5 ms·

I don't have the context here to understand what's going on by I feel bad for the author that their work was plagiarized. With that said, why didn't the author

I don't have the context here to understand what's going on by I feel bad for the author that their work was plagiarized. With that said, why didn't the author have a signed legal NDA in regards to the document?

dpark 10y ago
Do you imagine that someone willing to blatantly steal a research paper and publish it as his own would be deterred by an NDA? Also an author does not have contact or control over peer reviewers and typically no way to demand an NDA.
- kkirsche 10y ago
  Deterred? No. But I do think it would add valuable ammunition for legal repercussions.
  - wbhart 10y ago
    It's not at all difficult to prove copyright infringement of a paper submitted for peer review. The editors will have a copy of the paper and its submission will be date stamped in the peer review submission system. That's simply not the issue here. What happened is the reviewer submitted substantially the same manuscript to another journal, hoping no one would notice. The difficulty isn't in remedying or proving copyright infringement, but noticing it!
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    The publisher has already sent the original author a formal receipt for the manuscript, and a keeps a dated copy of the letter to the plagiarist asking for a review. This has been standard practice for a couple of hundred years, and is well understood legally.
lucasmullens 10y ago
Isn't stealing it like this illegal anyway, without an NDA?
- kkirsche 10y ago
  Do you have sufficient proof to show in court that you developed it and wrote it prior? I view an NDA as one more layer of proof that it's yours in that battle
  - jonchang 10y ago
    I do not think you know how the scientific peer review process works. The manuscript will generally get sent to the editor of the journal through their submission system, with the corresponding electronic trail. Most manuscripts are also written with coauthors who can attest to their own personal contribution. Recommend you read this for a primer on how peer review works: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16 http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16
    - kkirsche 10y ago
      While I admit I don't I can't say that trust in a system that leverages trust in peers is a valid excuse for being passive bystanders when more concrete actions should be taken to prevent further damages.
      - wbhart 10y ago
        There's about a thousand different ways the authors could prove they did the work. Many are listed in the actual post. Unless you did all the work yourself, didn't apply for a grant for it, kept all your work quiet from your colleagues and institution, didn't hire anyone for the project, didn't request materials from your institution, didn't have coauthors, sent it to an editor with a bad memory, didn't use the proper submission system, didn't back the files up and lost your computer, didn't send preprints to any of your friends or colleagues, and the editor reviewed it themselves without sending it to anyone else, you aren't going to have the slightest difficulty proving it is your own work. On the flip side, the plagiarist isn't going to be able to do any of that.
robotresearcher 10y ago
Academic reviewers don't sign NDAs. We are working for free, as a community service. There's no way we'd accept legal restrictions on future speech in the process. Copyright law provides legal remedies for plagiarism.
- kkirsche 10y ago
  How is reviewing a research paper a community service? I don't mean that sarcastically but realistically medical journals specifically like in this article are commonly not free, thus I'm hard pressed to understand how this is a community service. An NDA would simply restrict you from discussing it prior to the authors publishing of it as I see it.
  - jonchang 10y ago
    Peer review does not happen in a vacuum. If you do not review my manuscript, who will review your manuscript when you submit it? Scientists are generally encouraged to complete a review for every review they receive. Reviewers are generally not paid. > medical journals specifically like in this article are commonly not free Yes, this is one of the biggest issues in scientific publishing today. I don't believe there are any easy solutions, just trade-offs (absent governments nationalizing scientific publishers and returning control to universities)
  - ctrl-j 10y ago
    > medical journals specifically like in this article are commonly not free Generally speaking - peer-reviewers are not employees of, nor get compensated by, academic journals. The journal being free or paid has no bearing on the review process.
  - dbcooper 10y ago
    Researchers provide peer review services to journals free of charge.
  - detaro 10y ago
    It's a community service in that you are not paid for it and don't have work contract requiring you to do it. It's something everybody does a bit.
jonchang 10y ago
During the scientific peer review process reviewers are generally agree to keep the process confidential and are usually bound by codes of professional ethics, e.g., http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines_0.pdf http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guideline...
- kkirsche 10y ago
  I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for sharing. I'll have to look into it more
Motse 10y ago
Final edition (Master document) Business address and the Board (Vd) Printing: Public resources (?) South African new chapter 9 Agency

dpark 10y ago

Do you imagine that someone willing to blatantly steal a research paper and publish it as his own would be deterred by an NDA? Also an author does not have contact or control over peer reviewers and typically no way to demand an NDA.

