> There's no mention of any of our IR work, nor that we
> coined the phrase 'non-invasive population assessments'.
> Not surprisingly, there was also no mention of the four
> contemporary articles regarding IR imaging of beehives
> and reviews of current IR cameras that I've recently
> published from December 2015 through May of 2016.
In the case of the IR paper, the "oversight" is hard to point out without
being viewed as annoyed that you did not get credit where credit is due, via
citations at minimum. So, the message cannot be soft-pedaled. It has to
be, "Here's my 2011 paper, this new paper is far too similar for it to be
coincidence". Perhaps the editor is aware of your paper, and wants to
confirm with you that you see "nothing new here".
> a year ago, we reviewed virtually everything that is in this
> 2016 review. Plus we reviewed several technologies that
> these authors overlooked or ignored.
A review paper is far more difficult to accuse of being anything more than
sloppy work. Your prior paper can once again be returned along with the
submitted paper, so that the editor can make their own evaluation of
similarity. I'd not offer any conclusions at all, so as to avoid looking
peeved and/or petty. Again, the editor may already be aware of your work,
but it is strange that they seem to want to set you up to do battle with
these folks on your own time, at your own expense, over a mere review paper.
I'd ask the editor "Are you aware of my prior highly similar paper? If so,
why didn't YOU send them a copy of it, rather than asking me to do it under
the banner of a 'review'?" Is this journal a one-man show, or a very small
team? Maybe he is (or they are) overloaded.
With such pressure to publish, there has been lots more sloppy work, or
outright plagiarism.
I am surprised that it has spread even to the relatively low-key "backwater"
of bee research, but then, these weren't "bee people", were they?
For those unaware of how bad things have gotten:
2015
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/08/25/fake-peer-review-scandal-shine
s-spotlight-on-china/
http://tinyurl.com/olzf7fd
2013
http://www.economist.com/news/china/21586845-flawed-system-judging-research-
leading-academic-fraud-looks-good-paper
http://tinyurl.com/kcoqs82
( Guess who promised to meet friends arriving by train for Thanksgiving to
see them to their hotel. Guess which train is very very late. )
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
