Duplicate publication

From: whistleblower —@mail.–.edu.tw
Subject: plagiarism – duplicate of two papers

Message Body:

(Paper-A) Applied Surface Science 239 (2005) 222–226 by Yu et al, title: “Preparation and properties of ZnO:Ga films prepared by r.f. magnetron sputtering at low temperature”. Authors: Xuhu Yua,*, Jin Maa, Feng Jia, Yuheng Wanga, Xijian Zhanga, Chuanfu Chengb, Honglei Maa

(Paper-B) Journal of Crystal Growth 274 (2005) 474–479. Title: “Effects of sputtering power on the properties of ZnO:Ga films deposited by r.f. magnetron-sputtering at low temperature”. Authors: Xuhu Yua, Jin Maa, Feng Jia, Yuheng Wanga, Xijian Zhanga,Chuanfu Chengb, Honglei Maa

  1. Abstract: word by word in paper-A is identical as Paper-B.
    The only difference is Paper-A reports: “the lowest resistivity and sheet resistance … were 3.9×10-4 Omega-cm and 4 Omega-cm, respectively”. Paper-B reports: “the lowest resistivity and sheet resistance … were 3.9×10-4 Omega-cm and 4.6 Omega-cm, respectively”.
  2. Conclusion: also identical word by word. Paper-A claimed: “The average transmittance for prepared samples was over 90% in the visible range and the lowest resistivity was 3.9×10-4 Omega-cm. In the room temperature, gain boundary scattering is the dominant scattering mechanism. The prepared films were physically stable, and had good adherence to the substrate.” Paper-B also claimed the same: “The average transmittance for prepared samples was over 90% in the visible range and the lowest resistivity was 3.9×10-4 Omega-cm. In the room temperature, gain boundary scattering is the dominant scattering mechanism. In the room temperature, gain boundary scattering is the dominant scattering mechanism. The prepared films were physically stable, and had good adherence to the substrate.”
  3. Fig. 1 in paper-A is identical as Fig. 1 of Paper-B, except that authors made them to display differently, one as 2D, the other as 3D.
  4. Fig. 2 of Paper-A is again identical as Fig. 2 of Paper-B, except the authors display one as 3D images in one paper vs. 2D image in the other. The figure caption of these two figures are identical word by word. It is also odd and funny, Fig. 2 of Paper-B shows the data actually as 2D, but the figure caption still states as “three-dimensional AFM micrograph”, etc. It is very funny that this overt discrepancy could pass the reviewing processes of critical referees.
  5. Fig. 4 of Paper-A is identical as Fig. 3 of Paper-B.
  6. Fig. 5 of Paper-A is identical as Fig. 4 of Paper-B.
  7. Authors are identical and same order in these two papers, but published in two different journals at the same time.
  8. Acknowledgment: the funding sources of these two papers are from two different organizations (One for Natural Science Foundation, the other for Ministry of Education). Apparently, this single paper is duplicated into two (with only very slight changes) with intention for claiming credits to two different sources of funding organization.

 


This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Plagiarism Watch (http://plagiarismwatch.org)

One of the weirdest case of plagiarism about a Chinese-authored paper

This is the weirdest case of plagiarism that a Chinese-authored paper that we’ve found to date:  Brazil-authored paper was shamelessly plagiarized, and after that the Chinese authors had the nerve to submit it to a Brazil journal (Genetics and Molecular Research). And unbelievably, the Brazil journal just published it. Finally, it was retracted.

1 Continue reading

Image duplication in two Chinese-authored papers

From: Whistleblower <xxxx@yahoo.com>

Subject: The figure of MOLECULAR MEDICINE REPORTS 11: 4142-4148, 2015 was reproduced from their own manuscript which published at 2014 on the same journal

Message Body:

We found the plagiarism of the manuscript entitled “Inhibitory activity of apogossypol in human prostate cancer in vitro and in vivo” which published on MOLECULAR MEDICINE REPORTS 11: 4142-4148, 2015. For the Fig. 2A (the third one from left side which marked 15umol/l of the second line) of this manuscript was same as the following study: Apogossypolone inhibits the proliferation of LNCaP cells in vitro and in vivo. MOLECULAR MEDICINE REPORTS 10: 1184-1194, 2014 (Figure 3-B-c).

This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Plagiarism Watch (http://plagiarismwatch.org)

Continue reading

Resolutely Pull Chinese Science into Abyss by Editor-in-Chief of SCI Journal

A justice researcher messaged us right after reading our post (Working Hand in Glove: Scientific Ghostwriting Company and the Predatory Journal Targeting Chinese Authors) that he had discovered similar issues earlier this year, and had contacted the Editor-in-Chief of the journals. However, they never replied to him, and never investigated further into the issue. Here comes the whole story.

Continue reading

Working Hand in Glove: Scientific Ghostwriting Company and the Predatory Journal Targeting Chinese Authors

Here is the story of how it happened: last week, one anonymous visitor emailed us and told us that this paper, “Decreased miR-452 expression in human colorectal cancer and its tumor suppressive function. Genet Mol Res. 2016 May 23;15(2). doi:10.4238/gmr.15027730. PMID: 27323070 (file short name: GMR7730)” features horrible plagiarism, but neglected to provide us with more details. When we used iPlagiarism software to screen it, it seemed to us that it was just a common and serious text duplicate, with a very high similarity index (31%).

Matching Summary Software Support: iPlagiarism

Matching Summary
Software Support: iPlagiarism

Continue reading

Suspected Plagiarism: MicroRNA-154 functions as a tumor suppressor and directly targets HMGA2 in human non-small cell lung cancer. Genet. Mol. Res. 15 (2): gmr.15028173

Questionable Paper: MicroRNA-154 functions as a tumor suppressor and directly targets HMGA2 in human non-small cell lung cancer. Genet. Mol. Res. 15 (2): gmr.15028173

Questionable Journal: Genetics and molecular research (Impact factor 0.764)

Questionable Paper and Journal

Questionable Paper and Journal

Continue reading