{"id":152620,"date":"2014-07-17T15:34:13","date_gmt":"2014-07-17T18:34:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/?p=152620"},"modified":"2014-07-17T15:34:13","modified_gmt":"2014-07-17T18:34:13","slug":"plagiarized-reviewer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/plagiarized-reviewer\/","title":{"rendered":"Plagiarized reviewer"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Two Indian researchers at Rhodes University, in South Africa, were fired after an investigation confirmed that they had falsified and fabricated research findings in a study submitted to scientific journals three years ago. In 2011, Bhupesh Samant and his wife, Mugdha Sukhthanakar, then professors at the school\u2019s Pharmacy Department, submitted a manuscript to the <i>Journal of Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry<\/i>. Much to their misfortune, the paper was reviewed by Rowena Martin, a biologist with the Australian National University. She immediately realized that the article contained excerpts lifted directly from a paper she herself had published. The article by the Rhodes researchers had previously been rejected by the <i>European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry<\/i>. \u201cI was asked by one of the editors of the journal to read and referee the manuscript,\u201d Rowena told the University World News website. \u201cThe paper contained extensive plagiarism as well as serious fabrication of data,\u201d she explained. Susan Smailes, director of special projects at Rhodes University, said that the couple promised to produce evidence of the veracity and originality of their research but never did. Before the investigation was completed, they returned to India.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Plagiarized reviewer","protected":false},"author":475,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[155],"tags":[230],"coauthors":[785],"class_list":["post-152620","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-good-practices","tag-ethics"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152620","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/475"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=152620"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152620\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152620"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=152620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}