Self-Plagiarism
Self-Plagiarism
复制标题
自我剽窃
DOI：
10.36019/9780813594484-025
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
B. Chabner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Chabner
在这一期的《肿瘤学家》杂志上，我们发表了克利夫兰诊所的Brian Rini医学博士关于他2005年3月发表在《肿瘤学家》杂志上题为“vegf靶向治疗转移性肾细胞癌”的文章的撤回声明。我们认为读者应该对这一行为作出解释。导致这一撤回的情况如下。2011年8月4日，一位读者提醒我们注意，这篇文章与里尼和他在加州大学旧金山分校的导师埃里克·斯莫（Eric Small） 2005年2月在《临床肿瘤学杂志》（JCO）上发表的一篇文章非常相似。仔细阅读这两篇论文后发现，《肿瘤学家》这篇论文至少有75%的内容是逐字照搬自JCO的出版物，没有任何参考或证明。通过对当时其他出版物的搜索，我们发现了riini博士及其同事对肾癌抗血管生成药物这一相同主题的其他评论[3-5]。其中一篇发表在《英国国际泌尿学杂志》（BJU）上的论文，包含了大量来自《肿瘤学家》论文的逐字逐句的段落。另一份发表在《抗癌治疗专家评论》（Expert Review of anti - cancer Therapy）上的出版物逐字转载了《肿瘤学家》文章中的几句话和一段话。我们的发现已经通知了BJU和JCO论文的合著者和编辑，克利夫兰诊所的机构官员也是如此。我们的期刊和所有其他同行评议的医学出版物明确禁止提交已提交或已发表于其他期刊的材料。这一禁令既有道德上的原因，也有法律上的原因。很明显，当手稿正在出版或已经在其他地方出版时，将其歪曲为原创作品是不道德的，即使该作品是自己的或来自自己编辑的书籍。30年前，斯坦福大学医学院教授肯尼斯·梅尔蒙（Kenneth Melmon）曾是最广为人知的抄袭案例之一。在巨大的压力下，梅尔蒙在另一本教科书中完成了自己的章节，他从古德曼和吉尔曼的教科书中逐字逐句地引用了大量他正在编辑的材料，而且没有注明出处或作者。梅尔蒙事件使学术界对剽窃问题的思考具体化，并导致他辞去斯坦福大学医学部主席一职[7-9]。在多个出版物中以原创的方式写同一主题需要付出努力和思考。简单地从以前的工作中剪切和粘贴要容易得多。虽然大多数作者都很清楚禁止使用他人发表的材料，但可能不太明显的是，自我抄袭是一种同样严重的违法行为，会对负责任的作者的职业生涯和学术地位造成后果。法律上也有禁止抄袭别人或自己写的材料的理由。在允许发表一篇手稿时，作者必须将版权转让给期刊的出版商，显然，将同一材料的版权转让给多个期刊和出版商是非法的。虽然对自我抄袭的直接反应可能没有那么严厉（毕竟是剽窃自己的作品），但版权问题仍然是一个严重的法律问题。其次，在第二份出版物中表示作品是原创是不道德的，从学术的角度来看，用同一材料的多个版本来扩展参考书目是不道德的。发表评论的期刊数量激增，这些评论通常是代写的，没有同行评审，通常是在商业利益的赞助下发表的，这大大增加了自我抄袭的可能性，正如这次事件所表明的那样，滥用可能很普遍。利用计算机程序检测同源be-
In this issue of The Oncologist, we publish a retraction by Brian Rini, M.D., of the Cleveland Clinic regarding his article published in The Oncologist in March 2005, entitled “VEGF-Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma” [1]. We believe the readers deserve an explanation for this action. The circumstances leading to this retraction are as follows. On August 4, 2011, a reader called to our attention the very close similarity of the article in question to an earlier publication by Rini and Eric Small, his mentor at the University of California, San Francisco, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) in February 2005 [2]. A careful reading of the two papers revealed that at least 75% of the content of The Oncologist paper was taken, verbatim, from the JCO publication, without reference or attestation. A search of other publications at that time revealed other reviews by Dr. Rini and colleagues on the same general subject of anti-angiogenesis drugs in renal cancer [3–5]. One of these papers, in the British Journal of Urology International (BJU) [3], contained numerous verbatim passages from The Oncologist paper. One other publication, in Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy [4], reproduced several verbatim sentences and a paragraph from The Oncologist article. The co-authors and editors of the BJU and JCO papers have been notified of our findings, as have institutional officials at the Cleveland Clinic. Our journal and all other peer-reviewed medical publications expressly prohibit submission of material that has been submitted to or published by another journal. There are both ethical and legal reasons for this prohibition. It is clearly unethical to misrepresent a manuscript as original work when it is being published, or has been published, elsewhere, even if that work is one’s own or from a book one has edited. One of the most public cases of plagiarism, involving Kenneth Melmon, a Professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, made headlines thirty years ago. Melmon, under intense pressure to complete his own chapter in another textbook, lifted extensive material, verbatim, from the textbook, Goodman and Gilman [6], that he was editing, and did so without attribution to the source or authors. The Melmon episode crystallized academic thinking about the subject of plagiarism, and led to his resignation as Chair of Stanford’s Department of Medicine [7–9]. It requires effort and thought to write about the same subject in an original way in multiple publications. It is much easier to simply cut and paste from an earlier work. While most authors are well aware of the proscriptions against use of material published by others, it may be less obvious that self-plagiarism is an equally serious transgression, with consequences for the responsible author’s career and academic standing. There are legal reasons as well for prohibiting plagiarism of material written either by others or by oneself. In allowing publication of a manuscript, the author must assign copyright to the journal’s publisher, and obviously it is illegal to assign copyright of the same material to multiple journals and publishers. While the immediate reaction to self-plagiarism might be less punitive (one is after all stealing from one’s own work), the copyright issue is still a serious legal problem. Second, it is unethical to represent the work as original in a second publication, and from an academic standpoint, to expand one’s bibliography with multiple versions of the same material. The proliferation of journals that publish reviews, often ghostwritten, without peer review, and often under sponsorship by commercial interests, has markedly increased the potential for self-plagiarism, and as this incident illustrates, abuses are likely widespread. Computer programs are used in detecting homology be-