32

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?

Community
  • 1
codenext
  • 599
  • 6
  • 11

4 Answers4

51

It is unlikely that a reviewer or other participant in the peer review process will outright steal the work he/she is reviewing and publish it as original work, because it is easy to get caught.

If the "real" author of the work accuses the thief of plagiarism, the editor of the journal can verify that the work was originally submitted by the "real" author before it was published by the rogue reviewer. (Also see: What to do if a referee plagiarises the result after rejecting a paper?)

If the rogue reviewer is caught, the paper will be retracted (which is damaging to his professional reputation) and there may also be other consequences for the reviewer. See e.g. this recent example.

Community
  • 1
ff524
  • 108,934
  • 49
  • 421
  • 474
  • I was looking for this kind of information, thanks. – codenext Mar 27 '16 at 21:24
  • 20
    @codenext I'd add to ff524's answer that it is unlikely that a reviewer or other participant in the peer review process will outright steal the work he/she is reviewing and publish it as original work, because they simply have no reason for stealing it: most reaserchers don't lack of ideas, but of time to pursue them. – Massimo Ortolano Mar 27 '16 at 21:50
  • But think a research which is very rare, like Riemann hypothesis, if some armature person or person who is not related to that field solves that or atleast makes some progress on that, and want to publish as independent. Now, this kind of research is very rare and brings big name, so any reviewer can change their mind and play around. So I think there should be some international system to protect work of all authors even their raw work also needs to be protected. – codenext Mar 27 '16 at 22:14
  • 16
    @codenext The more attention the work is likely to get, the more dangerous it would be to steal it, since a paper like that would be subject to a lot of scrutiny and the thief would almost certainly be found out. Nevertheless, you may also see Prevent plagiarism after rejection of a paper? and How can I “time-stamp” my data without publishing it? – ff524 Mar 27 '16 at 22:22
  • Hhhmm...that is making sense.. – codenext Mar 27 '16 at 22:24
  • Just for completeness retraction watch reports on a recent case. Note that there are three parties here: the reviewer recommended the paper for publication then showed it to a collaborator who later nabbed a few paragraphs for a paper he was preparing. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Mar 27 '16 at 22:32
  • Unfortunately, defining "plagiarism" is difficult. Sometimes, even word-by-word plagiarism is not defined to be cheating in some journals. I can offer an example. – High GPA Aug 17 '23 at 09:24
17

Let me add to @ff524's excellent answer. If you are paranoid, one way to add an additional safeguard would be to post a preprint on arxiv.org or a similar site. Then you have a public version with a verifiable timestamp, so even if all the journal's staff colluded to steal your idea, you could prove to the community that it was originally yours.

David Ketcheson
  • 36,304
  • 9
  • 109
  • 162
  • 14
    Or, if you're really paranoid and want to keep the contents of your paper secret until your big reveal, you could embed its hash in the bitcoin blockchain :) – ff524 Mar 28 '16 at 08:03
  • 2
    Don't forget the even more time honoured tradition of publishing your abstract as an anagram first... link – mlk Mar 28 '16 at 09:12
  • 3
    "You will find that, if you take the second letter in each sentence of the third sub-section of 'Methods', it spells out 'This is mine no stealing'." – Fomite Mar 28 '16 at 18:15
  • 2
    I was a reviewer for a journal paper which the editors automatically rejected for having a pre-print on ArXiv. I vehemently disagree with the position of that editor/journal, but it would be a shame to have this happen to you just because you were worried about plagiarism from a reviewer! – Will Robertson Mar 29 '16 at 06:52
  • 4
    @WillRobertson If this was in a field where arXiv is common, then the simple solution is to not publish in a journal which is so far behind the times (there will be plenty of good journals to choose from which do allow this). – Tobias Kildetoft Mar 29 '16 at 07:25
  • @TobiasKildetoft Agreed!! Engineering is somewhat behind the times compared to physics, maths, ... – Will Robertson Mar 29 '16 at 07:40
  • why this precaution may be needed, taking in account ff524♦'s answer? it may be useful in case when editor of journal is also failed to be reliable. are there other cases? - unauthorised access to email. – qdinar May 23 '18 at 09:46
  • arxiv.org also has review/premoderation, that continues for several days. so, except blockchain, that is already mentioned in a comment above by ff524♦, is not it better publishing it in a file hosting, that shows time of submission? and if it is in plain text, to use plain text hosting, that shows proper time of submission and of edits, or does not allow edits? (examples are facebook.com, wikibooks.org, and probably pastebin.com). – qdinar May 23 '18 at 10:25
  • @ff524 there is error 404. try https://proofofexistence.com/ instead. i see there "Drag and drop your document here. The file will not be uploaded. ... Documents already registered for certification, waiting for payments." - is not it alternatively possible and better to just use simple bitcoin client, or other similar site, that would be for free, and give possibility to not give the document to untrused script. – qdinar May 23 '18 at 10:33
  • facebook has some disadvantages: 1) appearance of a new post on your blog is visible only to registered users 2) if somebody can get unathorised access to your account, they can delete your post. – qdinar May 23 '18 at 10:53
4

Here is the advise I got in a creative writing course a while ago:
Print out your article, book draft or whatever. Put it in an envelope and send it to yourself by registered mail (yes good old paper mail). Of course you keep all receipts and administrative documents you get at the post office. Don't open the letter when you receive it.
That gives you a formal and legally binding proof that your text existed at the time you posted it. In case of a formal dispute you have it opened in the presence of notary or whatever legal person can formally confirm the content of the document and the date.

gwyers
  • 41
  • 1
  • 1
    Logically, it is making sense. I believe we can do this with electronic mail also. – codenext Mar 29 '16 at 17:44
  • 2
    The "poor man's copyright" has no legal effect in the US, and probably many other jurisdictions. (Registered mail shows you sent something, but doesn't date the actual document - you could easily have mailed yourself an empty envelope, steamed it open, and put the document in much later.) – ff524 Oct 23 '16 at 10:01
  • @ff524 do the email/private message version, using services like gmail, facebook, have effect in us? as far as i know, it has, i saw a news message that facebook message was accepted as proof by court. – qdinar May 23 '18 at 10:40
2

If you will submit to good leading journals of the field, you shouldn't be bothered by this question. If someone is good enough to be a reviewer, she/he has has the ability to produce respectfully publishable papers, and is likely to be a honest person. Only enclosed minds would do such a thing, anyway. Moreover,the journals keep their correspondence up to 5 years, so a legal process could in principle be done if would be the case.

Nikey Mike
  • 2,933
  • 2
  • 17
  • 33