling of the case by the authorities of the Zagreb Medical School is appalling and the consequences are long term and extremely damaging (2), not only for the Croatian scientific community but also for the international image of Croatia, as well as morale of its citizens. General public that is kept in the dark or partially informed becomes insensitive for similar problems in the future. The outside involvement is one of the two remaining venues to get the things in order. The other one is getting wider public familiar with the subject. To do that, we have published the results of an international expertise regarding the overall situation at the Zagreb Medical School. The expertise from three international professionals were requested by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sports in 2005. Kept out of reach of academic community at first and never publicly available to the general public, these documents show clearly the source of problem (1). In essence, what is happening to the Croatian Medical Journal and its editors is a typical whistleblower's story. The whole issue is complicated by a standard concept of independence of academic institutions. This independence, treated by the Zagreb Medical School’s authorities as a chance to take on the role of a prosecutor, a judge and a jury (3), makes mockery of the academic standards and presumed role of academia in the society. For Croatia, obviously still with one foot in the past, it is therefore essential that the international community follows the example of the BMJ and gets involved, suggesting the way out of this nightmare. Anđelko Karlovic; Editor, www.hrvati-amac.com References: 1. Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia. Document with international expertise on the cases submitted by Dr A. Marušić and Dr A. Salihagić-Kadić; class 052-01/05-01/00063 reference #533-07-07-0016, from 1 February 2007. Available from: a.) http://amac.hrvati- amac.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1800&Itemid=313 b.) http://amac.hrvati- amac.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1800&Itemid=315 c.) http://amac.hrvati- amac.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1800&Itemid=316 2. Karlovic A. Augius’s stables at Zagreb School of Medicine [in Croatian]. Available from: http://amac.hrvati- amac.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1864&Itemid=192. 3. Marusic M, Marusic A. Threats to the integrity of the Croatian Medical Journal. Croat Med J. 2007;48:779-785. Available at: http://www.cmj.hr/2007/48/6/18074411.htm Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Miguel Roig, Associate professor of Psychology St. John's University
Send response to journal:
|
In my Rapid Response letter of December 19th titled “The world is watching”, I should have indicated that a similar version of the letter appeared on December 16th as a post to the World Association of Medical Editors' member forum, http://www.wame.org/. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Karen Shashok, Translator and Editorial consultant 18008 Granada, Spain
Send response to journal:
|
The achievements of Croatian Medical Journal in the hands of its current editorial team are an example of how a journal considered “small” by the international science community can be turned into an inspiration for other national and regional journals world-wide that aspire to have an impact. The CMJ has shown stakeholders in science publication how knowledge and viewpoints from one part of the world can become a valuable resource for all the world. The achievements of the CMJ are due to the skills and hard work of Doctors Ana and Matko Marusic and their staff, and they deserve support. I hope they will be allowed as soon as possible to return to their work for CMJ without interference, threats or pressures to respond to false accusations. The country’s scientific reputation, which the CMJ has strengthened significantly thanks to its high editorial and ethical standards, should not be damaged by unjustifiable behaviour towards the journal's editors. Times change and what was once a type of abuse that was tolerated for cultural or historical reasons is no longer perceived as acceptable. Croatian academic authorities can modernize their outlook or remain stuck in the past. Karen Shashok Translator and Editorial Consultant, Granada, Spain Competing interests: Ana Marusic and I share an interest in international science, technical and medical communication, and have known each other for more than 10 years. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Vladimir J. Simunovic, Professor of Surgery/Neurosurgery School of Medicine Mostar University, 88.000 Mostar, B&H
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor Thank you for an initiation of debate on academic integrity and scientific misconduct, the issues being recently somehow undervalued or neglected. Apparently, a simple and well-documented case of plagiarism opened a Pandora box, letting many human ills to raise their ugly head. Here I wish to address two separate sets of issues, The Case and The Consequences. The Case itself is not worth many words: it is perfectly clear to all in Academia that stealing other people’s ideas is not nice, that this should be exposed and punished. The question of punishment looks more or less simple, too. Every single member of Academia is building his or her reputation in a hard way over many years and holds it as a dearest possession. Probably for an academician there is no worse punishment than public exposure and destruction of hard-gained reputation. Beside, what else could one suggest? To hang them high or put them in jail? The final issue in this situation is the handling of the case by national scientific and governmental authorities. The Consequences are more worrisome. In the aftermath of the Case there were serious attempts to influence the present editorial policy of the Croatian Medical Journal (1). Obviously for such an “affair” as The Case was somebody has to be blamed and guilty, and there were no better candidates than the co-editors of Croatian Medical Journal. Weren’t they the ones who started to preach on scientific integrity and need for honesty and strict supervision in this part of the world? They were. Weren’t they the ones to reject the papers of famous and influential? Certainly they did, many times. Finally, do not they have many friends in publishing and scientific circles internationally, where they are well respected and promoted on highest posts? This fact is solely, as we all know from our history in the Balkans, an act close to high national treason. Looking not many years backward, the Croatian Medical Journal was a small journal in a small country invisible in international scientific community. In less than ten years the journal became the leading regional medical journal, cited and indexed in all major databases, recognized and prized even by the most prestigious ones, with the pool of authors submitting the papers from all over Europe, from Africa and even China. Such achievement could be compared with an entrance of a small provincial football club into the Premiere League, where the Croatian