In my view the case of Dr. Sticklen’s review paper should be investigate first as a violation of

600 WordsApr 23, 20193 Pages
In my view the case of Dr. Sticklen’s review paper should be investigate first as a violation of confidence, then as a case of presenting fake data and then as a case of plagiarism. As an inexpert in this specific field, it is not obvious for me which exact part of the paragraph is plagiarism. What is obvious is that the structure of both paragraph are rather similar. However this similarity is not enough to accuse the Dr. Sticklen of plagiarism. It also should be noted that both articles are review papers and as a common practice in scientific publication authors of such articles are ought to combine reviews of papers that are already published. Therefor Dr. Sticklen’s argument about index card mixed-up should be considered when…show more content…
NRG: Although the chief editor of NRG retracted Dr. Sticklen’s article they described this incident as "a paragraph being paraphrased without attribution". Considering the high prestige of Nature Review Journals among scientific community the retraction can be considered an overwhelming response to this incident. Especially when we note that this is the first ever retracted from any of the 15 Nature Reviews journals. However the retraction and even more drastic measures are justified when it is considered as response to violation of confidence. Additionally, via this action, NRG sent a message to future manuscript reviewer and authors that such misconduct of review policies is not tolerated by NRG editors. Other possible actions: The case with details of action taken by NRG and Michigan State University could be sent to other journals. This action should not be seen as an effort to isolate and boycott an active scientist. Other editorial board should invite Dr. Sticklen as a reviewer, but they also must be aware of her medical issue and its possible effect on quality and reliability of her work as a manuscript reviewer. It is assumed that committee members that investigate this issue at Michigan State University were informed about the author’s medical problem. If this assumption is true, revealing other evidence against and in favor of Dr. Sticklen’s could provide authors,

More about In my view the case of Dr. Sticklen’s review paper should be investigate first as a violation of

Open Document