August 2010; 36(3) 61 European Science Editing Publications Committee 2009–2012 From the Editors’ Desks Chief editor Moira Johnson [email protected] Subscription rates for 2011 How to be a Successful Journal Production manager Editor Margaret Cooter For the past three years, we [email protected] have managed to hold the EASE Another of the EASE Training Secretary subscription rate constant, but next Courses is set to run in Warsaw, Samantha Jeffrey [email protected] year, we must implement a small Poland, in February 2011. Edward European Science Editing price rise. Membership subscriptions Towpik is hosting the course and Articles are the major source of income for Pippa Smart is running it – now, we Stuart Handysides EASE. We are very encouraged by the just need the delegates to attend it! [email protected] continuing influx of new members See the inside back cover for more All original articles will be peer reviewed Essays in editing but are losing many to retirement – a information. Marcin Kozak reflection of the age of the Association [email protected] and its founder cohort. Please Opportunities with EASE Editing around the world continue to support us by renewing We are looking for two people to take Dario Sambunjak your membership, encouraging others up positions within EASE – a website [email protected] Viewpoints, Correspondence, Book reviews to join, and supporting EASE activities editor and a secretary. See the inside Moira Johnson wherever possible. back cover for further details. [email protected] Individual £75 Reports of meetings Welcome to ... Corporate – 3 members £216 Sharon Davies ... our new News Notes editors, Lionel [email protected] 4 ” £283 Browne and John Hilton. Meet Lionel EASE-Forum digest 5 ” £342 on page 69 and John on page 74. Elise Langdon-Neuner 6 ” £408 [email protected] 7 ” £468 This site I like Location of next EASE Conference 8+ ” £66.50 each Moira Johnson A beautiful and historic Baltic city [email protected] Special Rates is the venue for the 11th EASE News notes Retired (and over 60) £37.50 Conference in June 2012; see page 92. Lionel Browne ([email protected]) Sponsored persons £37.50 John Hilton ([email protected]) Students £37.50 Editor’s bookshelf Contributions for next issue Members of editorial societies Paola De Castro (coordinator) The copy date for the November issue [email protected] (minimum group of 10) £50 each is 15 September. Please send your Production assistance Journal Subscription contributions to the relevant editor Penny Hubbard European Science Editing £65 [email protected] by then. (worldwide) Books (Handbook) Petter Oscarson [email protected] EASE Council 2009–2012 Website President: Joan Marsh, Wiley-Blackwell, International House, 7 High Street, Emma Campbell Ealing Broadway, London W5 5DB, UK; [email protected] [email protected] Vice-Presidents: Alison Clayson, France; Reme Melero, Spain EASE Council Joan Marsh (ex officio) Members: Eva Baranyiová, Czech Republic; Mare-Anne Laane, Estonia; Ana Marušić, Croatia; Petter Oscarson, Sweden; Edward Towpik, Poland; Sylwia Contributions for the journal should be Ufnalska, Poland; Moira Johnson, UK (ex officio) sent to the Chief Editor or the appropriate Past-President: Arjan K S Polderman, The Netherlands section editor listed above. See the Treasurer and Company Secretary: Roderick Hunt, UK Instructions to Authors on EASE’s website (www.ease.org.uk). Secretary: Samantha Jeffery; +44 (0)800 098 8853; [email protected] The journal is published in February, May, Membership Secretary: Sheila Evered, EASE, PO Box 6159, Reading RG19 August and November, free to paid-up 9DE, UK; tel +44 (0)118 970 0322; [email protected] members of EASE and available on annual subscription of £60 to libraries EASE website: www.ease.org.uk and other non-members. Disclaimer: The views expressed Correspondence about EASE should go to the Secretary; correspondence about by contributors are their own. The membership, journal subscriptions, and sales of the Handbook should go to the Association does not necessarily endorse Membership Secretary. the claims of advertisers. ISSN 0258-3127 To advertise in this journal, or on EASE’s website, please contact the Printed by Qwerty Ltd, The Markham EASE Secretary (+44 (0)800 098 8853; [email protected]) Centre, Theale RG7 4PE ©EASE 2010 European Science Editing 62 August 2010; 36(3) Essays in Editing Handling plagiarism at the manuscript editor’s desk Mary Ellen Kerans Freelance editor and translator, Barcelona, Spain; [email protected] Marije de Jager Freelance editor and translator, Rovereto, Italy; [email protected] In our experience of freelance copyediting for small most ambitious effort from publishers and editorial boards English-language science journals mainly based in Spain to stem plagiarism has come from the CrossCheck project and Italy, peer review processes allow for the acceptance (www.crossref.org/crosscheck.html), which pools texts into of manuscripts with a substantial amount of copy-paste a database that allows subscribing journals’ staff to flag writing of various types. The amount of such writing possible plagiarism or duplicate publication before editors’ is often sufficient to open the authors to a charge of and peer reviewers’ valuable time is wasted. plagiarism. The number of manuscripts in which this We think the CrossCheck approach, used before peer problem appears is sufficient to increase the burden of work review, is ideal – but small journals are often not inside a and stress for copy editors who worry about bringing such well-informed or well-supported publication structure. papers into the literature. One of us reported consistently We have worked for journals that receive and accept finding textual plagiarism in around 30% of accepted manuscripts with “patch writing” (see the table for terms manuscripts at one well-indexed medical journal over a used to talk about plagiarism) and have therefore become two-year period,1 although the seriousness varied from concerned about developing a way to proceed both manuscript to manuscript. We find that some copy-pasted ethically and helpfully in our work. The COPE guidelines prose is confusing and choppy, requiring a great deal of start at a point when plagiarism has already been detected time to copyedit. The problem is sometimes more serious, by a reviewer or, after publication, by a reader,6 yet we however. In a few cases in our experience, plagiarism has have found that peer reviewers do not notice signs of involved as much as 90% of a manuscript or amounted this practice in the text. Furthermore, in authors’ editing, to duplicate publication. These manuscripts reach copy before submission of a paper to a journal, we have also editors because the chain of evaluation by editors and had to counsel young scientists who find themselves in peer reviewers focuses on content and has not included settings where copy-paste writing is encouraged by peers assessment for plagiarism. and mentors. In both these contexts, we have had to find While the publishing community’s awareness of ways of speaking to authors strictly without destroying plagiarism has grown, its ability to address the problem their ability to proceed with a manuscript. Finally, within consistently has not. The reactions of editorial board the activities of the association Mediterranean Editors and editors on one listserve varied from surprise to indignation Translators, where many manuscript editors and translators to awakening awareness,2 and one formal study of attitudes share experiences, colleagues who have found plagiarism in confirmed editors’ deep concern.3 Editors may even the course of researching terminology sometimes ask for express surprise that textual plagiarism is improper. Open advice. discussion on forums (see the many threads published As a result, with support from the editorial boards and by the World Association of Medical Editors [WAME]) research directors who we have edited for, we have worked suggests that there is some consensus, however, that a out a consistent approach, one that we have seen others policy of “name and shame” may be disproportionate4 have also been able to apply. Without access to sophisticated unless handled educationally, in a way that is “titrated” to tools, we have been able to detect plagiarism before too “fit the crime”.5 The assumptions are that offenses may be much editing time has been wasted. For lesser-degree patch the result of poor or scant guidance and that authors can be writing, we have consistently been able to obtain authors’ educated by editors. rewrites of choppy, copy-pasted text before we complete The need for consistent procedures has been recognized the final edit. Finally, in cases of extensive plagiarism by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which or duplicate publication, we have been able to argue for provides flowcharts showing how to handle suspected rescinding acceptance in a timely way before the journal plagiarism appropriately, based on the degree of seriousness.6 was embarrassed. In this essay we will describe the main That editorial boards remain confused, however, seems features of that approach for the benefit of journals that do clear from the 2009 controversy surrounding an accepted not have plagiarism detection services such as CrossCheck. paper that was withdrawn from ahead-of-print posting after plagiarism was detected in the introduction section,