A Tale of Copy-Paste Figures: When Rewriting Tools Aren’t Enough

Introduction

          The article was retracted after it was determined that it reused figures and underlying data from a previously published paper in Materials Research Express (DOI: 10.1088/2053-1591/ac1d1c). While the wording of the later paper had been substantially paraphrased apparently to evade plagiarism-detection software the scientific content itself was not original.

What the Retracted Paper Reported

          The retracted article, “Effect of SiC Particle Incorporated Dielectric Medium on Electrical Discharge Machining Behavior of AA6061/B4Cp/SiCp AMCs”, claimed to present new experimental findings in its field. Its conclusions relied heavily on multiple figures and datasets, which were presented as original results generated by the authors. These figures and graphs formed the backbone of the paper’s claims of novelty and scientific contribution. However, closer examination revealed that the same visual materials and underlying data closely matched those published earlier in another research article (DOI: 10.1088/2053-1591/ac1d1c). In effect, the later paper reproduced core scientific outputs of a prior study without appropriate attribution.

The Retraction

          According to the journal’s official retraction notice, the article was withdrawn because it contained material that was not original to its authors. The notice cites reuse of previously published content as the reason for removal from the scholarly record. Such reuse falls within widely accepted definitions of plagiarism, which extend beyond copied text to include data, figures, and experimental results when reused without transparent citation or permission. While many retractions stem from honest mistakes—such as analytical errors or mislabeled data—this case reflects uncredited reuse of existing scientific work.

Why This Matters

          Retractions are a core component of science’s self-correcting mechanism. They signal to readers that a publication can no longer be relied upon. Yet retraction notices often provide only limited detail, leaving the broader community to infer what went wrong.

This case illustrates two recurring themes in contemporary scholarly publishing.

1. Plagiarism Is Not Limited to Text

          Plagiarism encompasses more than copied sentences. Reusing experimental data, figures, or visual representations without attribution undermines the fundamental principle of original contribution that scientific authorship depends on. Many journals now explicitly classify such practices as grounds for retraction, consistent with COPE-aligned publication-ethics standards.

2. Rewriting Tools Mask Language, Not Misconduct

          Automated paraphrasing or article-rewriting tools may alter surface-level wording, but they do not create originality when the underlying scientific contribution is copied. As the use of text-altering tools becomes more common, this case reinforces a basic rule of research integrity: rewriting does not replace attribution.

Takeaway

          This case illustrates a familiar pattern in recent retractions:
Using paraphrasing software or AI rewriting tools cannot transform copied figures or data into original science. The core contribution of research lies not in words but in intellectual novelty and data integrity.

Editorial Note

          This report is based solely on publicly available information, including the published article and the journal’s retraction notice. No conclusions are drawn regarding author intent beyond what is stated in the official record.