Talk:Duplicate publication

The text I started with here was mostly written by FerzenR , in the discussion of the article "Plagiarism"DGG 20:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC) BTW, the only possibly NPOV section is the dups from jl publishers, but I can source that with good journal citations; DGG 20:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for reminding me

to keep working on it.

more examples

I just added exapmpes for two last sections. We still need examples for previous secitons. How about copyright violation in the case of pictures of Cheburashka (Some of co-authors seem to sell the pics without permirrion of others)? dima 04:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Delete the unfair unsuitable examples

Dear David Goodman,

I read your article-- “Multiple publication”. I think it is a very interesting and meaningful article. However, it was used by some people with spiteful purpose who just want to raise the influence of his article. It is exactly the opposite of your original intention.

Most conspicuously, the example in the section “Multiple Submission to Journals” does not suitable for this part at all. I do notice that you did not write the examples in your original paper. It was added by Kouznetsov who is the author of comment, ref 4. I swear to God, it is ridiculous to lump together ref 1, 3 and Multiple Submission. For ref 3, the paper is written about both continuous-wave and passively mode-locked laser action of a new Yb-doped laser crystal Yb:GSO. In cw operation, a slope efficiency of 49% was obtained. Laser pulses of 46 ps duration were achieved in passive mode locking operation. Typically, such good performance for a new laser crystal is worthy of publication. In ref 1, a slope efficiency of 75% for a cw Yb:GSO laser showed a great improvement over a previous data publicated in Ref 3. Fourthermore an interesting self-pulsed lasers were demonstrated. The scientific contents and any sentences in the refs. 1 and 3 absolutely contain nothing related with multiple submission.

However, the author of the comment did not find the point of the above paper but kept his eyes on the trivial parts and commented on it. Of course at the beginning of the articles we mentioned above have the same parameters because it is the same crystal. Obviously, for such a new crystal we have to give the characters that promote the reader’s convenience. And as a researcher, we have to publish our work to tell the colleagues it is possible to get an easy way to do their experiments with an excellent new laser source. Therefore, I wonder if the author of the comment has any hidden profit motive in making his comment, which is certainly not a profitable idea. And I would like to show you the oppinion of Applied Physical Letter reviewer in Appendix. As pointed out by the referee, the comment is just a frivolous use of APL, so does the contents added to your original writing by Kouznetsov (the same author of the comment), who is actually making another frivolous use of your original writing. This behavior reminds us another kind of plagiarism: commentary plagiarism. It is actually a hidden plagiarism that is a little bit difficult to reveal, but it is obviously a serious academic misbehavior that intentionally and frivolously uses comments on triviality of an original paper especially on those with quite important new findings, in a premeditative and non-professional purpose to let the scientific community wrongly regard that the comment writer has done some contributions to the original findings, even when the comment writer is grossly unfamiliar with the related science or technology. Some comments even address trivializing arguments in a non-professional, non-collegial and mocking manner, which smacks of gross arrogance comparable only to the writer's ignorance.

Self-plagiarism?

The term is an oxymoron and should be deleted. I work in the area of product liability and need to publish in several different journals essentially the same message of warning simply because different journals address very different audiences. Peterlewis (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Judging from all evidence offered, we may draw the conclusion that we should delete the example part which is completely not suitable for your article. I like wikipedia. It is so powerful. That is also the reason I would like to delete the unfair unsuitable examples in an original wonderful article. Although wikipedia is free space to publish one’s opinion, persistent efforts should be made to keep wikipedia fair, and to protect wikipedia from frivolous use in some spiteful purpose or by other people in a ridiculous non-professional or hidden plagiaristic manner.

All my best, Xue

Appendix:

Manuscript #LN06-05627-RESPONSE:

I have read both the Comment by D. Kouznetsov on the APL paper "Efficient diode-pumped Yb:Gd2SiO5 laser" 88, 221117(2006) and the reply by its authors. I found the Comment to be very poorly argumented, and its author to be grossly unfamiliar with the laser theory. Here are a few of his key statements and my comments: (1) Auth.: "For well isolated systems, the cross-section of emission is equal to that of emission; this is the only way to follow the Laws of thermodynamics." My comm: Laser is not "well-isolated" system. (2) "The peaks of absorption correspond to the peaks of emission, excluding the spontaneous break of the thermal equilibrium." My comm.:Lasers are well-known examples of non-equilibrium systems.

as to "The peaks of absorption correspond to the peaks of emission..." Not in optically-pumped multi-level lasers; none of them would work if the author's statement would be correct. There are plenty of mostly non-radiative (not necessarily phonon) transitions from such a level, the main one being to the upper level of the excited lasing quantum level (or to the bottom of excited band). There are also many radiative (most of them unwanted) transitions to other levels (it also happened in a regular fluorescence); and even to the same level in the different localities in the material (reabsorption).

(3) "In solid states, the active ions are strongly coupled with phonons, but the concept of the effective cross-sections allows to treat the laser medium, as if it would be a two-level system". My comm.: None of the solid-state lasers is a two-level system.

(4) "In usual laser materials, they are related with the McCumber relation [4]" So that is what Einstein relationships are called now?

Considering an experimental work, one has to be aware of many possible interactions and not necessarily apriory envisioned chain of radiative and/or non-radiative processes. Even if the author of Comment thought that there could be some apparent inconsistency in the experiment, he could've been able to point it out in much more professional way. There is no way to address an experimental work by using a trivializing two-level argument -- and at that in such a non-collegial and mocking manner, which smacks of gross arrogance comparable only to the author's ignorance. Making an extraordinary accusation (Perpetuum Motion) such as in the Comment, requires an extraordinary proof, which is lacking in this case. I think that publishing such a Comment would be counter-productive; its arguments are wrong, it does not reflect much on the real physics of the system discussed, and may only encourage a frivolous use of APL by other people.

I am mostly in agreement with the reply by the authors of the paper criticized in the Comment. There are new data presented in their reply on the reabsorption in their system by using thinner samples. In the case the Editor decided not to publish the Comment, their reply apparently would not be published either. In this case, I would encourage the authors to publish these new data in any of their upcoming papers.Ella Li 14:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duplicate publication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140722061546/http://dejavu.vbi.vt.edu/dejavu/ to http://dejavu.vbi.vt.edu/dejavu

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Managing conflict of interest

That's best done by using one's expertise to provide material largely sourced from the work of other individuals, to provide a balanced view of the topic. Quoting one's own work prominently at the beginning of a topic does not contribute to that goal. TEDickey (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)