Unfortunately, the research paper by Dutu et al. represents a clear example of academic misconduct, not only by the appropriation of language, ideas and expressions, but especially by what it seems to be a reproduction of scientific data.

Even ignoring the copy/paste imitation of language (more than 50% of the paper is copied word by word from 2 different sources), with the exception of the Introduction and one original paragraph in the Discussion section, the authors do not use citations. Since they did not developed any of the assays described in the Material and metods section they should use references. Moreover, in the Discussion section, although they copy all the ideas from the same 2 original papers no reference is made.

Without taking in consideration the grey zone parts (as discussed bellow) the appropriation of data and discussion ideas leaves no shade of doubt on the overall conclusion of plagiarism.

Q2. The grey zone. Does the material include writing techniques that are controversial in your field but cannot be qualified fully and clearly as academic misconduct?

Even though in the introduction the authors have cited the resources that they used, one could argue that this part can be excluded from the analysis. The language in Material and methods and Results section can sometimes be similar to other resources due to the scientific nomenclature.

However, there are entire paragraphs copied word-for-word from Stachon et al. and in the Result section numerical values seem to have also been copied from Stachon et al. The probability of such coincidence is very low and authors should be requested to present the original data.

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

I think there are two guilty parties here:

1. First and foremost the authors. Clearly with knowledge they have copied data and ideas from other researchers. In my field this would represent a terrible stain especially on the first and last authors. Such misconduct could lead to exclusion from research and most probably in the impossibility of finding a job in the field.  The paper should be retracted from press and if a PhD title was awarded based on this paper (as part of the dissertation), the title reconsidered.

2. The Journal Editor and Reviewers (?) of the Acta Medica Marisiensis Journal that have accepted this paper. Even without knowing the copy/paste appropriation it was very clear that the authors omitted references in many parts of the paper.  Moreover, an ethical question needs to be raised since nowhere in the text is acknowledge the use of human patients for research and no mention of their approval is made! Maybe is no surprise that this paper has passed so easy their inquiry since the last author of the paper Prof. Leonard Azamfirei is part of their advisory board.

In my opinion the present material breaches a series of ethical principles, making it unworthy of publication. The authors have extensively copy-pasted sentences from the referenced papers without giving proper credit to the original authors: except a few phrases in the introduction which are reproduced ad litteram and should therefore be quoted, none of the following sections is referenced despite the staggering overlap. The likelihood that this overlap is accidental is minimal. Not only is the wording identical or highly similar at most places, but so are the study design, methods, results presented and their order of presentation.

The perfect match between some of the numbers is highly suspicious: the patients have the exact same mean age characteristics, the percentages of males and females are the same, the first discovery time of NRBCs in the blood of patients under intensive care is identical with Stachon et al 2007. I find it extremely difficult to believe that this could happen by chance. Furthermore, the fact that Dutu et al give no details throughout the paper about the statistical methodologies employed (i.e. how do they calculate the p-values reported) makes me question the validity of this study. The authors reference no other papers except the four having Stachon A as first author. This speaks either for their poor knowledge of the field or the unprofessional attitude towards other peers and their previous discoveries. Either way, this constitutes inappropriate academic behavior.
Q2. The grey zone. Does the material include writing techniques that are controversial in your field but cannot be qualified fully and clearly as academic misconduct?

I believe there is little room for debate in terms of suspecting the authors of this paper for academic misconduct. I can only acknowledge the fact that they do cite the manuscripts they copy from. This however does not suffice. Except the introduction, the bulk of the text is not referenced leaving the impression that the design and results are the authors’ original contribution, which is clearly not the case.

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

It is hard for me to imagine how a similar paper would get published following peer-review. In such an event nevertheless, the authors would face sanctions whose gravity could range from retracting the paper to withdrawing an academic title or funding, depending on their publication record up to that point. Needless to say, their reputation would be severely affected.

Some relevant previous work has been cited – however it has also clearly been copied and pasted to form the majority of the paper, as the report notes.  It would be normal to see an “author contributions” statement and a statement of ethical committee approval to study patients, both of which are absent from this paper.

Q2. The grey zone. Does the material include writing techniques that are controversial in your field but cannot be qualified fully and clearly as academic misconduct?

The data being presented are clearly very similar to the 2007 study that has been copied into the Results section, and thus it would not be surprising if this paper were superficially similar in format.  However, copying the previous study verbatim and simply changing the numerical values is not acceptable, and is completely inexcusable.  In case of the Results section, the best interpretation of this behaviour is extreme laziness, and the worst calls the results into question, particularly when some numerical values match exactly to the previous paper.

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

Such a work violates institutional policy on plagiarism and would lead to disciplinary procedures.  The inaccuracies introduced by copying and pasting of numerical values in the text that do not correspond to data presented in the figures lead to confusion, and could result in errors in medical decision making that affect the health of patients.

The paper by Duţu et al., breaches several well established norms in academic publishing. Approximately 60% of the text seems the result of a simple copy-paste exercise from two sources, albeit these have been cited. The very fact that many of the numerical values are identical with those found in the original papers raises a serious doubt whether the study has ever been performed.

Q2. The grey zone. Does the material include writing techniques that are controversial in your field but cannot be qualified fully and clearly as academic misconduct?

The sources used for “inspiration” are cited in the reference list.

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

This is a very illustrative example of poor and unacceptable standards for academic publishing. There are several layers of causes that have likely contributed to this outcome. The authors that wrote the paper, from the very junior to the most senior of them, clearly share equal guilt in this misconduct. The journal’s responsibility would have been to send the paper to external expert referees (including perhaps the authors of the cited papers) which would have certainly spotted the problem.

University of Cambridge takes very seriously any allegation of scientific misconduct. An external investigation is put in place whenever a serious suspicion is raised. Papers proven to contain large paragraphs of copied text (as in this example) would certainly be retracted from the journal and the authors would be penalised according to existing rules. If the study is proven not to be genuine a criminal investigation would follow in which the use of the funding would be determined.