• Home
  • Development of Heparin and HS Glycotherapeutics
  • Lab
  • People

Ferniglab Blog

The personal blog of Dave Fernig, thoughts on science and unrelated matters

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Errare humanum est sed perseverare diabolicum
Well over the line: when does “minor” become “major”? »

Over the line

December 17, 2012 by ferniglab


One point made in , a posting by Raphael on the lack of evidence for stripes on nanoparticles is the duplication of data between
Figure 2 in Chem Comm 2008, 196 and Figure 1 in Nat Mater. 2008 (7):588-95

What is most surprising is how little comment such duplication has raised.

It is, after all, one of the prime reasons for papers featuring on Retraction Watch. I don’t know what the policies of Nature Publishing Group or the RSC are, but at Elsevier, looking to preserve the reputation of the brand (and so sales), data duplication leads to retraction and a reasonably transparent editorial notice (rightly applauded on Retraction Watch).
So whether there are stripes or not, for these two papers there is a serious editorial decision to be made.

I have discussed the hinterland of this subject before, in a posting on Research Integrity. This last post was the result of my becoming aware of the massive plagiarism of data (re-use of same data in multiple papers, sometimes for different experiments) by Prof. Melendez, highlighted on the Abnormal Science blog.

Prof. Melendez, who was at NUS, then moved to Glasgow and then to the University of Liverpool – hence my interest. After an internal investigation at Liverpool (which I was not party to), he left the University.

So the bottom line is that data duplication is not acceptable. We should remember that we go to considerable lengths to educate our undergraduates on this point – they have to push every piece of work through Turnitin (or similar software), any figure that is taken from a source must be attributed and so on. Cheating in exams results in a zero. If we start to condone data re-use in our professional lives, then we are not only transgressing the rules of the publishers, but we jeopardise our entire teaching efforts. We would also become the laughing stock of the primary and secondary teaching establishments, which quite correctly, drum into their pupils from an early age that plagiarism is not done. The relevant government departments and parliament would also take a very dim view.

Advertisement

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Blogosphere, Research integrity | Tagged Research integrity | 12 Comments

12 Responses

  1. on December 17, 2012 at 12:33 pm Philip Moriarty

    Agree entirely, Dave, and the key problem is that this is not the only instance of self-plagiarism. There are other examples in the striped nanoparticle controversy of where the same image (or a cropped version of a previously published image) has been used.

    Compare, for example, Fig. 1(a) of Jackson et al. JACS 128 1135 (2006) with Fig. 2 of J. Scanning Probe Microscopy Research 4 24 (2009). The former is a cropped version of the latter, which in turn has also been used elsewhere. If this was a review article, fine(-ish), but even then the source of the original figure should be credited. (I’d also like to get hold of the raw images so that I could adjust the contrast, which is saturated in many places).

    As I’ve said to Francesco, the fact that data have to be ‘recycled’ like this suggests that reproducibility is an issue…


  2. on December 17, 2012 at 5:43 pm ferniglab

    Thanks for pointing out further data re-use. Not good to see it is more pervasive.


  3. on December 21, 2012 at 5:40 pm Pep

    http://bit.ly/XUVj6G


  4. on December 24, 2012 at 12:02 pm ferniglab

    The comment above by Pep is unilateral, since one cannot leave a comment on his blog site. Worse, considering he is an editor of a scientific journal, it is an apologia for the re-use of data from the Chem Commun paper in a subsequent Nature Materials paper on the grounds that: “Although the Nature Materials paper does indeed not mention explicitly that the scans had been published before, the text does refer to the Chem. Comms paper (as ref. 30) when describing the synthesis and characterization of the striped nanoparticles (which is not what the paper is about), making it implicit that the content of Fig. 1a (imaging of the nanoparticles) came from earlier work.”.
    Sorry. This argument holds no water whatsoever.
    Students are taught as undergraduates that ALL text and Figures that are not their own MUST be formally attributed. For “minor plagiarism”, infringement results in a formal interview, loss of some marks and a slapped wrist, though repeated “minor plagiarism” equals “major plagiarism”. Similar policies operate in every University I know across the globe. One reads the “Instructions to Authors” of journals and they state very clearly that work MUST not have been published elsewhere. OK, we can re-use if we attribute, but this obviously has to be explicit, e.g., “Fig.1 A, left panel from Ref #30”. Whether breaking this rule constitutes “Minor” or Major” plagiarism is the business of the journal’s Editorial Board, the equivalent of a “Plagiarism and Collusion Committee” in a University. Decisions by these bodies impact on the reputation of the institution and on the future behaviour of authors or students.

