I don't know about re-submission detection. A current brouhaha noted in today's Nature, http://www.nature.com/news/fallout-from-hailed-cloning-paper-1.13078, concerns a paper about cloning skin cells into stem cells which was granted expedited review and on-line publication by Cell, one of the premier journals. So, "an anonymous online commenter noted three pairs of duplicated images with conflicting labels in the paper", but none of the paid editorial staff or reviewers had happened to notice these problems in the 3 days it took them to review it or the 12 subsequent days it took to prepare it for online publication.
Rockefeller University Press has a system to automatically check that the submitted graphics are not duplicates of each other, but most journals still do manual spot checking (Nature checks 2 articles per issue on average) if they do anything at all. Checking for duplicate submissions or more subtle plagiarism is beyond their abilities, they're too busy "curating" the scientific literature. Back to the original post, that the reviewers basically slammed papers that they had already published is pretty sickening. The system has nothing to prevent such crony reviewing claques even now. -- rec -- On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Russell Standish <[email protected]>wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 02:14:26PM -0600, Roger Critchlow wrote: > > Russ Abbott reposted this on g+, but it's too meritorious not to be > > archived here: > > > > > > > http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844 > > > > Take published articles by highly respected authors, replace the authors > > and institutions with fakes, resubmit to the same journals that > originally > > published the articles, and watch what happens. > > > > What astounded me was the very low detection of resubmission > (8%). This was in spite of the articles having been published within > the previous two years in the _same_ journals. Obviously these must be > large journals with multiple editors who clearly aren't across what > their colleagues are doing. > > The other concerning thing is that the rejection rate of the papers > that pass that filter is so high (89%), particularly that it is higher > than the rejection rate for new articles submitted to. Obviously, I would > expect > the rejection rate to be greater than 0, but it should be less than > the overall journal rejection rate, as the paper concerned have > already run the gauntlett of peer review. I guess the conclusion is > that referees were being influenced by who wrote the paper, not the > contents. > > It'd be interesting to redo the experiment today - although I would > hope that journals now have a better detection of article resubmission in > place. > > Cheers > > -- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
