E Letters to the Editor by new authors, previous authors should be included as coauthors. At a minimum, permission should be sought and formal acknowledgment of the work of previous authors included as a footnote. Portions of a chapter that are directly copied should be cited and referenced in the bibliography. Richard E. Moon, MD Department of Anesthesiology Duke University Medical Center Durham, North Carolina [email protected] Enrico M. Camporesi, MD Departments of Anesthesiology, Surgery, Molecular Pharmacology, and Physiology University of South Florida Tampa, Florida REFERENCES 1. Saidman LJ, Anonymous Author 1, Anonymous Author 2. It’s still plagiarism. Anesth Analg 2014;118:230–5 2. Shafer SL. Plagiarism is plagiarism is plagiarism. Anesth Analg 2014;118:1–2 3. Marcovitch H, Barbour V. Whose words in the textbook? Anesth Analg 2014;118:3–4 4. Roig M. Yes, it’s plagiarism, but it’s complicated. Anesth Analg 2014;118:5–7
researchers might be aware of the problem, it is always swept under the carpet. However, the definition of plagiarism needs reiteration because its meaning could differ between cultures and countries.”5 The deep rooted hierarchical system in many countries might be a big obstacle for fairly and equally implementing standards to cope with plagiarism.5 Sometimes, a junior faculty member who reports plagiarism might be threatened by the senior plagiarist. This problem can be worse in a society with a strong class or caste system. The whistleblower who reports plagiarism should be well protected, and his/her career should never be in jeopardy. A good and fair system is required to protect the whistleblower and guarantee that his/her career is not threatened or destroyed. It is interesting to note that Saidman’s article had 2 anonymous authors,1 suggesting that even in a highly developed country with a sophisticated system addressing plagiarism such as the United States, the whistleblower still feels vulnerable. How to ensure good standardization for management of plagiarism among universities/institutes is a very important issue for further discussion. Viroj Wiwanitkit, MD Wiwanitkit House Bangkhae Bangkok Thailand [email protected]
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000283
Why Is There Still Plagiarism? To the Editor
T
he recent report entitled “It’s Still Plagiarism” is very interesting.1 Since the problem is still very common despite all the publicity, the question remains, “why does plagiarism still exist?” And, as a corollary, what should authors, institutions, reviewers, editors, publishers, and readers do to limit plagiarism? Dubois et al.2 recently analyzed “misconduct practice” and listed causes such as “thinking errors, poor coping with research pressures, and inadequate oversight.” In fact, the problems may relate to poor management of the detected cases. Sometimes, improper punishment is assigned to the plagiarist, which does little to dissuade others from also plagiarizing. In many developing countries when plagiarism is reported to the university/institute, its handling might be delayed, or it might even be neglected altogether, particularly if the offender holds administrative positions (such as chancellor, dean, director, etc.) or a senior academic position.3 In addition, the plagiarist may even be rewarded with a promotion in recognition of the “academic work,” such that the corrupt academic environment continues. Today, many universities in developing countries lack appropriate policies and procedures to address the problem, and the response might be variable among institutions.4 This might be due to many reasons, including the lack of experience and concern in management of plagiarism. Local culture also might affect implementation of a global policy on dealing with plagiarism. According to the publication by Mustafa Afifi in the Lancet, “although Arab
750 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org
REFERENCES 1. Anonymous Author 1, Anonymous Author 2, Saidman LJ. It’s Still Plagiarism. Anesth Analg 2014;118:230–5 2. DuBois JM, Anderson EE, Chibnall J, Carroll K, Gibb T, Ogbuka C, Rubbelke T. Understanding research misconduct: a comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing. Account Res 2013;20:320–38 3. Wiwanitkit V. Letter on the article Plagiarism in medical schools, and its prevention. Presse Med 2012;41:887–8 4. Wiwanitkit V. Plagiarism, management, journal retraction and response by author’s institute. Saudi J Anaesth 2013;7:223 5. Afifi M. Plagiarism is not fair play. Lancet 2007;369:1428 DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000286
In Response
We thank Drs. Lam,1 Moon and Camporesi,2 and Wiwanitkit3 for their interest and their thought-provoking comments. Lam1 focuses principally on academic hierarchy, the dilemma regarding the variable contributions of each author, and the implicit meaning of author order. Clearly, such ambiguities and challenges are the result of lack of standards. Taking from existing practice for peer-reviewed publications, we suggest that authors of a book chapter declare their relative contribution to the chapter, and authorship order should reflect the effort involved, regardless of academic seniority. In the case of a new coauthor, if the revision is minor and a previous coauthor contributed most to previous edition chapter, as mentioned by Moon and Camporesi,2 he/she should be retained as a coauthor. Authorship order should be determined by each author’s contribution to the revised version. If, however, the previous author’s contribution was
