More plagiarized Chinese-authored papers found on the Genetics and Molecular Research

GMR4603 and GMR5101

1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-9 1-10



2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5



3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5


  1. We ask that the criticism be removed once our editorial board has not detected or thought plagiarism exists in the cited publications.
    Please see the overall comments about them:

    GMR 4603
    a)This is a very good manuscript presenting a meta-analysis of ase control studies to assess whether there is a correlation between polymorphisms in the ERCC1 and ERCC2 genes and glioma in Chinese and Caucasian populations. The study design and analysis are excellent and the paper is very well written. Since there is no firm consensus in the field on whether polymorphisms in these genes play a role in glioma biology, studies like this one are very valuable. Based on what is presented in this manuscript, this paper is worthy of being published in GMR.
    This manuscript was specifically rechecked for possibility of plagiarism. There does not appear to be any plagiarism in this manuscript. It is curious that there are three studies conducting very similar meta-analyses of ERCC1 and ERCC2 studies in the development of glioma in Chinese and Caucasian populations, but all three manuscripts are sufficiently different in studies analyzed, language used, and data shown. Additionally, all were submitted before any were accepted. Together, this suggests that there may have been competition to publish first, but not that there was any plagiarism. These three manuscripts should be viewed as being published simultaneously.

    b)This manuscript is very similar to studies carried out by other groups: Cui, et al. “Association of ERCC1 rs3212986 & ERCC2 rs13181 polymorphisms with the risk of glioma” published in the Pakistan Journal of Medical Science (received March 7, 2014 and accepted August 4, 2014) and Xin, et al. “Association of ERCC1 C8092A and ERCC2 Lys751Gln Polymorphisms with the Risk of Glioma: A Meta-Analysis” published in PLoS ONE (December 18, 2013 and accepted April 2, 2014). The paper published in GMR by Zhou and Zhao was received March 23, 2014 and accepted July 14, 2014, meaning that all three studies had been submitted before any one study was accepted and available in the literature. The Xin, et al. study is sufficiently different from the other two manuscripts. The Zhou and Zhao manuscript and the Xin, et al study analyze similar data sets and use present graphs that are very similar. However, these studies analyze different groups of studies and come to slightly different conclusions. It is curious that three manuscripts were submitted so closely together with the same purpose, but there does not appear to be any flagrant plagiarism and these three studies should be considered simultaneous publications. Leaving out this point, there is minor level of plagiarism in the manuscript.

    a)This is a very good study using meta-analysis of several case studies of ERCC2 polymorphisms correlating with glioma development. This manuscript was specifically rechecked for plagiarism, but there does not appear to be any plagiarism concerns. However, this paper would have benefited from an expanded Discussion section describing conflicting results in similar meta-analyses of ERCC2. The editorial correction should be made, but the expansion of the Discussion section is a decision that should be made by the journal editors and manuscript authors.

    b)This work is similar to other meta-analyses, but appears to be original. The writing is distinct and the figures are not identical to other publications. There does not appear to be any plagiarism in this manuscript.

  2. What you conclude is “Those two GMR papers are good studies and It is curious that three manuscripts were submitted so closely together with the same purpose”.

    What does the “closely” stand for? One day, one week, one year, two years, five years?
    If papers are published “closely”, the tables and figures can be the same to each other?
    The GMR5101 was submitted one year later after the other two papers published. However, it has the same data and figures as other two papers.
    Both the GMR4603 and the second paper published by Pakistan Journal of Medical Science use the exact same name as email address. And authors in the second paper has no one using the name in the email. However, the GMR4603 was submitted later than the second paper but published with the almost same figures.
    Therefore, there must be a third party company behind those papers (who made those papers).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *