A new awakening indeed

“With great power comes great responsibility,” is an oft used line, popularized by the Spider Man comic books written by Stan Lee, few of which have been translated into movies. It is a matter of pride and honor that the Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery is now indexed. At this time, the Editorial by Dr. Yadava seems most appropriate [1]. Not only does it ruffle a few feathers but it also does that in a crisp in-your-face manner that takes a while to sink in.

Plagiarism in the publishing world is real and, by all means, is here to stay. Increasing numbers of retracted papers in indexed journals are proof of that and it is something the editorial team and the reviewers are wary of. A recent study by Palla et al. [2] showed that a total of 318 papers were retracted in three years (2015–2018). A majority of the retracted papers (268 in number) in health science originated from China, whereas 50 retracted papers originated from India.

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

- Juliet, Romeo & Juliet, Act 2 Scene 2, William Shakespeare

Duplicate or salami publications, obfuscation, and the like are the norm in the present day. A mere change in title, a phrase or two here and there, dealing at large with subtleties and intricacies of the English language rather than scientific advancement and reporting of results verbatim in several national and international journals at different time frames, following presentations on similar findings at state, national, and international conferences to gain reputation in the international community as an oft published author is common. Unfortunately, it gets overlooked by most editors and reviewers of national journals.

A probable solution has been talked about by Severin et al. [3]. They believe that editors should take measures to reduce the risk of citations from predatory publications. They should alert their associate editors, reviewers, and authors about the need to check reference lists and cited literature carefully. One needs to be skilled enough to identify potentially predatory journals. This is not an easy task but online resources such as Think Check Submit (www.thinkchecksubmit.org) and databases like the Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org) can help.

In the Indian context, Dogra et al. [4] have explained the problem elaborately regarding dealing with duplicate submissions and duplicate publications.

First, the journal should clearly mention that stringent action according to standard guidelines is liable if authors do not abide by the ethical publication practice. Authors should be instructed to include a cross-reference to the overlapping work and upload all other data submitted which is potentially overlapping or related to the actual data presented. Second, the journal should have guidelines for the reviewers too, as rightly pointed out by Dr. Yadava. The peer-review process should be very confidential. It is the editors’ responsibility that an appropriate reviewer is selected who is free from disqualifying competing interests. Reviewers should disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission. They should identify similar publications in their area of interest and be alert to redundant publications and plagiarism. They can use modern electronic search systems and electronic databases and run accepted papers through the text similarity search engine eTBLAST, which is freely available online (http://www.etblast.org), to search for duplications prior to publication. The journal should also provide facility of using a given program to reviewers for checking duplication of the published literature. If the submitted manuscript is found to be duplicate submission by the software, then manual checking should be performed before informing the editor about the same.

Tolsgaard et al. [5] summarized solutions as authors declaring potential problems in the cover letter to the editors and in the manuscript text, considering serious consequences (such as blacklisting, contacting authors’ deans/department chairs, or retracting published manuscripts) when authors plagiarize, resulting in rejection and cautioning of the authors. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the editorial team for detection of these issues and for formulating an appropriate response. And therein lies the reputation of the journal.

As elaborated by Dr. Yadava, in a recent IACTS Masterclass talk, predatory journals and even indexed ones often relent to peer pressure of publishing what they would have not under unbiased circumstances. Pressure of publication and paucity of quality material has a bearing. The reviewers too are often biased towards particular authors and institutes, while accepting/rejecting or suggesting changes. Therefore, a set of Instructions to Reviewers is called for and strict adherence to ethical compliance and rechecks from senior editors to help enhance reputation of the journal in question. Who can review and edit with an unbiased mind with urging phone calls after-hours from the influential lot, for a job without monetary gains but a little highlight in the CV alone? The questions raised leave us with much to ponder. Time will tell if we do get suitable solutions.

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethics approval

This Letter to the Editor does not mention any patient or patient details, and hence formal ethical approval is not required.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.