Medical Journal not only entered but remains for years. If in all other sectors of life a country in transition such as Croatia would be able to make such progress, it would be a land of wonders. Apparently, there is an intention to punish the whistle-blowers and to remove them from any position of influence in the Croatian Medical Journal. If this happens too, I would be terribly disappointed, because I believe that the editors and their team as a whole have done, over last fifteen years, a tremendous job and deserve, if one is just and honest, the praises and prize and not punisment. What terrifies me more is the possibility of destruction of the Croatian Medical Journal, which is a beacon for many of us in the region. I am sure that there is still some Hope in the Pandora box. At least that is what the legend said. I wish to believe that all stakeholders in this dispute observe the same values, follow the same ideals, have similar vision and their intentions are the good ones. Let us use the best and the noblest of what we have, not because “someone is watching” (2) but because we are well aware what a proper and just action should be. Let us exchange arguments, find a compromise, and settle this dispute to benefit all of us. I am afraid that all other roads are wrong and humiliating ones. References: 1. Marusic M, Marusic A. Threats to the Integrity of the Croatian Medical Journal. Croat Med J. 2007;48:779-785. Available at: http://www.cmj.hr/2007/48/6/18074411.htm. 2. Roig M. The world is watching. Rapid response to Godlee F. Plagiarism and punishment. BMJ 2007;335, doi:10.1136/bmj.39392.602523.47 Competing interests: I am a regional editor of the CMJ and have known the editors-in-chief personally for many years. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Robert Stallaerts, pensioned rechearcher before: state University of Ghent
Send response to journal:
|
A recent editorial[1] of the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) sketches the lines of its editorial policy and the relations with Zagreb Medical school. Related to this, other contributions[2] comment on the problem of plagiarism, and especially the Kurjak case. What seems to me one of the most interesting questions is whether there is in fact a link between the inculpation of plagiarism against prof. Kurjak and the seemingly negative attitude of the Medical School Authorities to the CMJ. However it seems to me this should be still better documented, if possible. As to the general problem, as unfortunately I don't know enough about the internal matters and relations, it is difficult to decide definitively on that matter. But is of course obviously related to the control of plagiarism and the seemingly proven rightly attack on prof. Kurjak. Of course, systematic plagiarism should not be tolerated. This is all very well written down in the contributions and I have little to add. However, on the other side, I have some mitigating reflections also. 1. On plagiarism, double publications and translations. First we must acknowledge that all knowledge is cumulative and depends highly on the surrounding. In general, first earlier knowledge has be summarized. One can ask then whether it is so relevant if it is done literally or paraphrased. Of course, an own contribution has to follow. And second, it should not be done for the money or academic upgrades. I now remember a surely controversial and then to me surprising pronouncement of my own professor at the University who said a new book should contain 60 percent of new material. A little bit more tolerable seem to me double publications, if you reach another public. Though I did this never myself, and again it should be done for money or promotion, perhaps it has a function. Even more acceptable it seems in the international field when you use translations and spread information so far not available and accessible in the own language. Of course, again it should not be literally and it should be foreseen from author’s comments. But I think it has a useful function as it reaches a new public. So, I think that we should not be ethical purists but very practical , as far as our efforts have a functional goal to inform a public and this is not misused for pecuniary or promotional reasons. I know this a little provocative what dangerous point of view and that all this is then not easily controllable. Where are the frontiers? Still, I think for the progress of science and the information of the public, we should seek some (uneasy) balance. This is far cry away from F. Godlee’s[3] outward criminalization of these practises. 2. The ethical integrity of the editors of a journal threatened by unethical institutional power. Of course, the reflections in our first point do not mean that we have to reverse the situation and that editors of a journal who search for scientific integrity should be punished for their critical attitude toward publication misconduct. Dr. Robert Stallaerts Ellebogten 66 B-9070 Heusden Belgium Robert.stallaerts@skynet.be --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- [1] Editorial statement of the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) 2007;48:779-85, [2] F. Godlee', “ Plagiarism and punishment,” British Medical Journal (BMJ), 2007;335, 10 November and the rapid responses of A.. E. D' Ottavio,“ Plagiarism: a symptom of epistemopathy” and B.M. Hedge, “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail”, BJM, 335, 0. See also I. Chalmers “Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak,” BJM, 2006; 333: 594-596. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mirko Petrovic, Prof. Dr. Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor, Thank you for the opportunity to join this debate on human and scientific correctness and integrity. Fraud and plagiarism in any of the segments of a society (whether it be music, literature, sport, medicine or engineering) are opposite to inspiration, innovation and progress. They are per definition not only legally forbidden but also redundant and déjà vu. They are in any case condemned to a short and anxious life between a “copy and pace” action and dismantling of a lie. In all self-respecting and democratic societies, proven fraud and plagiarism, become – and should definitively stay – a part of a legal procedure. Scientific journals with proven dignity and high quality, and Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) belongs to this category, always stick with high professional standards and the strength of scientific arguments (and definitively not with the arguments of strength). Such journals should not be involved in emotional polemics and mutual defamation. The CMJ thanks its actual reputation to the rigorous choice for professionalism and scientific correctness. The best advocacy for CMJ and its editorial policy is the respect of and devotion to these sound principals. After all, this case should move from the pages of scientific journals to history, yet not be forgotten. In the mean time, a compromise should be given a chance in order to calm down the heated discussion concerning the tumultuous consequences of this case. Competing interests: None declared |
|||