    So at the very least one would want to issue a corrigendum, but I don’t think anyone would expect an individual to be apologising for data re-use, other than the authors. Remember all the authors will have read the paper and in this instance a number are on both papers and so will be aware of the data re-use. They cannot have forgotten what was drummed into them at University during their undergraduate studies and their postgraduate years.
    A quick look demonstrates that NPG publicly takes a strong line on these issues. For example, the comment on the report coming out from NUS regarding the Melendez fraud. So NPG publicly have a clear stance on the issue of data re-use, which is aligned to my comments above, which in turn are nothing terribly original, just standard practice in teaching and research. However, I would argue that the apologia in the comment from Pep is at odds with such practice.


  5. on December 30, 2012 at 9:17 pm Stripy revisited posts; where to start… « Rapha-z-lab

    […] Pep Pàmies, Editor at Nature Materials commented here prolifically as Pep; see my comment here as well as the robust discussion that followed; see also Ben Goldacre take on this episode, as well as Pep Pàmies response entitled “On my comments on Lévy’s blog“. Dave Fernig has responded to Pep Pàmies apologia for reuse of data here. […]


  6. on December 31, 2012 at 8:48 pm Well over the line: when does “minor” become “major”? « Ferniglab's Blog

    […] it is most revealing, following Pep’s apologia and the fact that Pep is both an editor at Nature Materials and the only person to argue the case […]


  7. on January 2, 2013 at 10:02 am Response to “On my [Pep Pamies] comments on Lévy’s blog” « Rapha-z-lab

    […] similarly far from convincing. Dave Fernig has already described the deficiencies in your argument at his blog. It is also important to note, however, that the data re-use discussed in your statement is not an […]


  8. on March 5, 2013 at 4:35 pm Three months of stripy nanoparticles controversy | Rapha-z-lab

    […] on Lévy’s blog“. Dave Fernig has responded to Pep Pàmies apologia for reuse of data on his blog and Philip Moriarty has provided a comprehensive response as a guest […]


  9. on March 6, 2013 at 11:50 am On my [Pep Pàmies] comments on Lévy’s blog | Rapha-z-lab

    […] Dave Fernig has pointed out here that a paper authored by Stellacci and colleagues published in Nature Materials (link) shows […]


  10. on March 6, 2013 at 2:15 pm Fee-fi-fo-fum… | Ferniglab's Blog

    […] revealed himself to be an editor at Nature Materials, which surprised many and angered a few. As I commented earlier, one aspect I found worrying was the fact that Pep was not taking a strong line against data […]


  11. on March 10, 2013 at 2:26 pm Data re-use warrants correction at Nature Materials | Ferniglab's Blog

    […] Responses-to-evidence-of-self-plagiarism Well over the line: an update Well-over-the-line-when-does-minor-become-major Over-the-line […]


  12. on March 22, 2013 at 9:59 pm Five cases of data re-use | Rapha-z-lab

    […] issues of data re-use/self-plagiarism has already been discussed here and in a number of posts at David Fernig’s […]



Comments are closed.

  • Places of interest

    The one and only PhD comics, the guide to being a graduate and to mentoring.

    Improbable Research and the Ig Nobels

    Retraction Watch provides updates on retractions of articles.

    Office for Research Integrity, their video should be compulsory for all.

    Centre for Alternative Technology

    Lateral Science, has some quite stunning information - well worth a browse.

    Fascinating places that have been closed by lawyers

    Science Fraud, shut down due to legal threats on Jan 3 2013. and Abnormal Science

  • Blogroll

    • WordPress.com
    • WordPress.org
  • Funding agencies

    • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
    • Cancer and Polio Research Fund
    • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
    • Liverpool Pancreas NIHR Biomedical Research Unit
    • Medical Research Council
    • North West Cancer Research
  • Seminars

    • Cancer Research UK Centre
  • December 2012
    M T W T F S S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
    « Nov   Jan »
  • Archives

    • November 2022
    • July 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • May 2021
    • March 2021
    • August 2020
    • June 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • December 2019
    • October 2019
    • July 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • January 2019
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • January 2017
    • October 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • March 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
  • Follow me on Twitter

    My Tweets
  • Cloud

    American Civil War antithrombin III banana Biological imaging biotechnology Brexit Choanoflagellates chocolate chondroitin sulfate coagulation Confederate States covid19 DN Lee Education EU EU referendum Europe extracellular matrix FGF Fibroblast growth factor Food FRET sensors Gish Gallop glycosaminoglycans GMO government Graduate students heparan sulfate heparin history of science imaging Irvine Stephens Bulloch James Bulloch James Dunwoody Bulloch Liverpool microbiology Nanoparticle Nanoparticles Nanotechnology neuroscience nmr Open Access Open Data orange Parliament Peer Review PhD polysaccharide port sunlight Post publication peer review protein chemistry REF research Research Excellence Framework Research integrity Roast SARS-CoV-2 science Science and Technology Committee Science fraud Science Funding Science progress Scientific American Seminars sorbet speaking strawberry sulfation Sulfotransferase synthetic biology Teaching technology transfer Tourism Travel Universities

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Ferniglab Blog
    • Join 73 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Ferniglab Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: