Does peer review work as a self-policing mechanism in preventing misconduct: a case study of a serial plagiarist

Many fondly assume that The Republic of Science operates successfully on the basis of self-policing. One of the implicit assumptions here is that research misconduct is rare, generally low-level and self-correcting. A second is that any serious misconduct is quickly detected by peer review and stopped. A third is that the risk of being caught and the severe repercussions that follow are such that few researchers are tempted to stray. However, all this presupposes that peer review does indeed succeed in detecting misconduct, and that editors, publishers, universities and the wider research community then work effectively together to investigate problem cases and implement any necessary sanctions. In this chapter, I describe a case-study demonstrating what happens when those involved do not work closely together, a case-study that may force us to reconsider our cherished preconceptions about the efficacy of self-policing.