Sir, The recent report by Zhang et al. (2013) is very interesting. For sure, using CrossCheck might help identify some plagiarisms, especially for those with verbatim copy. However, the plagiarism can be seen in other forms including to figure and conceptual plagiarism (Wiwanitkit 2008, 2011). The figure plagiarism is a challenging thing for the journal since it is more difficult to detect than textual plagiarism (Wiwanitkit 2011). In addition, there are also more difficult cases of figure plagiarisms to be discussed. (...) Sometimes, the author might perform “salami publications”, present highly similar papers to publish in different journals and conferences. For sure, there can be detectable textual and figure self-duplication in those reports (see and consider engineering papers from the same group of researchers in “Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 355–360, May–June, 2008”, “The International Journal of Computers and Applications (USA), Vol. 31, No. 2. (shrink)

Editor, The report by Kalichman et al. is interesting. Kalichman et al. mentioned an “awareness of the diversity of those standards.” Standards should be applicable and usable in all settings. If there are different standards, there might be a problem in the implementation of standards. The case of “double standards” can lead to several practical problems. The conduct of research in an institute might be different from another institute. In addition, within an institute, the use of alternative standards might be (...) selectively applied for some specific persons. The senior or administrative persons might be excluded from standards. A double-standard is a common problem in many developing countries and is an indicator for the low quality of scientific and academic societies in those countries. For sure, this is considered a double-standard. If those situations occur repeatedly, it will result in “no standards”. (shrink)

Sir, The recent discussion by Elovici et al. on “Ethical Considerations when Employing Fake Identities in Online Social Networks for Research ” is very interesting . Elovici et al. raised an important question “Is it legitimate to use fake identities for studying OSNs or for collecting OSN data for research? ” In fact, “fake” is not a reality and this might be problematic. In medicine, “fake” is not acceptable. This is not the same as “placebo”, which is a standard method (...) for management of the disorder of the patients. Also, it is not the “blinding”, which is the standard clinical trial technique. As a worker in the field of medical journalism, “fake” might be classified as a “falsification”. According to the standard international medical journal, the “fake” data is totally not acceptable. However, focusing on the “fake identities”, if it is used in researching, it might deviate the research result. This has to be disclose .. (shrink)

Sir, The recent report on “Broader Impacts” versus “Responsible Research and Innovation” concepts is very interesting . Many scientists in the present day follow the first concept due to factors. Scientists who want to apply for funds have to follow the criteria, which are usually focused on “impact” according to the US NIH principle. The American concept of “Broader Impacts” for judging the scientific value of the work is widely used in many developing countries at present. Indeed, the “Broader Impacts” (...) concept has its advantage as well as disadvantage. Sometimes the “impact” cannot be applied to some kinds of studies that are useful but not interesting. Some novel works might present new concepts that are hard to understand and this might be limited for further referencing and this can result in low “impact”. In addition, some practitioners might try every way to get the “highest possible impact”. They might perform a misconduct to reach the aim. Of interest, man .. (shrink)

Sir,The case discussion by Rasmussen is very interesting (Rasmussen 2013). Rasmussen concluded that “argue that the precedent set by the reasoning in this case is problematic.” In fact, the final decision whether an accused case of misconduct is exactly guilty or not is very complicated. The decision has to follow the standard definition of misconduct. However, there are usually problems in decision. The question is whether the standard is problematic or the “user” or the ones who interpret and make decision (...) is problematic. There are many factors that can affect the final decision. First, the bias to decide “not guilty” is common. This might be a “false negative”. Sometimes, the accused person is a senior academic person or administrator, the bias can be seen (Joob and Wiwanitkit 2012). This is the rooted problem in many developing countries where the academic society is under standard (Joob and Wiwanitkit 2012). Second, the opposite bias can also be expected. This might be the case th. (shrink)