anesthesia & analgesia
researchers might be aware of the problem, it is always swept under the carpet. However, the definition of plagiarism needs reiteration because its meaning could differ between cultures and countries.”5 The deep rooted hierarchical system in many countries might be a big obstacle for fairly and equally implementing standards to cope with plagiarism.5 Sometimes, a junior faculty member who reports plagiarism might be threatened by the senior plagiarist. This problem can be worse in a society with a strong class or caste system. The whistleblower who reports plagiarism should be well protected, and his/her career should never be in jeopardy. A good and fair system is required to protect the whistleblower and guarantee that his/her career is not threatened or destroyed. It is interesting to note that Saidman’s article had 2 anonymous authors,1 suggesting that even in a highly developed country with a sophisticated system addressing plagiarism such as the United States, the whistleblower still feels vulnerable. How to ensure good standardization for management of plagiarism among universities/institutes is a very important issue for further discussion. Viroj Wiwanitkit, MD Wiwanitkit House Bangkhae Bangkok Thailand [email protected]
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000283
Why Is There Still Plagiarism? To the Editor
T
he recent report entitled “It’s Still Plagiarism” is very interesting.1 Since the problem is still very common despite all the publicity, the question remains, “why does plagiarism still exist?” And, as a corollary, what should authors, institutions, reviewers, editors, publishers, and readers do to limit plagiarism? Dubois et al.2 recently analyzed “misconduct practice” and listed causes such as “thinking errors, poor coping with research pressures, and inadequate oversight.” In fact, the problems may relate to poor management of the detected cases. Sometimes, improper punishment is assigned to the plagiarist, which does little to dissuade others from also plagiarizing. In many developing countries when plagiarism is reported to the university/institute, its handling might be delayed, or it might even be neglected altogether, particularly if the offender holds administrative positions (such as chancellor, dean, director, etc.) or a senior academic position.3 In addition, the plagiarist may even be rewarded with a promotion in recognition of the “academic work,” such that the corrupt academic environment continues. Today, many universities in developing countries lack appropriate policies and procedures to address the problem, and the response might be variable among institutions.4 This might be due to many reasons, including the lack of experience and concern in management of plagiarism. Local culture also might affect implementation of a global policy on dealing with plagiarism. According to the publication by Mustafa Afifi in the Lancet, “although Arab
750 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org
REFERENCES 1. Anonymous Author 1, Anonymous Author 2, Saidman LJ. It’s Still Plagiarism. Anesth Analg 2014;118:230–5 2. DuBois JM, Anderson EE, Chibnall J, Carroll K, Gibb T, Ogbuka C, Rubbelke T. Understanding research misconduct: a comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing. Account Res 2013;20:320–38 3. Wiwanitkit V. Letter on the article Plagiarism in medical schools, and its prevention. Presse Med 2012;41:887–8 4. Wiwanitkit V. Plagiarism, management, journal retraction and response by author’s institute. Saudi J Anaesth 2013;7:223 5. Afifi M. Plagiarism is not fair play. Lancet 2007;369:1428 DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000286
In Response
We thank Drs. Lam,1 Moon and Camporesi,2 and Wiwanitkit3 for their interest and their thought-provoking comments. Lam1 focuses principally on academic hierarchy, the dilemma regarding the variable contributions of each author, and the implicit meaning of author order. Clearly, such ambiguities and challenges are the result of lack of standards. Taking from existing practice for peer-reviewed publications, we suggest that authors of a book chapter declare their relative contribution to the chapter, and authorship order should reflect the effort involved, regardless of academic seniority. In the case of a new coauthor, if the revision is minor and a previous coauthor contributed most to previous edition chapter, as mentioned by Moon and Camporesi,2 he/she should be retained as a coauthor. Authorship order should be determined by each author’s contribution to the revised version. If, however, the previous author’s contribution was
anesthesia & analgesia
