Question 1:

1. Two co-authors write a letter to the editor of a medical journal. Are they right to be concerned? Why?

Dear editors,

  We were rather surprised to see parts of our 2013 article in journal X (attached) reiterated in a recent article in your journal (Y) on the same topic. Although our article is cited once in relation to the paper’s main point, several other sentences use other parts of our work without crediting us; indeed, the article as a whole is heavily based on our ideas. Below are four examples (our text first in each case). Sorry to bother you about this but we thought we should draw it to your attention.

Kind regards, The Authors

1. “The primacy in modern medical ethics of the principle of respect for autonomy has led to the widespread assumption that it is unethical to change someone’s beliefs because doing so would constitute coercion or paternalism.”

“Self-determination—a patient’s right to make choices about his or her own medical care, however irrational those choices may seem—is universally accepted as fundamental….It goes without saying that coercion is not ethically acceptable. Similarly, paternalism—imposing a course of action without full regard for the patient’s wishes—is now unacceptable”

2. “Removal of bias is perhaps the most important form of persuasion. A bias is a cognitive mechanism or mistaken belief that adversely affects a patient’s decision making”

“Patients may have a cognitive bias or an incorrect understanding or misbelief of established fact that a contrary disclosure by the doctor does not dispel. Is it ethical to respect the patient’s right to irrational choice, or does the doctor have a duty to challenge and persuade? “

3. “If information about a physician’s preferred course of action is conveyed subtly, such as through body language, hints, or other clues, this could exert a powerful influence or lead to misunderstanding, in addition to being an unprofessional means of communicating with a patient.”

“When doctors have firm opinions but fear stating them openly they might convey them consciously or otherwise, through body language or in the way they present the facts, however much in a seemingly unbiased discussion.”

4. “It could be argued that physicians who refuse to reveal their recommended course of action are thereby depriving patients of relevant information and rendering them incapable of providing informed consent;”

“Alternatives, risks, and benefits must be explained; however, a clear recommendation according to evidence should also be provided. Otherwise, we fail our patients.”


Question 2:

2. The editor replies as follows. Is this a satisfactory response? Why?

“Many thanks for your email. We take allegations of plagiarism very seriously. We understand plagiarism as only the verbatim copying of someone else's work without making it clear and giving credit.

Of course, authors should give credit where it is due in any case, but there is no copyright on ideas. It is inevitable that ideas get reiterated, repeated and reformulated, and who is to say in general who had the thought first or what inspired an idea?

From the examples you have given it seems there is no case of plagiarism to answer here as we understand it because the text is substantially different even if the ideas are similar. And your article is cited.

However, if you think that the piece does not give your article sufficient credit then might I suggest you post a Rapid Response to the article. It could simply say that you published a piece on a similar topic first that also makes points x,y, and z.”



Last modified: Tuesday, 12 March 2019, 2:05 PM