TL;DR

We cannot reproduce very good simulation results of our paper and the person who was responsible for writing the code and running the simulations does not have the code anymore and cannot explain how the results were obtained. How should we deal with potential data falsification?

Long version

I co-authored a paper that included some Monte Carlo simulations. One of the coauthors was responsible for the simulations, allegedly wrote the code and gave us the results of the simulations. Later on, I wanted to reuse the code for another project. He reluctantly sent me the code after a long delay. However, the code did not generate the results that we reported in the paper. He said that he lost the code that he used to generate the results of the paper. The code that he sent me is some code that he used at some point of writing the code for the paper, but might not be the final one. He could not explain how the results of the paper were obtained.

We were also working on another project with the same person. He was also responsible for simulations of that project. He again lost the code and could not explain how the results were obtained. The paper of the second project was rejected by the journal and we are going to be able to rerun the simulations and report the correct results.

I suspect that this person just falsified the results.

We are thinking about removing this person from the project and removing this person from the list of authors when we resubmit that paper. Even though the person cannot explain how the results were obtain, there is still a chance that he somehow made some mistake that led to very good results. However, I think it is unlikely. Removing this person from the list of the authors would probably affect his career in a bad way so I would not want to do that without enough evidence. However, I do not think that we can continue working with this person because he lost our trust.

What should we do? How should we deal with this potential data falsification by a coauthor?

My supervisor, two other students (C and G) and I were invited to write a paper for a journal. The paper was about a project in which we were all involved.

(C) though, never engaged into any writing activity, even after multiple messages from us. When I asked (C) if he still wanted to be an author, clearly expecting either no answer or an honest “no”, (C) replied saying he knew he didn’t do much for the paper, but volunteering to proof read and review the final draft. I sent the document to him but we never heard back.

It was decided that (C) didn’t do enough to be granted authorship and we submitted without him, but due to a misunderstanding no-one notified him that he had been removed.

Because of this, (C) is now accusing us of having plagiarized his work and of scientific misconduct and fraud, and requests that the article is retracted.

(G) and I still agree that (C) should not have been granted authorship and can produce all the evidence we have to show that (C) didn’t contribute to anything substantial in the paper and is not worth authorship (emails, previous publications, etc). (C) continues to threaten to report us to the university for fraud (it is not clear if he plans to report the supervisor as well).

I am confident of my good standing but at the same time I am afraid this dispute could spiral out of control.

What could I do to defend myself in case (C) reports us? Should I get in touch with the editors and explain the situation?

I have discovered that a co-author has submitted a book chapter to a major publisher omitting my name of co-author list without me knowing. I was included in the first submissions, but corresponding author made an executive decision to not include me, based on unknown grounds. I have substantially and creatively contributed to the work, in design, datacollection and analysis. What are my options now to get credit where credit is due? technically it is plagiarism, I think.

Suppose some author provides his original research article to a journal for publication. In this way, he is disclosing or revealing his confidential research work to that journal. Now, consider the case that his article gets rejected. So, is it not possible that whoever reviews that article can publish that kind of work and say that it’s theirs? Since the original author’s work has not been published and he is disclosing his confidential work to somebody, how could the author get assurance that if his article is rejected, his work will not be leaked by the journal staff in any form? What happens if this kind of thing happens?

In a linguistics paper I read, I noticed that several references in the bibliography are not actually used in the text. This is for about 10-15% of the references the case. Should I do anything with this?
I always thought that all references must be used in the text, because even if they are just suggestions for further reading you would want some explanation why it is relevant and what you can find where.

I only know the author through their work and do not know the editors. The paper is from 2011. The references are rather general. They are relevant to the paper, but you would want page numbers with them unless you are familiar with them. They are all from different authors and different institutes. It is likely that the references were used in previous versions of the text.

In this meta thread

Why did Leon Meier get suspended for a year for "voting irregularities"?

I asked why Leon got suspended. But in response to the comment there by Mark McGregor–NO, I am not Leon Meier. If the mods did an IP address search or something they would find that I’m not from the same place as Leon (barring some incredible coincidence) and I invite them to make the results of that inquiry public.

Also–I have no clue who Federico Peloni is but he doesn’t seem to be Leon Meier either. However, user85520, who gave that very Leon-style answer with -6 vote score right now is almost certainly Leon Meier. I assume that’s why that account was deleted shortly after the answer was given. Just wanted to clear that up. Thanks.

I’m a PhD student.
An associate professor in my department has established a collaboration with another university. This other university has people who have developed a product. The professor does not own the product, but is one of the collaborators with the university.

I recently made an article that involves this product, and included authors who helped produce this work. The professor in question is not an author, because he was neither invited to the paper, nor did he contribute. I simply did not need him for this paper. On the day the paper was camera-ready, I received an email from the professor stating his disappointment that he has not been involved with this publication.

This person is not involved in my supervision team whatsoever. It seems to me that he expects any publication that is related to the product to have his name on it.

Is this acceptable?

I am about to submit a paper in which one of the algorithms I used is heavily based on the code available on one of the TensowFlow tutorials. In fact, I mostly copied the code from the page and made the necessary modifications for my specific case. I did cite, in the paper, both TensorFlow and the page, and disclosed that the neural net architecture I was using was based on the one on the page. The licensing terms of the code (Apache 2.0) mention that the user is free to build upon the code and redistribute it.

I am not in CS, and am applying the model to a specific problem in my field. However, in copying the code (which I believe will not be disclosed) I am afraid I might be doing academic misconduct. However, on the other hand, if that was the case, using open-source libraries would also be frowned upon, given that the user is essentially copying code.

Will I be committing academic misconduct or anything that is ethically frowned upon in academia by submitting results parts of which were based on copied code?

PS: In response to a comment, I cited TensorFlow and the webpage in the paper, which will be published if accepted, but the code itself (which was heavily based on the code available in the webpage) won’t be posted anywhere (as far as I know).

I reviewed a paper submitted for a smallish magazine. It presented an algorithm to perform some allocation task and compared its performance to that of several other algorithms from the literature performing the same task in several ways (the results, i.e. the allocation, can be evaluated based on the usage of several different resources, so a result could use less of resource A, but more of resource B, and so on).

My opinion was that, although the algorithm was badly presented and the paper was nigh-incomprehensible, the results presented seemed good, so the authors deserved another shot at better explaining themselves, so I did not suggest to reject it altogether.

The first review round went through with a unanimous “major revisions” verdict.

Then I was asked to review the second submitted version of the paper too. In this new version, the algorithm had been compared to a much broader range of algorithms. Problem is: even though the algorithms it was being compared to changed, the comparison charts remained exactly the same, and looking at them side-by-side revealed no difference whatsoever (no explicit numerical data was provided).

What is worse is that the change was not even one-to-one. In the first submission, the algorithm (let’s call it A) was compared with the same three other algorithms in all categories (resource A usage, resource B usage etc.) while in the second submission, each resource comparison involved different algorithms, so for example, A was compared to B,C and D in resource A utilization, but it was compared to C, E and F in resource B utilization, and so on.

Nonetheless, each chart in the second submission was identical to one from the first submission.

At this point, I was fairly certain that at least the second round of comparisons had been completely faked, i.e. the authors just changed the labels on the charts.

Asking one of my senior coworkers, I was advised to just ignore the issue and to not raise a ruckus, since this issue has a high chance of backfiring: we are not an academic institution, we are the R&D department of a pretty small private firm, hence we have very little political weight and scientific reputation.

I am wondering if I really should raise this issue with the editor, with whom my firm has business relations, as we are partners in several government-funded projects, or I should heed the advice of my colleague.

While the paper has very little chance of being published as the second submission is also nigh-unreadable, a co-author of this paper has an extremely high h-index (100+), hence I feel if my suspicion is founded, it really should be brought to the light.

I am about to submit a paper in which one of the algorithms I used is heavily based on the code available on one of the TensowFlow tutorials. In fact, I mostly copied the code from the page and made the necessary modifications for my specific case. I did cite both TensorFlow and the page, and disclosed that the neural net architecture I was using was based on the one in the page. The licensing terms of the code (Apache 2.0) mention that the user is free to build upon the code and redistribute it.

I am not in CS, and am applying the model to a specific problem in my field. However, in copying the code (which I believe will not be disclosed) I am afraid I might be doing academic misconduct. However, on the other hand, if that was the case, using open-source libraries would also be frowned upon, given that the user is essentially copying code.

Will I be committing academic misconduct or anything that is ethically frowned upon in academia by submitting results part of which were based on copied code?