kkirsche 10y ago
Deterred? No. But I do think it would add valuable ammunition for legal repercussions.
- wbhart 10y ago
  It's not at all difficult to prove copyright infringement of a paper submitted for peer review. The editors will have a copy of the paper and its submission will be date stamped in the peer review submission system. That's simply not the issue here. What happened is the reviewer submitted substantially the same manuscript to another journal, hoping no one would notice. The difficulty isn't in remedying or proving copyright infringement, but noticing it!
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  The publisher has already sent the original author a formal receipt for the manuscript, and a keeps a dated copy of the letter to the plagiarist asking for a review. This has been standard practice for a couple of hundred years, and is well understood legally.

lucasmullens 10y ago

Isn't stealing it like this illegal anyway, without an NDA?

kkirsche 10y ago
Do you have sufficient proof to show in court that you developed it and wrote it prior? I view an NDA as one more layer of proof that it's yours in that battle
- jonchang 10y ago
  I do not think you know how the scientific peer review process works. The manuscript will generally get sent to the editor of the journal through their submission system, with the corresponding electronic trail. Most manuscripts are also written with coauthors who can attest to their own personal contribution. Recommend you read this for a primer on how peer review works: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16 http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16
  - kkirsche 10y ago
    While I admit I don't I can't say that trust in a system that leverages trust in peers is a valid excuse for being passive bystanders when more concrete actions should be taken to prevent further damages.
    - wbhart 10y ago
      There's about a thousand different ways the authors could prove they did the work. Many are listed in the actual post. Unless you did all the work yourself, didn't apply for a grant for it, kept all your work quiet from your colleagues and institution, didn't hire anyone for the project, didn't request materials from your institution, didn't have coauthors, sent it to an editor with a bad memory, didn't use the proper submission system, didn't back the files up and lost your computer, didn't send preprints to any of your friends or colleagues, and the editor reviewed it themselves without sending it to anyone else, you aren't going to have the slightest difficulty proving it is your own work. On the flip side, the plagiarist isn't going to be able to do any of that.

robotresearcher 10y ago

Academic reviewers don't sign NDAs. We are working for free, as a community service. There's no way we'd accept legal restrictions on future speech in the process. Copyright law provides legal remedies for plagiarism.

kkirsche 10y ago
How is reviewing a research paper a community service? I don't mean that sarcastically but realistically medical journals specifically like in this article are commonly not free, thus I'm hard pressed to understand how this is a community service. An NDA would simply restrict you from discussing it prior to the authors publishing of it as I see it.
- jonchang 10y ago
  Peer review does not happen in a vacuum. If you do not review my manuscript, who will review your manuscript when you submit it? Scientists are generally encouraged to complete a review for every review they receive. Reviewers are generally not paid. > medical journals specifically like in this article are commonly not free Yes, this is one of the biggest issues in scientific publishing today. I don't believe there are any easy solutions, just trade-offs (absent governments nationalizing scientific publishers and returning control to universities)
- ctrl-j 10y ago
  > medical journals specifically like in this article are commonly not free Generally speaking - peer-reviewers are not employees of, nor get compensated by, academic journals. The journal being free or paid has no bearing on the review process.
- dbcooper 10y ago
  Researchers provide peer review services to journals free of charge.
- detaro 10y ago
  It's a community service in that you are not paid for it and don't have work contract requiring you to do it. It's something everybody does a bit.

jonchang 10y ago

During the scientific peer review process reviewers are generally agree to keep the process confidential and are usually bound by codes of professional ethics, e.g., http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines_0.pdf http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guideline...

kkirsche 10y ago
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for sharing. I'll have to look into it more

Motse 10y ago

Final edition (Master document) Business address and the Board (Vd) Printing: Public resources (?) South African new chapter 9 Agency