ETHICS    ACADEMIC PUBLISHING  In a case whose irony is not lost on those involved, an article about publishing ethics has been retracted because one of the authors re-used material he’d wri      800w

ETHICS    ACADEMIC PUBLISHING  In a case whose irony is not lost on those involved, an article about publishing ethics has been retracted because one of the authors re-used material he’d wri      800w

$0.69
Add To Cart

ETHICS    ACADEMIC PUBLISHING        800w

 

In a case whose irony is not lost on those involved, an article about publishing ethics has been retracted because one of the authors re-used material he’d written for an earlier piece. But the authors and the journal’s editors have turned the episode into a learning opportunity.

 

Here’s the notice for “Ethics and Integrity of the Publishing Process: Myths, Facts, and a Roadmap,” published in 2011 by Marshall Schminke and Maureen L. Ambrose:

 

The above article from Management and Organization Review, published online 7 SEP 2011, has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal’s outgoing Editor-in-Chief Anne Tsui, the journal’s incoming Editor-in-Chief Arie Y. Lewin, and John Wiley & Sons Asia Pty Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to unattributed overlap with work previously published in Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 586–591: ‘Editor’s comments: The better angels of our nature – Ethics and integrity in publishing process’ by Marshall Schminke. The editors and authors jointly wrote a letter, available below, to explain the process used to come to the retraction decision.

 

The paper has been cited six times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here are some excerpts of the letter:

 

Emotionally, [retraction of a published paper due to self-plagiarism] brings embarrassment to the authors and disappointment to the editors. In the spirit of advancing understanding of publication ethics, the editors and two authors have agreed that further explanation of the process from the discovery of this problem to the decision of retraction is desired. With support from Wiley, the publisher of MOR, an agreement was reached between the editors of MOR and the authors of the retracted paper to jointly write a letter explaining and clarifying the circumstances leading to the decision as an accompaniment to the statement of retraction. The editors of MOR are