Fri Sep 20 07:18:32 UTC 2024: ## Architecture Journal Faces Criticism for Slow Response to Plagiarism
A plagiarism case involving a retracted review article in the architecture journal “Buildings” has led to the resignation of a member of its editorial board and raised concerns about the journal’s handling of ethical issues.
Dr. Dirk H. R. Spennemann, an editor for a special issue of the journal, resigned after expressing his dissatisfaction with the journal’s “failure to act in a timely and proactive manner” regarding the case. The retracted article, titled “A Review on Building Design as a Biomedical System for Preventing COVID-19 Pandemic,” was found to have borrowed heavily from two previously published works without proper citation.
The plagiarism was first flagged in June 2022 by Dr. Marco Spada, a lecturer in architecture, who had previously rejected a similar version of the article for another MDPI journal. Despite the obvious plagiarism, the journal reportedly did not inform Dr. Spennemann of the allegations until October 2022.
While Dr. Spennemann initially dismissed the claims, a thorough investigation led him to recommend the retraction of the paper in November 2022. The journal’s slow response and lack of communication with Dr. Spennemann continued throughout the retraction process, which ultimately took over 20 months.
In his resignation letter, Dr. Spennemann highlighted the journal’s failure to act promptly and proactively, expressing his frustration with the lack of transparency and communication. He also emphasized that the case should have been resolved within six months.
The journal’s publisher, MDPI, has acknowledged the delay and attributed it to the authors’ lack of cooperation and the need for coordination between various stakeholders. However, the incident raises serious concerns about the journal’s handling of ethical violations and highlights the need for more effective and efficient processes to address such issues.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of rigorous editorial oversight and prompt action in the face of potential academic misconduct. It also emphasizes the need for clear communication and transparency in academic publishing to ensure the integrity and quality of the scientific record.
First Piper 