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)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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