Timeline for Reviewer rejects a paper and then publishes the same results as their own? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 23 at 13:24 | comment | added | mechanodroid | Closing this question as a duplicate was unfair. None of the answers in the linked question answer my question. | |
| Apr 23 at 12:50 | history | closed |
Sursula The Doctor Peter Flom Peter Jansson publications Users with the publications badge can single-handedly close publications questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed. |
Duplicate of What to do if a referee plagiarises the result after rejecting a paper? | |
| Apr 21 at 9:16 | comment | added | mechanodroid | @nanoman Thank you for this link, it is certainly relevant. However, my question was mainly about the likelihood of the occurrence of this kind of thing and how to prevent it, while the linked question inquires about the steps one needs to take after the thing had already occurred. | |
| Apr 20 at 21:35 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 23 at 12:50 | |||||
| Apr 20 at 17:52 | comment | added | TimRias | @AgnishomChattopadhyay That is a problem with the concept of double blind reviews, not with pre-publishing on arXiv. | |
| Apr 20 at 5:43 | answer | added | Alexey Ippolitov | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 19 at 22:21 | answer | added | Natasha N Johnson EdD | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 19 at 18:02 | comment | added | Greg Martin | @AgnishomChattopadhyay I disagree in the following way: "double-blind" means "identities are not disclosed as part of the reviewing process", but it never means "it's impossible to determine the author's identity if we try to". A referee who wants to find out who the author is will almost surely be able to even without an arXiv preprint. (They shouldn't try to either way, of course.) | |
| Apr 19 at 16:39 | comment | added | Agnishom Chattopadhyay | One problem with pre-publishing things to arXiv is that it makes a double blind review impossible | |
| Apr 19 at 15:20 | answer | added | GEdgar | timeline score: 10 | |
| Apr 19 at 14:22 | answer | added | usr1234567 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 19 at 13:50 | answer | added | user1394273 | timeline score: 6 | |
| Apr 19 at 13:04 | comment | added | Tom | I believe this happened once. There was a trail of emails and documents proving that the reviewer has pillaged the work from someone else and the paper was withdrawn. | |
| Apr 19 at 7:53 | comment | added | mechanodroid | @EthanBolker I was asking a question as a hypothetical and I have therefore accepted the answer by David White. The question is indeed inspired by something that happened in reality, but the question is meant to be entirely general. | |
| Apr 18 at 23:47 | comment | added | Ethan Bolker | @DavidWhite has correctly answered this hypothetical question, essentially explaining why it is unlikely in reality. If you are thinly disguising something that actually happened to you (or someone you know) the answer would be different. | |
| Apr 18 at 22:52 | vote | accept | mechanodroid | ||
| Apr 18 at 22:50 | comment | added | mechanodroid | @GEdgar Both options are possible. Since not referring to 1 would constitute plagiarism hence making 3 very unlikely, for the sake of this question feel free to assume that the paper from 3 indeed acknowledges the existence of 1. | |
| Apr 18 at 22:48 | comment | added | mechanodroid | @AdamPřenosil Thank you, I was genuinely not aware of this. | |
| Apr 18 at 21:34 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Apr 18 at 16:36 | comment | added | GEdgar | Question. In paper 3, does the reviewer refer to 1 ? | |
| Apr 18 at 15:23 | answer | added | Dan Romik | timeline score: 12 | |
| Apr 18 at 12:11 | answer | added | David White | timeline score: 47 | |
| Apr 18 at 10:41 | comment | added | Adam Přenosil | "the reviewer is not technically plagiarising anything. Firstly because there is no published work to plagiarise (because the original paper was rejected)" There is no requirement that plagiarism only counts as plagiarism if the original work is published. You can plagiarize from preprints, research notes, talks, conversations, etc. Plagiarism (excluding self-plagiarism for simplicity) just means you are taking someone else's work (note that "work" does not mean "published paper") and presenting it as yours. | |
| S Apr 18 at 9:19 | review | First questions | |||
| Apr 18 at 12:12 | |||||
| S Apr 18 at 9:19 | history | asked | mechanodroid | CC BY-SA 4.0 |