Review 8 A. Ioachim, Ecaterina Andronescu (research minister) et al – series of 4 articles, plagiarism, self-plagiarism and suspected multiple copyright violations


Choose language  

This case refers to 4 works published in the period 2006-2007, revealing serious breaches of ethical academic conduct, including multi-submission, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and copyright violations, as confirmed by 4 international experts after careful and independent investigation.

The content of all 4 papers is virtually the same, although the title and the authorship changes from one paper to the next. Moreover, two new authors, Ecaterina Andronescu and Sorin Jinga, both from the Polytechnic University of Bucharest, are added on the last 3 subsequent re-publications of the original article, with essentially no new contribution. As the experts mentioned, this is seen as plagiarism of the initial work.

The papers have been published in two Elsevier journals (Thin Solid Film and Journal of the European Ceramic Society), the IEEE International Semiconductor Conference, and a Romanian Academy journal (Romanian Journal of Information Science and Technology).

Outline

The original work was first submitted to the Journal of European Ceramic Society, and is authored by 9 authors from the National Institute of Materials Physics, Bucharest-Magurele. This article acknowledges the 09N/505.2003 grant as the source for its research funding.

1-ECERS-Elsevier

The same content is submitted 3 (three) more times to other journals, under different titles but without adding any additional information when compared to the original:

2-IEEE-CAS
3-ROMJIST
4-TSF-Elsevier

Virtually all journals have strict regulations prohibiting multiple submission and publication.

Plagiarism/Self-plagiarism. The first five authors, Ioachim, Toacsan, Banciu, Nedelcu, Dutu, are the same on all 4 papers, which can be regarded as multi-submission and self-plagiarism. However, two authors, Andronescu and Jinga, are not present on the ECERS paper but appear on the following 3 papers, which, given the lack of new content, can be regarded as plagiarism (see the reviews below).

Public Funds. Furthermore, the 3 re-published papers acknowledge a different research grant, CEEX No. 4/2005, as the source of their funding, although they are virtually the same. The first paper acknowledges grant no 09N/505.2003. This fact raises serious questions on how the spending of public funds from the 2005 grant was justified, since this is work republished three times.

Minister Andronescu as grant director. The director of the CEEX grant was Minister Ecaterina Andronescu (original, local copy), also one of the two authors added on those 3 re-published papers under the CEEX grant. This raises further questions, beyond the plagiarism of Andronescu, especially regarding grant management and allocation and spending of public funds.

Copyright Violations. According to regulations in force, the (original) Elsevier ECERS paper has copyright on the content, as indicated on the bottom of its first page. However this applies again for the IEEE paper, and yet again for the next Elsevier TSF paper. It is not clear whether the ROMJIST journal also has copyright. The experts below have underlined the copyright violation issue several times, which in this case happened multiple times, each new paper seemingly violating the copyrights of the previous ones.

Second press release by the Ministry

The following day after Integru.org published this case, the Ministry of Research of Romania issued a press release. Just like the first press release, this second press release contains several worrying aspects and false information. Among the false claims is the statement that the scientific results were first disseminated in 2-IEEE-CAS, and not 1-ECERS-Elsevier (with implications for Ecaterina Andronescu).

Integru.org commented on these aspects, showing proof for the above false claim, and underlined that various issues depicted in the press release have legal implications. At the same time, Prof Albert P. Philipse, disproved the claim made by the Ministry in the first press release with regard to the presumed collaboration with Aurelia Nechifor, proven fictitious.

Independent Reviews

We want to extend our warmest thanks to the following international academics for taking the time to do these reviews and for publicly upholding academic values.

Prof James F. Scott, FRS, UK
Prof James F. Scott, FRS (web)
Cavendish Laboratory
Department of Phsyics
University of Cambridge, UK
 . . .  They are clearly cases of self-plagiarism, with all four papers very nearly identical (> 90%). In addition, after the initial publications two additional authors were added [ed. E. Andronescu and S. Jinga]. These  . . .
Q1. Conduct. To what extent does this material and conduct comply with ethical norms, as far as you are aware?

I have read carefully the four papers by A. Ioachim et al., which are in my personal area of expertise (experimental studies of dielectric ceramics). They are clearly cases of self-plagiarism, with all four papers very nearly identical (> 90%).

In addition, after the initial publications two additional authors were added [ed. E. Andronescu and S. Jinga]. These two authors must be regarded as having plagiarized the work of the original authors.

These actions violate the ethical norms for scientific work and publication, and in particular the contractual terms of manuscript submission to the journals involved.

Q2. Grey zone. Are there elements that are controversial but which cannot be clearly qualified as misconduct?

This is not a grey area.

Q3. Significance. What would be the outcome and impact if colleagues from your institution or country published a similar work? You may think of conceivable procedures, sanctions, impact on individuals, research, institution, public perception etc.

The actions that would normally be taken include: (1) The authors would all be banned permanently or temporarily by the editors of each of the four journals; (2) all of the authors would be officially reprimanded by their institutes of employment; (3) the authors who added their names to the subsequent publication would be dismissed.

Prof Nathan Newman, USA
Prof Nathan Newman (web)
School of Mechanical, Aerospace, Chemical and Materials Engineering
Arizona State University, USA
 . . .  I believe that the authors have been involved in repeatedly publishing the same results, texts and graphs in archival journals without proper copyright permission.  I believe that this has violated  . . .
Q1. Conduct. To what extent does this material and conduct comply with ethical norms, as far as you are aware?

I believe that the authors have been involved in repeatedly publishing the same results, texts and graphs in archival journals without proper copyright permission.  I believe that this has violated the publication principles of these journals and copyright laws.  Neither of these violations is acceptable practice.

Q2. Grey zone. Are there elements that are controversial but which cannot be clearly qualified as misconduct?

No.

Q3. Significance. What would be the outcome and impact if colleagues from your institution or country published a similar work? You may think of conceivable procedures, sanctions, impact on individuals, research, institution, public perception etc.

The archival journals have rules against such violations, that include barring the authors from publishing their papers in their copyrighted journals for a period of time. The 3 following papers should be evaluated by the individual journals to see if the self-plagiarism violations warrant the work being rescinded and any other punitive actions. I would also expect the university to review the case and access the damage done. In this case, the initial report was worthy of publication, but did not report highly impactful work with large numbers of citations. If the authors are indeed found to have violated copyright laws or any other journal principles, given that there was limited damage, a strong message should be sent to all the authors that plagiarism or self-plagiarism is not acceptable. In the future, they will be expected to properly acknowledge any copyrighted information and obtain the proper permission, when appropriate.

I expect the senior authors of a manuscript to be ultimately responsible for insuring that the author list includes only the names of co-workers who made a scientific contribution. I would ask that the administrators at the respective universities look into this matter, given that so much of the information in the 3 following papers is repeated, yet the author list of those papers varies and even includes additional authors.

Prof Michael Carpenter, UK
Prof Michael Carpenter (web)
Department of Earth Sciences
University of Cambridge, UK
 . . .  The four papers by Ioachim et al. contain essentially the same data and a high proportion of identical content, both in terms of exact wording of most of the text  . . .
Q1. Conduct. To what extent does this material and conduct comply with ethical norms, as far as you are aware?

The four papers by Ioachim et al. contain essentially the same data and a high proportion of identical content, both in terms of exact wording of most of the text and repetition of figures. This degree of overlap is unethical and counter both to the spirit and the letter of expectations of journals that every paper submitted should be original and not contain material published elsewhere (except where explicitly stated, as in review articles, for example). The authors must have signed copyright agreements to this effect. To all intents and purposes the scientific content of the papers is essentially identical. Changes in the authorship and titles only provide a superficial cover for what is plagiarism, self-plagiarism and copyright violation.

Q2. Grey zone. Are there elements that are controversial but which cannot be clearly qualified as misconduct?

There is no grey area with respect to these four papers.

Q3. Significance. What would be the outcome and impact if colleagues from your institution or country published a similar work? You may think of conceivable procedures, sanctions, impact on individuals, research, institution, public perception etc.

Multiple publication of essentially identical results is regarded as wholly unacceptable among national and international peer groups of any branch of science. It brings individuals and their institutions into disrepute. The action of journals would be to ban authors from publishing further work and, perhaps, to pursue the issue of copyright. It is unlikely that authors of plagiarism would be able to gain employment in my university. The additional serious issue is the acknowledgement of different grants for funding the same piece of work. It could result in a refusal by grant giving bodies to provide further funding for any of the authors involved.

Prof Susmita Bose, USA
Prof Susmita Bose (web)
Physics and Astronomy Department
Michigan State University, USA
 . . .  It is clear that the authors have published the same results, texts, pictures, plots and graphs repeatedly without proper citations and without copyright permission. This violates the publication principles. If  . . .
Q1. Conduct. To what extent does this material and conduct comply with ethical norms, as far as you are aware?

Based on the information / documents provided to me, it is clear that the authors have published the same results, texts, pictures, plots and graphs repeatedly without proper citations and without copyright permission. This violates the publication principles.

Q2. Grey zone. Are there elements that are controversial but which cannot be clearly qualified as misconduct?

No, they are clearly identifiable.

Q3. Significance. What would be the outcome and impact if colleagues from your institution or country published a similar work? You may think of conceivable procedures, sanctions, impact on individuals, research, institution, public perception etc.

It is important to figure out whether the plagiarism was done by the graduate students / postdoctoral fellows or by the senior authors. However, if it is the same results / data / the same figures from the same group, the senior authors should have been able to catch / figure that out. It should be reviewed by the journal as well as by the institution. Depending on who did the research misconduct, the journal as well as the university / institution should take appropriate action, based on their guideline. This type of incidents raises serious concerns about the ethical guidance that the community gets from the research institution and they are becoming more and more common in the research community. This should be one’s moral ethical responsibility as a researcher. The concept should be taught at the institution level as well as in research group level.

Report

MISCONDUCT: plagiarism, multi-submission, self-plagiarism, suspected copyright violations
TITLES: ECERS-Elsevier: Effect of the sintering temperature on the
Ba(Zn1/3Ta2/3)O3 dielectric properties
IEEE-CAS: Annealing Effects on Properties of Ba(Zn113Ta213)03
Dielectric Materials
ROMJIST: Thermal Treatments Effects on Microwave Dielectric Properties of Ba(Zn1/3Ta2/3 )O3 Ceramics
TSF-Elsevier: Synthesis and properties of Ba(Zn1/3Ta2/3)O3 for microwave and millimeter wave applications
Journals / Conferences: Journal of the European Ceramic Society (ECERS-Elsevier)
International Semiconductor Conference, 2006 (IEEE-CAS)
Romanian Journal of Information Science and Technology (ROMJIST)
Thin Solid Films (TSF-Elsevier)
Date: 2006-2007
Authors: A. Ioachim , M.I. Toacsan , M.G. Banciu , L. Nedelcu , C.A. Dutu , M. Feder , C. Plapcianu , F. Lifei , P. Nita, E. Andronescu, S. Jinga
INSTITUTIONS
(TIME OF WRITING):
National Institute of Materials Physics,
Politehnica University of Bucharest
POSITION
(TIME OF WRITING):
- A. Ioachim , M.I. Toacsan , M.G. Banciu , L. Nedelcu , C.A. Dutu , M. Feder , C. Plapcianu , F. Lifei, S. Jinga (contact us if you have more accurate information)
- Ecaterina Andronescu : Rector of the Polytechnic University of Bucharest and Full professor.
CURRENT POSITION: - A. Ioachim , M.I. Toacsan , M.G. Banciu , L. Nedelcu , C.A. Dutu , M. Feder , C. Plapcianu , F. Lifei, S. Jinga (contact us if you have more accurate information)
- Ecaterina Andronescu : Minister of Research and Full professor.

Documents

Original paper ECERS-Elsevier.pdf
Offending papers IEEE-CAS.pdf
ROMJIST.pdf
TSF-Elsevier.pdf
Samples