4 ms·
There's also the proof of existence[1]. But none of these really matter because the issue is not proving you were first, it's becoming aware of the plagiarism i
by sooheon 10y ago
There's also the proof of existence[1]. But none of these really matter because the issue is not proving you were first, it's becoming aware of the plagiarism in the first place. The plagiarists are relying purely on security through obscurity--their cases would fall apart immediately upon discovery anyways.
[1]: https://proofofexistence.com/about https://proofofexistence.com/about
- matheusmoreira 10y agoNow I wonder how many people did this and got away with it. There's a study¹ that determined the fate of 350 manuscripts rejected by the Annals of Internal Medicine. They found that 69% of them were eventually published in another journal. 70% of those were published in more specialized journals with lower impact factor. It appears the reviewer took a similar approach. The manuscripts were published between 121 and 1792 days after rejection, with a mean of 552 days. The letter to the plagiarist says the article was published "a few months later" so that would be approximately 90 to 120 days? ¹ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(00)00450-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(00)00450-2