The paper of Sorlea et al breaches with several well established norms of publishing, in being a crude example of extensive verbatim plagiarism (around 90%) and innaccurate citation. Reproducing a study or a specific methodology does not necessarily constitute plagiarism but duplicating a previously published text without reference to the original source is considered plagiarism (JM Miano, 2010). Moreover, as citations are increasingly been used as means of establishing research quality (Science citation index, Hirsch-index) ommiting a citation would negatively impact on an already published contribution by depriving it of the deserved acknowledgement.

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?

While the use of certain opening phases or catchphrases is widespread, the re-use of larger text parts is particularly tempting for non-English speakers. This practice is easily recognizable by a profficient speaker of English, which may identify flamboyant phrases spread within an otherwise  plain text. However, this is often overlooked by Editors, especialy when the target is an obscure journal in need for submissions. Clear limits should be enforced and dully mentioned by the scientific  community.

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.)

The actual standards of reviewing give the ethical issues an equal weight with other methodologic aspects, such as authorship, scientific significance or the methodology of a study. The local institutional commitee for scientific missconduct should not consider the publication in the future or/and invalidate any benefits it may have incurred. A public announcement that is accessible to the Funding agencies should also be released and the article should be retracted, together with a notice clearly indicating the reasons.

While reading the material presented here and Chapter 4 of Kelder’s PhD thesis I was struck by the sheer amount of overlap. The first having been published in 2011 and the latter in 2006 as well as the huge difference between the two in terms of academic standard makes it obvious who the original author is. Word for word, Sorlea et al reproduce entire paragraphs from Kelder’s thesis in virtually all sections of their paper. In fact, except the results part (which reports different sample and lymph node biopsy statistics but still highly suspicious identical results), the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion are all identical to the original source. This is by no means acceptable in any field of research, under any circumstance. In my opinion, this is a blatant case 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?

Unlike ever before, it is almost impossible for me to find sections in this material where I can hesitate in blaming the authors for academic misconduct. Except for the conveniently removed sentences referring to Kelder’s RT-PCR experiment and the sample size adjustment, the abstract is identical. The exact agreement in the main text, including the numeric results (negative predictive value, accuracy and upstaging value of SLNs in colon cancer) leaves in my opinion no room for doubt that the authors listed in Sorlea et al are not the original writers. Furthermore, I notice clear grammatical differences between text sections that match Kelder’s text and those that do not: un-matching sentences are often either grammatically incorrect or misspelled (e.g. “In 6 patients with SLN negative by HE was pozitive by IHC” or “In 6 patients of the other 13 pa-tients where the SLN was negative byHE, it was evidenced as pozitive by IHC, leading to a 33% value of upstaging”). Finally, I find it extremely unsettling that Sorlea et al do not make any reference to Kelder’s text anywhere, suggesting an intentional act of misconduct.

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 would be highly unlikely that a similar paper would pass a bona fide peer-review process. If however that would be the case, I can imagine that following thorough investigations of subsequent complaints, it would probably be retracted. Sanctions depend on the institution and the track record of the authors in charge, but most likely, any benefit brought by the publication of this paper (e.g. academic title, promotion, grant funding) would be reevaluated and perhaps annulled. The reputation of the author and its institution would be of course severely compromised, affecting their credibility in any further academic endeavor. It can be understandable if unexperienced scientists (i.e. students, young researchers) are not aware of the gravity of such an approach. It is however the responsibility of their well-established supervisors to enforce strict rules of academic conduct.

In that example, there is a clear plagiarism by copying entire paragraphs from other works.

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 question 2 is difficult because you can rewrite the entire paper with different words but if the conclusion of the paper is the same as the original source, in my opinion, it’s also a case of plagiarism. That’s where the peer-review process comes into the game, in which referees check whether the data in the paper are novel or if the data have been published elsewhere.

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.)

Proven misconduct in research at Cambridge University is regarded as serious or gross misconduct and will normally merit dismissal and the materials (publications) removed. Depending on the gravity of the situation and the result of the investigation this can result in legal action as well. The offender may also have to pay penalties, which could be monetary, criminal punishments, or imprisonments.

There can be identified large portions of extensive, almost verbatim, unattributed quotations from articles published by Wendy Kelder et al. in Int J Colorectal Disease 2007; 22(12):1509-14 and in Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41(9):1073-1078. These papers have not been referred by the authors.

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?

Not in my opinion.

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.)

Consider following the COPE guidelines for “Suspected plagiarism in a published article” – see http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts .