Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak
BMJ 2006; 333 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38968.611296.F7 (Published 14 September 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;333:594All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
We are grateful to Dr Zavos for drawing our attention to the articles
by Professor Asim Kurjak previously published in the BMJ and the Croatian
Medical Journal. We asked the World Association of Medical Editors and the
Committee on Publication Ethics to examine these articles, which they have
now done. We have forwarded the relevant results of their investigations
to Professor Nada Cikes, Dean of the Zagreb University School of Medicine.
Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief, BMJ,
Matko Marusic, Editor in Chief, Croatian Medical Journal
Competing interests:
FG is a former president of WAME and former chair of COPE.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Some of the Rapid Responses to the article by Iain Chalmers (1)
concerning plagiarism by Prof. Kurjak and Dr. Kupesic of Dr. Blaas’ PhD
thesis (2), and numerous e-mails, from (mostly Croatian) colleagues, make
it clear that further descriptive information needs to be published about
the issue, particularly as it seems that Asim Kurjak is publicly denying
some of the facts presented in Iain Chalmers’ paper (according to the
Norwegian newspaper, “Adresseavisen” on 18 September 2006, that published
a facsimile and translation of a text in the Croatian newspaper “Jutarnji
List” dated 16 September 2006).
I am writing this letter as President of International Society of
Ultrasound of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) during the period of 1998
– 2002.
The book Fetal and Neonatal Neurology and Neurosurgery, 3rd edition,
2001. Eds Levene M, Chervenak F, Whittle M. (Churchill Livingston) was
published in the fall of 2001 and arrived on my desk in October 2001. The
plagiarism of Dr. Blaas’ PhD thesis and other work by Dr. Blaas et al. (3,
4) in Chapter 4, Ultrasound of first trimester CNS development: structure
and circulation by Kurjak and Kupesic (5) was then discovered by Dr.
Blaas. Blaas and I reported the plagiarism to the publisher in a letter
dated January 20, 2002. The publisher forwarded the information to Kurjak
and Kupesic in a letter dated February 6, 2002. In a reply letter of
February 14, 2002, the publisher informed Blaas and me that the world-wide
distribution of the book would be frozen. Kurjak and Kupesic responded
with a letter to the publisher dated February 26, 2002, recognizing that
“there is merit to the complaint” and apologizing to the publisher as well
as to Blaas and me. Soon thereafter, the publisher decided to withdraw the
book from the market. In May 2002 the publisher decided that the book of
858 pages would be completely reprinted with a new chapter by Blaas and me
replacing the previous chapter by Kurjak and Kupesic. Thus, it is
incorrect that the book had not been published and that we are dealing
with plagiarism “in a ‘not even born’ Chapter!” as stated by Prof. Gian
Carlo Di Renzo (6). Further, Prof. Di Renzo argues that Chalmers’
hypothesis that “systematic reviews may detect plagiarism” (1) is not
supported by the example of Kurjak’s plagiarism of Dr. Blaas. Prof. Di
Renzo’s argument is incorrect: it was through systematic review that the
numerous phrases Kurjak lifted from Blaas’ Lancet article (4) were
detected.
Chapter 4 by Kurjak and Kupesic, Ultrasound of first trimester CNS
development: structure and circulation, consists of an introduction, a
section on ultrasound and Doppler assessment of early brain development, a
section on early cerebral circulation, a section on 3D ultrasound and a
conclusion. The section on ultrasound and Doppler consists of 412 words,
340 of which (83%) are directly copied from an article by Blaas and Eik-Nes (3); the section on 3D ultrasound consists of 1261 words, 1155 of
which (92%) are copied word for word from Dr. Blaas’ thesis The embryonic
examination (2) along with extensive passages of 453 words from Blaas’
Lancet article (4). Thus, it is incorrect, as proposed by Prof. JM Bajo-Arenas (7) that the problem consisted of a
relatively minor failure fully to acknowledge Blaas’ contribution and that
the case was a mere “error of judgement”.
Kurjak, Kupesic and Blaas were all members of ISUOG. Because I as a
President of ISUOG was a co-author of some of the plagiarized text, I
wrote to the President Elect Karel Maršál on February 15, 2002, asking him
to manage the complaint raised by Blaas against Asim Kurjak and Sanja
Kupesic. Prof. Maršál chaired the Executive Committee (Stuart Campbell,
Joshua Copel, Kypros Nicolaides, Gianluigi Pilu, Lawrence Platt) that
evaluated the complaint. The information was presented to the ISUOG
Executive Committee during a conference call on February 25, 2002, and in
an e-mail to the complete ISUOG Board on March 22, 2002. It was concluded
that this was a clear case of plagiarism and, after further e-mail
communication, the Board decided to suspend Prof. Kurjak and Dr. Kupesic
from all their ISUOG functions and from the Editorial Board of the journal
“Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology”, and to exclude them from ISUOG
membership for 3 years (Karel Maršál, personal communication). In the
meantime, before the decision of the Board was announced, Prof. Kurjak and
Dr. Kupesic sent a letter to Prof. Maršál as Chair of the Executive
Committee on March 22, 2002, in which they withdrew their membership in
ISUOG. Their letter was discussed by the Executive Committee at its
meeting in London on April 29, 2002. The Executive Committee decided to
accept the resignation, to remove Kupesic from the Editorial Board of
“Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology”, and to declare Kurjak and
Kupesic ineligible for ISUOG membership for three years.
On April 30, 2002, ISUOG issued a statement which was sent to me as
President of ISUOG. The Executive Committee decided at that time not to
make the statement public. The statement read:
ISUOG Statement re complaint of Scientific Misconduct by Harm-Gerd
Blaas against Asim Kurjak and Sanja Kupesic ‘Ultrasound of first trimester
CNS development: structure and circulation’ – Chapter in ‘Fetal and
Neonatal Neurology and Neurosurgery’, 3rd edition, 2001 (Churchill
Livingston):
‘In full consideration of the complaint, relevant publications and
the response from Drs Kurjak and Kupesic, the ISUOG Board has concluded
that the publication of this chapter constitutes plagiarism of the
previously published original work of the complainant and that the
complaint is justified. It is therefore the decision of the Board to
accept the resignation of Drs Kurjak and Kupesic as members of ISUOG, and
their withdrawal from ISUOG’s forthcoming World Congress. Drs Kurjak and
Kupesic will be ineligible for membership of the Society and associated
benefits for a further three years'.
London, April 30, 2002
In a letter dated March 1, 2002, Blaas and I informed the Dean of the
Medical School in Zagreb, Prof. Boris Labar, about the plagiarism. A
response was never received. It is our hope that Chalmers’ paper will
prompt the University of Zagreb to evaluate the complaint and present
their conclusion in the public domain.
I respect the kind words Aris Antsaklis (8), Zlatan Fatusic (9) and
Oktay Kadayýfcý (10) have expressed about Kurjak in their letters to
bmj.com. However, having read their praise of Prof. Kurjak I remain
puzzled by the fact that a researcher of the quality and ability being
claimed for Kurjak would need to copy almost two thousand words from a
pioneer’s articles in order to describe the basic components of what he
claims is his own 3D ultrasound research. I must be excused for asking why
Kurjak found it necessary to copy so extensively if the extraction of
knowledge presented in Kurjak’s Chapter 4 really was based on his own
research?
References:
1. Chalmers I. Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism:
the case of Asim Kurjak. Br Med J 2006;333:594-6.
2. Blaas H-GK. The embryonic examination. Ultrasound studies on the
development of the human embryo [Thesis]. Trondheim: Norwegian University
of Science and Technology; 1999.
3. Blaas H-G, Eik-Nes SH. Ultrasound assessment of early brain
development. In: Jurkovic D, Jauniaux E, editors. Ultrasound and early
pregnancy. New York–London: The Parthenon Publishing Group; 1996. p. 3–18.
4. Blaas H-G, Eik-Nes SH, Berg S, Torp H. In-vivo three-dimensional
ultrasound reconstructions of embryos and early fetuses. Lancet
1998;352:1182–6.
5. Kurjak A, Kupesic S. Ultrasound of first trimester CNS
development: structure and circulation. In: Levene MI, Chervenak FA,
Whittle M, editors. Fetal and Neonatal Neurology and Neurosurgery. London:
Churchill Livingston; 2001. p. 39–44 [Withdrawn in 2002].
6. Di Renzo G C. Unfair media attack against Prof. Kurjak. Rapid
responses for Iain Chalmers, BMJ 2006;333:594-6. bmj.com, 17 October 2006.
7. Bajo-Arenas JM. Professor Kurjak. Rapid responses for Iain
Chalmers, BMJ 2006;333:594-6. bmj.com. 11 October 2006.
8. Antsaklis A. Our opinion – Society of Perinatal Medicine of Bosnia
and Herzegovina. Rapid responses for Iain Chalmers, BMJ 2006;333:594-6.
bmj.com, 3 November 2006.
9. Fatusic Z. Response to recent article concerning plagiarism -
case of Asim Kurjak. Rapid responses for Iain Chalmers, BMJ 2006;333:594-
6. bmj.com, 8 November 2006.
10. Kadayýfcý O. Respect to Asim Kurjak. Rapid responses for Iain
Chalmers, BMJ 2006;333:594-6. bmj.com, 8 November 2006.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Colleagues,
The actual case of prof. dr. Kurjak is a minor example only in the
recent increasing of scientific plagiarism and other related
falsifications in Croatia; different more extreme and evident examples of
other plagiarists there occur, being less known outside this country. This
is now provoked chiefly by local social traditions; the former communist
authorities in Yugoslavia suppressed that by political force, and
plagiarism there was rather rare as elsewhere in Europe. Then recently,
the newcome democracy in Croatia is often interpreted as 'self-service'
without any limits, and even several leading politicians (no more active)
here reached their scientific theses by plagiarism; then any their
sanction was blocked, and their example stimulated others to do the same
without limitations; now the plagiarism and other 'scientific'
falsifications there became nearly usual practice.
I experienced there two cases of such practice; the first was my
minor scientific article long ago published in Croatia, and then copied
(except title) by another Croatian author and published in Japan (any
reply was in vain). Then my dr.sc. thesis before dozen years in Croatia
was copied even in 3 iterative articles by other authors without any its
reference. Instead of reply, I decided to made a well-documented
scientific response i.e. to explore in details all accessible causes and
conditions of this increasing pandemia of plagiarism and falsifications in
Croatian scientific establishment. So far, after 39 years in scientific
research, I published some hundred papers (mostly anthropology, genetics
and palaeobiology), and at the end I prepared an extensive encyclopaedic
monograph in 4 volumes on the plagiarism and falsifications in Croatian
science during 20th century (in Croat & English). It will appear in
the next year when I may be retired, out of the repression of omnipotent
Croatian plagiarists.
Reference: A.Z. Lovric-Yoshamya 2007, An encyclopaedia of the
Scientific Criminality in Croatia, vols. I - IV. Zagreb (in press), 3200
pp.
Ph.Dr. A.Z. Lovric-Yoshamya, Dept. Molecular Genetics, R. Boskovic
Institute, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor in Chief,
Regarding an article published in BMJ VOLUME 333 16 SEPTEMBER 2006 by
Ian Chalmers on Professor A. Kurjak has deeply worried us.
We all think in Turkey that the extreme success of Prof. Kurjak could
be the real reason for this irrespective article.
We want to stress that we are working with Prof. Kurjak for 25 years
long co-operation, we published 3 books in Turkish and he joined hundreds
of scientifical symposia and organized 4 Ian Donald Schools in Turkey.
We also want to stress that Prof. Kurjak has got great impact in
Turkish ultrasound development and perinatology and he is highly
respectable among
Turkish colleagues.
Prof. Kurjak has done many scientific researches by now and many
people including us has learned extremely important new knowledge from
him.
He is an excellent teacher and director of Donald School of
Ultrasound.
It is our moral duty to remind you on a big injustice in a
unjustified attacks you published.
It is surprising that BMJ has published an article related a paper of
Prof. Kurjak back on 1974 for which we know that regarding that paper
appropriate action was taken.
As a Turkish society we appreciate Prof. Kurjak’s work a lot and we
believe that this is a planned unfairness to him and he is one of the
great leaders in Ultrasound and fetal medicine.
With Kindest regards,
Oktay Kadayýfcý, Prof. M.D., Head of Turkish Perinatology Society,
Chairman of fetal maternal association of Turkey.
Zehra Nese Kavak, Prof. M.D., Board member of Turkish perinatology
society, Director of Fetal Medicine Unit, Marmara University School of
Medicine, Istanbul
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editors,
On behalf of the Society of Perinatal Medicine of Bosnia and
Herzegovina I am asked to write to you in relation to the recent article
of Iain Chalmers about two pretty old paper and chapter of professor A.
Kurjak. We are living in a small university city of Tuzla where the first
World Congress of Perinatal Medicine in Developing Countries was organized
in the year 2000 with 44 countries represented. This important event
became traditional and was already held four times in Turkey, Lebanon and
India. Without any doubt the credit for these achievements should go to
professor Kurjak, who not only gave initiative, but also personally helped
tremendously all organizers. This is just one part of the remarkable
activities of professor Kurjak for the improvements in perinatal health in
developing countries. It is professor Kurjak who more than anybody else
dedicated significant proportion of his busy time to the help of those in
need.
It is indeed unacceptable to attack onesidedly a colleague who has
impressive list of professional and scientific achievements in many fields
without mentioning them in your article.
It is our strong belief that Dr. Chalmers choose the wrong person to
illustrate his statements. That was unfair.
Professor Zlatan Fatušiæ, MD PhD
President of Society for Perinatal Medicine of Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Head of Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology University of Tuzla
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The three Rapid Responses from Italy, Croatia and Greece are not
convincing. Dr Kurjak and coworker have verbatim copied several texts from
several publications by Dr Blaas. The fraud was discovered; that is the
reason why Kurjak's chapter was deleted from the book. The Croatian
Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Croatian Society of Perinatal
Medicine or the university should investigate the case with help of
independent reviewers from other countries, as was done in Norway in the
case of Jon Sudbo (BMJ 2006;332:193).
I have published a review of the case of Dr Kurjak in Lakartidningen
2006;103:2929-2930 (the Journal of the Swedish Medical Association), with
an editorial commentary by the editor. I stress that Croatian physicians
and researchers are honest, well-educated and hardworking. I believe that
we are many in Croatia and in the international medical community who
expect an international inquiry in the case of Dr Kurjak.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The Hellenic Association of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
feels compelled to express its deep disappointment and sorrow for the
recent revelations about scientific misconduct of a well-known Southern
European scientist.
It is true, however, that aphorisms can easily be leveled against any
person. It would be too simplistic to misjudge a distinguished member of
the world ultrasound society without giving him the opportunity to explain
and express the reasons for these actions. It is to our opinion,
superficial to judge the whole scientific work of Prof. Asim Kurjak (more
than 230 peer-reviewed publications) from these two cases: one dated 30
years ago and the 2nd in question (since the chapter in question has not
been published).
Apparently, this is beyond the duties of our society. Nevertheless,
it remains our strong belief that Prof. Asim Kurjak has been a scientific
father figure for the perinatal community in a large part of the world,
our country included, and that he is a personality who helped the
spreading of current medical knowledge, and intensified the use of
evidence medical practice in the field of our interest.
There comes a time that events trigger further developments in any
aspect of human activity. This episode of misconduct should be a lesson to
us. Medicine is a mixture of science with art, but medical research has to
be governed by strict scientific laws/regulations and this is the way it
should be clearly conveyed to the future generations of researchers. The
currently used definition of scientific misconduct is “fabrication,
falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing
research or in reporting research results” (Steneck NH). We have to
advance forward and apply the rules of proper scientific research from
commencement of a project to its completion including preparation and
submission of the relevant manuscript as well as revision and publication
of findings. Both primary researchers and experienced supervisors should
incessantly commit themselves towards meticulously meeting the ethical
commands of Research (i.e. to study honestly, objectively and fairly at
all stages of a scientific enquiry/research) without any deviation
whatsoever.
We consider the recent article about scientific misconduct as fair
and reasonable. On the other hand we believe that the accused should be
granted sufficient time not only to express their opinion but also offer
an explanation to their defense and integrity.
Nevertheless, we believe that scientific dialogue, even in these
cases, should be handled in a more tactful manner.
Prof. Aris Ansaklis
Head and Chairman of the 1st Dept. of Ob/Gyn, University of Athens Medical
School,
President of the Hellenic Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and
Gynecology,
President of the Hellenic Society of Perinatal Medicine,
Past President of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine
Ass. Prof. N. Papantoniou, University of Athens,
President of the Hellenic Society of Perinatal Diagnosis and Fetal Therapy
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
In relation to the accusations published in British Medical Journal
on 16th September 2006 regarding possible plagiarism of the two papers
written by Professor Asim Kurjak; one from 1974 (Acta Medica Iugoslavica)
and second from 2001 (book Fetal and Neonatal Neurology and Neurosurgery,
ed. Levene MI, Chervenak FA and Whittle M), two above listed societies
formed special committee to investigate available data and arguments.
Their conclusions are:
1. The paper from 1974 and all issues related to this paper were
already discussed extensively, and considered in correspondence between
actual Dean of Medical school, University of Zagreb and Mr. lain Chalmers.
The authors of the paper involved apologized in writing to the authors of
the other paper published in British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
as well as to the and editor and chief of the Journal. This apology is
accepted and this matter already solved long time ago.
2. Second paper is actually a book chapter from 2001 (chapter 4,
Kurjak A, Kupesic S. Ultrasound of the first trimester CNS development:
Structure and circulation. In:
Levene MI, Chervenak FA, Whittle M.(ed) Fetal and neonatal neurology and
neurosurgery). This special committee found that some parts of the Kurjak
and Kupesic text have been taken from Dr. Blaas' work. This was
acknowledged in the list of references quoting 4 papers of Dr. Blaas.
Unfortunately his PhD thesis was not quoted. Apart form the pure text, no
original data of Dr. Blaas (like figures, pictures or statistical results)
were not enclosed. Based on this it can be concluded that the mistake has
been done unwillingly, not as intentional plagiarism. This was also
cleared by the letter of Kurjak and Kupesic to the publisher and Dr. Blaas
personally.
3. For both mistakes, authors took their personal responsibility in
writing in front of Deanery of Medical School University of Zagreb, and
apologized in written form appropriately to the all parties involved.
4. In the light of these mistakes and regarding full objectivity, it
is important to say that both authors were scientifically very productive
in their career. They have been publishing extensively for a number of
years. The most recent data from Medline found 238 papers of Prof. Kurjak.
Therefore his papers were reviewed at least 476 times by the independent
referees of the prestigious journals. The special committee dealing with
the accusations listed above has no information about any other
accusations against Prof. Kurjak regarding scientific honesty. The most
recent data are presenting 3700 citations of his papers and this
undoubtfully talks about his impact for whole scientific committee in
Obstetrics and gynecology worldwide.
5. Prof. Kurjak is an author or editor of numerous textbooks in the
field of perinatal medicine and ultrasound diagnosis. In Croatia he
organized official World and European congresses as well as 27 branches of
Ian Donald Interuniversity School of medical ultrasound worldwide.
This special committee must conclude pointing significant and
important impact of Prof. Kurjak in Croatian medicine but also on
affirmation of Croatian medicine worldwide, particularly in the field of
prenatal and ultrasound diagnosis. His early mistakes should be taken as
minor and not important part of his activities and career in general,
especially as he accepted and apologized for all of them.
Zagreb, September 20, 2006
Signed by:
Prof. Ante Drazancic, Founder and Honorary president of Croatian
Society of Perinatal Medicine, editor in chief "Gynaecologia et
Perinatologia"
Prof. Ivan Kuvacic, President of Croatian Society of Obstetrics and
Gynecology
Ass. Prof. Radoslav Herman, Actual President of Croatian Society of
Perinatal Medicine
Dr. Vesna Benjak, MSc, President of the Committee for Perinatal
Medicine under auspices of Croatian Ministry of Health
Dr. Boris Filipovic Grcic, PhD, neonatologist, member of the Board of
The Croatian Society of Perinatal Medicine
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editors of The British Medical Journal,
I was truly astonished when I read the last issue of the British
Medical Journal, which carries an article by Dr. Iain Chalmers (Role of
systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak. BMJ 2006;
333: 594-596) in which in order to sustain the thesis that systematic
reviews or metanalysis may help to discover plagiarism, actually aims to
destroy the figure of Dr. Asim Kurjak by accusing him of committing this
fault.
Although I fully agree with Dr. Chalmers on his condemn of scientific
misconduct of some researchers and clinicians when they indulge in such
regrettable behaviour, I asked myself whether the examples taken from
Prof. Kurjak’s career are appropriate to support this thesis. Examining
carefully the two papers mentioned, for which Dr. Kurjak has been accused
and found guilty (partly for his own admission) of having copied material
from other authors, it is worth to mention that the first work, published
in Acta Med Iugosl
(Kurjak A, Beazley JM. The effect of continuous lumbar epidural analgesia
on the fetus, newborn child and the acid-base status of maternal blood.
Acta Med Iugosl 1974;28: 15-26)
is dated 1974 and the second, produced 30 years later, was intended to be
a chapter of a more recent book but has never been published.
And it is at this point that Dr. Chalmers, maybe recalling the old
saying “a leopard cannot change his spots”, conveys the idea that all the
scientific production of Dr. Kurjak (more than 30 years of career
expressed in 230 peer-reviewed publications and beyond) could most likely
be based on the systematic expropriation of other authors’ findings.
I would like to point out that the papers mentioned were nor
fundamental, nor significantly changed our field. The study about epidural
analgesia on which Dr. Kurjak allegedly based his own paper was a very
modest contribution, so was Dr. Kurjak’s at the end, and probably in 1974
it could have boosted minimally his career in Croatia, but surely not at
international level. Furthermore, from what is being stated in Dr.
Chalmers’piece, it is clear that after evaluating all the allegations
issued, these were found groundless by the Croatian academic and medical
authorities, which fully absolved Dr. Kurjak of the charge and did not
take any action against him.
This case should have been considered closed at that stage. With no
doubt, this dispute has had a rebound effect at an international level,
leading to Dr.Kurjak’s suspension from the directorship of a WHO
collaborating centre. Fair enough? It seems not, since Dr. Chalmers
made public another alleged episode of “professional misconduct”, referred
to the fact that Dr. Kurjak (please note: in collaboration with Dr.
Kupesic) took parts from a norwegian PhD’s thesis
(Blaas H-GK. The embryonic examination. Ultrasound studies on the human
embryo [thesis]. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, 1999)for a book which was yet to be published (Kurjak A,
Kupesic S. Ultrasound of first trimester CNS development: structure and
circulation. In: Levene M, Chervenak F, Whittle M, eds. Fetal and neonatal
neurology and neurosurgery. 3rd ed. London: Harcourt, 2001: 39-44.
[Withdrawn]).
The attribution of some parts lifted from the thesis by Dr.Blaas was
acknowledged by Dr. Kurjak and Dr. Kupesic, and the chapter was withdrawn
in time from that text book.
Thus Dr. Kurjak was not the only person involved, but oddly enough,
Dr. Chalmers, who excels in the field of epidemiology and who has a great
expertise in editorship, does not bother to give Dr. Kurjak the benefit of
doubt. Rather, he downright charges him with all the blame, while co-
authors Dr.Beazly and Dr.Kupesic are only mentioned but no assumptions of
guilty are done.
I would have never expected such a superficial handling of the whole
affair from a professional who is supposed, as Dr. Chalmers has fully
proved in his research, to make statements by providing evidence first.
I wonder with sadness why these infamous accusations are being addressed with
such virulence to a highly esteemed colleague, famous worldwide for his
expertise in ultrasound, and how it is possible to write an article so
biased as Dr. Chalmers did, only because Dr. Kurjak took some excerpts
from an otherwise anonymous article in 1974, and reported (not alone but
along with two colleagues) passages from a Norwegian thesis which were
intended to be part of a chapter but never came to light at the end.
It is surprising that Dr. Chalmers claims that his hypothesis:
“systematic reviews may detect plagiarism” depicted in a 1991 paper is
confirmed by the discovery of such misconduct in a “not even born”
chapter! No one will ever do systematic reviews including chapters of a
textbook! Therefore, the hypothesis of Dr. Chalmers has no further
sustainment for the second discovery. It is clear that this article has
another aim.
Frankly, I believe that this is not a harmless dispute about what
plagiarism is, or seems to be. There must be something else behind this
sort of media and reiterative attack against a clinician whom so many
gynecologists owe recognition for having spread the knowledge of the most
widely used technique in our field, and has been awarded numerous
acknowledgments worldwide for his accomplishments and great expertise. I
believe that something should be done to stop this attempt to undermine
one of the most prestigious careers in the field of obstetrics and
gynecology- It is not only a professional history but also Dr. Kurjak’s
personal integrity and honesty which are at stake.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours sincerely,
Gian Carlo Di Renzo, MD, PhD
Professor and Chairman
Dept. of Ob/Gyn and Centre for Perinatal
and Reproductive Medicine,
University of Perugia, 06122 Perugia, Italy
direnzo@unipg.it
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
western university/research practice
I was shocked realizing that at Western (US and Canada)
Universities an associate writing the paper must put the name
of his supervisor first although the supervisor often has
no contribution to the content. Even worst is true for
doing research for the industry where the brain of the
researcher "is the company's property". Very often university
professors in the West steal the work and publish it even
without the name of the originator on it. In 1980s the drastic case has
happened at Concordia University in Montreal where professor Fabrikant a
new comer from the Soviet Union shot dead two colleagues for stealing and
publishing his work while not allowing him to publish it.
Therefore, in my mind, researchers from the West have no
ethical rights to complain about plagiarism of any kind.
Working over 20 years as a researcher in the West, and
experiencing this kind of plagiarism, I even don't believe
that Newton's laws were invented by Newton.
Regards,
Faruk Hadziomerovic
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests