文章一旦被接收了，是不是就一定会发表呢？不一定！即使文章已经发表了，也有可能会被撤销。

 

在以下几种情况下，我们会给已经发接收函的文章作者发信说明文章不予发表：

 

1.稿件接收后，发现作者有一稿多投的情况。一般情况下，在正式发表前，我们会对稿件再作一次Crosscheck检测，一稿多投并且已经发表的文章很容易就被检测出来。

 

2.稿件接收后，通过crosscheck检测发现文章存在抄袭行为。检测系统会显示与本文相似度较高的相关文献,一旦与其它文献的相似度达到一定量或者文章抄袭了他人重要的学术思想。

 

3.给作者发接收函以后，编辑人员会对文章进行细致的编辑，然后会要求作者进一步修改，如果作者拒绝修改或者修改后仍然无法达到发表要求，编辑部会作出撤销稿件接收决定（这种情况相对来说比较少）。

 

4.稿件接收后，发现作者投稿时的邮箱和最终版稿件的邮箱不一致，并且在投稿时使用的邮箱在网上和数据库中均无法查到。

 

最近我们发现,有一篇稿件在接收后请作者签定版权转让协议时，通讯作者（导师）来信（我暂且相信这封信是导师写来的!因为这封信用的是QQ邮箱，在最后一版的修改稿中通讯作者的邮箱是机构邮箱。投稿系统中通讯作者的邮箱是163邮箱。）要求在文章中增加两位作者。该封来信说,第一作者(学生）只顾论文的学术质量了,没有考虑作者署名的问题,在签版权转让协议时才了解到没有将两位对这篇论文有较大贡献的人员纳入到作者名单之中！

 

在JMS的作者指南中有明确的说明:文章一经接受，便不得增减作者或者改变作者顺序。目前这篇文章的问题还不仅是接收后增加两位作者的问题，而是投稿时使用的通讯作者的邮箱（163邮箱）与最后修改稿中的导师的邮箱不一致，投稿中使用的作者的邮箱也与最后一版的稿件中的作者邮箱也不一致。投稿中使用的邮箱很可能是中间机构代为申请的邮箱(据国外的某位编辑人员介绍，很多请中间机构代为操刀的中国作者的文章大多采用126,163,QQ等邮箱)。鉴于出现这样的问题，我们作出撤销该篇文章的接收函的决定！

 

 

 

Springer在给期刊主编的一封信中Springer近期撤销的58篇稿件的主要原因进行了分析归类，我拷贝在此，与各位分享：

 

 

 

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

 

 

I would like to inform you of a research integrity issue affecting seven Springer Nature journals.  We have identified a systematic attempt to manipulate publication processes and our findings are suggestive of attempts to subvert the peer review and publication system to inappropriately obtain or allocate authorship. The reason for this is most likely ‘pressure to publish’.

 

Given our findings we no longer have confidence in the veracity of the contents of these 58 articles and have taken the decision to retract them to maintain the integrity of the scientific record.

 

Our investigations indicate that the attempt to manipulate our processes in the affected journals is confined to this group of articles.

 

 

 

The problems we have identified include:

 

oChanges in authorship and author email addresses. Author names changed completely or significantly between original submission and revised submission. In some cases attempts were made to change the names of authors after acceptance. In addition, in some cases, email addresses have been used interchangeably between different authors and peer reviewers in the group.

 

oUnverified reviewers. In a majority of the cases the authors suggested potential reviewers for their manuscript. We have been unable to identify publication records or institutional email addresses for these reviewers in most instances. In some cases where institutional email addresses for the reviewers could be identified, the researcher informed us that he did not review the article.

 

oOverlap in text. Many of the articles contain differing degrees of overlap in text with previously published articles (both by the same author group and other unrelated authors), which constitute significant plagiarism.

 

oChanges of version of articles during peer review. In some cases, revised manuscripts submitted after revisions describe different studies from those described in the manuscripts before peer review.

 

oData. There are also a number of instances where figures are duplicated across different articles. Some numbers in results tables are also different between versions of the same article without a legitimate explanation.

 

oNon-existent departments. In some cases the specific departments provided as author affiliations on the submitted manuscripts appear to be non-existent and in some cases are changed without a proper explanation supporting the change after the manuscripts have been revised.

 

Please note that some of these issues are more difficult to detect than others. Detection depends on the recognition of patterns. We are seeking aid from the Iranian Ministry of Health to inform the authors’ institutions should they wish to conduct their own investigations. We have taken steps to prevent these authors from continuing to manipulate our publication processes.

 

We would like to ask you to be observant. In the attached guidelines you will find some pointers that might be of help to you.

 

If you have come across anomalies resembling any of the above-mentioned issues please contact me immediately.