#AcademicPublishing
Radio Silence from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons on Report of Blatant Plagiarism in Their ‘Journal of Neurosurgery’ Publication
08 October 2024
BY SCOTT M. GRAFFIUS | ScottGraffius.com
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Introduction
Plagiarism, defined as ‘to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use (another's production) without crediting the source’ (source: Merriam-Webster), damages trust, credibility, and the value of original content. The theft of intellectual property distorts the scholarly record and results in misinformation. It often violates copyright as well.
Publications must respond decisively to plagiarism reports by swiftly acknowledging complaints, conducting thorough investigations, and taking appropriate actions such as retractions.
Quiz Question
The visual at the top of this article depicts a quiz related to a real situation. Here's the question:
You discovered blatant plagiarism in a Journal of Neurosurgery publication of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. You reported it—with detailed specifics and indisputable evidence—to the authors, the editors, and the publisher. What should happen next (within five business days)?
🔘 A. The publisher or one or more of the authors or editors replies with, “Thank you for alerting us about the violation; we’re looking into it.”
🔘 B. The publisher or one or more of the authors or editors challenges you to a duel to defend their honor.
🔘 C. Neither the publisher nor any of the authors or editors responds. Radio silence.
Quiz Answer
The question is about what should happen. For that reason, the correct answer about what should happen is: 'A. The publisher or one or more of the authors or editors replies with, "Thank you for alerting us about the violation; we're looking into it."
When publications receive a report of plagiarism, they should promptly acknowledge receipt of the report by responding within no longer than five business days. This action demonstrates transparency, professionalism, and a commitment to maintaining the integrity of the academic record. Conversely, not expeditiously acknowledging receipt of the report conveys a lack of transparency, a lack of professionalism, and a lack of commitment to integrity.
Radio Silence by the Publisher, the Editors, and the Authors
It would be nice if the quiz above was just a hypothetical/thought experiment. Unfortunately, it's related to the real situation where Scott M. Graffius discovered blatant plagiarism in a Journal of Neurosurgery publication of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and notified the authors, the editors, and the publisher of the violation on 24 September 2024.
As mentioned earlier, publishers should promptly acknowledge receipt of plagiarism reports by responding within no longer than five business days. As of the date of this article (8 October 2024), 10 business days (14 calendar days) have elapsed since the violation was reported. And the publisher, the editors, and the authors maintain radio silence.
Plagiarism is bad. By not acknowledging receipt of the report, the publisher, the editors, and the authors made the bad situation worst. And the publisher (JNS Publishing Group / American Association of Neurological Surgeons) has not yet taken action such as retraction or removal of the infringing material.
It is imperative that the publisher demonstrate—through their actions—a commitment to upholding the highest standards of ethics and intellectual property rights. The publisher must take immediate and decisive action such as retracting or removing the infringing content. Otherwise, the publisher is knowingly endorsing, permitting or otherwise allowing ongoing misinformation and the perpetual violation of Graffius' intellectual property.
Details follow. If there's an update on this consequential matter after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Details on the Plagiarism
On 24 September 2024, Scott M. Graffius observed plagiarism in a Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) publication of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. That same day, Graffius wrote to the publisher, the editors, and the authors of the violating material. His email was titled, 'JNS paper plagiarized and damaged the marketability and value of Scott M. Graffius’ copyrighted property.' It contained detailed specifics and indisputable evidence. Saved as a PDF, Graffius' email is 19 pages.
As a high-level overview, thumbnails of the 19-page email are shown below. Then, select 'readable' excerpts are provided.
Excerpts from Graffius' 19-page email follow. They're shown in italic font.
Here's an excerpt from the introduction section of Graffius' email.
Authors of a Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) paper plagiarized Graffius’ copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ property, constituting a profound and disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and Graffius’ intellectual property rights. Here are the specifics on the publication.
Here's an excerpt from the section of the email with background information.
Informed by the research of Bruce W. Tuckman, Ph.D. and Mary Ann C. Jensen, over 100 subsequent studies, and Scott M. Graffius’ first-hand professional experience with, and analysis of, team leadership and performance, Graffius created his ‘Phases of Team Development.’ It’s a unique perspective on the five phases of team development — Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning — and it’s inclusive of the characteristics/features/traits and strategies for each phase.
Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’ intellectual property is registered with the United States Copyright Office.
The integrated text from Graffius’ copyrighted property applies in this case.
Graffius initially developed his intellectual property in 2008, and he periodically refreshes it. An authorized example of his copyrighted property applicable in this case (2022 edition) is here: https://www.scottgraffius.com/blog/files/teams- 2022.html .
Here's more from the section of the email with background information.
Graffius’ copyright ownership details are integrated into and appear on his copyrighted property. Specifically, it reads: “Copyright © 2008-2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. For permission requests, contact scott@scottgraffius.com.”
Additionally, his respective article includes this: “To request permission to use the 'Phases of Team Development' visual, contact Scott M. Graffius. If approved, high resolution JPG and PNG image files will be provided, subject to terms and conditions.”
And also this: “© Copyright 2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.”
Conference organizers, businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities around the world engage Graffius to deliver compelling talks and workshops. To date, he’s presented sessions at 91 conferences and other events across 25 countries, including:
Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’ intellectual property is central and key to many of those sessions. His rate card and a listing of his engagements are at https://scottgraffius.com/resources/Exceptional-PPM-and-PMO-Solutions- Rate-Card-for-2024-2025-v24071607.pdf and https://scottgraffius.com/publicspeaker.html, respectively.
With an authorization/license from Graffius, many organizations around the world have featured and used his copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ work. Select examples include:
The following excerpts are from the section of the email detailing the violation.
Again, Graffius’ copyright ownership details and permission request information are clearly noted.
Authors (Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C) of the JNS paper ('Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery') did not request nor receive permission to use Graffius’ copyrighted property.
Nevertheless, the authors used Graffius’ copyrighted property in their JNS article: they plagiarized Graffius’ work, damaging the marketability and value of his intellectual property.
The following excerpts from the email provide some side-by-side examples of Graffius' copyrighted property and the plagiarism in the JNS publication.
The exhibit below also shows some examples of the blatant plagiarism.
The following excerpts are from the conclusion section of Graffius' email.
Graffius’ copyright ownership details are integrated into and appear on his copyrighted property. Specifically, it reads: “Copyright © 2008-2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. For permission requests, contact scott@scottgraffius.com.” Additionally, his article includes this: “To request permission to use the 'Phases of Team Development' visual, contact Scott M. Graffius. If approved, high resolution JPG and PNG image files will be provided, subject to terms and conditions.” And also this: “© Copyright 2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.”
Authors (Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C) of the JNS paper (Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery) did not request nor receive permission to use Graffius’ copyrighted property.
The authors of the JNS paper used Graffius’ copyrighted property, including plagiarizing it. The JNS paper did not attribute material to Graffius through citation or otherwise. By doing so, the authors are wrongly leading others to falsely believe that they are the author and owner of Graffius’ respective copyrighted content.
The JNS authors’ plagiarism damaged the marketability and value of Graffius’ copyrighted property.
The aforementioned actions of the authors of the JNS paper are a disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and Graffius’ intellectual property rights.
The following excerpt is also from the conclusion section of Graffius' email.
Graffius maintains, enforces, and protects his copyright and other intellectual property rights. He is consulting with an IP attorney in Los Angeles. Graffius reserves his rights in this disturbing and consequential matter.
The preceding provided excerpts of key content—not the full transcript—of Graffius' email.
Authors of the Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) paper blatantly plagiarized Graffius’ copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ property, constituting a profound and disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and Graffius’ intellectual property rights.
It is shocking that neither the publisher nor any of the editors or authors have responded to Graffius' report on the violation. By not acknowledging receipt of the plagiarism report, the publisher signals a lack of transparency, a lack of professionalism, and a lack of commitment to integrity.
It is imperative that the publisher, JNS Publishing Group / the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, demonstrate—through their actions—a commitment to upholding the highest standards of ethics and intellectual property rights. The publisher must take immediate and decisive action such as retracting or removing the infringing content. Otherwise, they risk losing their credibility and the trust placed in them by scientific and academic communities.
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Read on to learn:
About the Journal of Neurosurgery
The Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) is a monthly peer-reviewed medical journal covering all aspects of neurosurgery. It is published by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the editor-in-chief is James Rutka. The JNS brands itself as the world’s leading journal on neurosurgery and the official journal of the AANS.
Visit the JNS website to learn more.
Note: Scott M. Graffius included (among others) James Rutka, AANS Editor-in-Chief, on the 24 September 2024 email detailing the plagiarism violation.
About the American Association of Neurological Surgeons
The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) is dedicated to advancing neurological surgery. The AANS says that through rigorous education, groundbreaking research, robust advocacy, and the advancement of outcomes science, it strives to ensure the highest standards of patient care are met and exceeded. Katie O. Orrico is Chief Executive Officer of the AANS.
Visit the AANS website to learn more.
Note: Scott M. Graffius included (among others) Katie O. Orrico, AANS CEO, on the 24 September 2024 email detailing the plagiarism violation.
About Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius is a global leader in agile project management, an expert on teamwork tradecraft, an authority on temporal dynamics on social media platforms, a creator, a consultant, a trainer, an award-winning author, and an international public speaker.
He's generated over $1.9 billion of business value in aggregate for Global Fortune 500 businesses and other organizations he's served — as a consultant through Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions and Exceptional Agility, and as a member of staff at organizations. Businesses and industries range from consumer products to advanced technology (including AI, R&D), e-commerce, music, streaming/OTT video, television, film, video games, financial services, government, and more.
Graffius and content from his books (Agile Scrum and Agile Transformation), talks, workshops, and more have been featured and used by businesses, professional associations, governments, and universities around the world. Examples include Adobe, American Management Association, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Bayer, Boston University, Broadcom, Cisco, Deimos Aerospace, DevOps Institute, EU's European Commission, Ford Motor Company, Hasso Plattner Institute Germany, IEEE, Johns Hopkins University, London South Bank University, Microsoft, National Academy of Sciences, New Zealand Government, Oracle, Project Management Institute, Torrens University Australia, UC San Diego, TBS Switzerland, UK Sports Institute, University of Galway Ireland, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Tennis Association, Virginia Tech, Warsaw University of Technology, Yale University, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, and many others.
He delights audiences around the world with dynamic and engaging talks and workshops. He's presented sessions at 91 conferences and other events across 25 countries. Visit here to learn more and here to ask Scott to speak at your event.
About Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions
Shifting customer needs are common in today's marketplace. Businesses must be adaptive and responsive to change while delivering an exceptional customer experience to be competitive.
There are a variety of frameworks supporting the development of products and services, and most approaches fall into one of two broad categories: traditional or agile. Traditional practices such as waterfall engage sequential development, while agile involves iterative and incremental deliverables. Organizations are increasingly embracing agile to manage projects, and best meet their business needs of rapid response to change, fast delivery speed, and more.
With clear and easy to follow step-by-step instructions, Scott M. Graffius's award-winning Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions helps the reader:
Hailed by Literary Titan as “the book highlights the versatility of Scrum beautifully.”
Winner of 17 first place awards.
Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions is available in paperback and ebook/Kindle in the United States and around the world. Some links by country follow.
About Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change
Thriving in today's marketplace frequently depends on making a transformation to become more agile. Those successful in the transition enjoy faster delivery speed and ROI, higher satisfaction, continuous improvement, and additional benefits.
Based on actual events, Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change provides a quick (60-90 minute) read about a successful agile transformation at a multinational entertainment and media company, told from the author's perspective as an agile coach.
The award-winning book by Scott M. Graffius is available in paperback and ebook/Kindle in the United States and around the world. Some links by country follow.
References/Sources
The following is a list of material on publishing standards and procedures. Some cover the reporting and handling of plagiarism.
How to Cite This Article
Graffius, Scott M. (2024, October 8). Radio Silence from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons on Report of Blatant Plagiarism in Their ‘Journal of Neurosurgery’ Publication. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/aans-jns-publication.html. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25837.40160
Post-Publication Notes
If there are any supplements or updates to this article after the date of publication, they will appear here.
Update on 11 October 2024
As a recap, Graffius’ 24 September 2024 report provided indisputable proof of plagiarism. Graffius emailed the detailed report to the publisher, the editors, and the authors. However, weeks passed with radio silence. There was not even an acknowledgement of receipt of the report.
Graffius maintains, enforces, and protects his copyright and other intellectual property rights. The publisher’s non-response signaled that they were knowingly endorsing, permitting or otherwise allowing ongoing misinformation and the perpetual violation of Graffius' intellectual property. For those reasons, Graffius expanded communications on this consequential matter. Here's one example (of many).
On 11 October 2024, the publisher sent their first response to Graffius. Here’s an excerpt from the publisher’s email (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
“Thank you for your email and your patience as we have looked into this matter. We have concluded our investigation. The author did indeed unintentionally include unattributed references to your work. An erratum and article correction by the author are in process. Once submitted to us, time to publication is usually 2-3 weeks. I would expect this process to be concluded in less than 4 weeks’ time. I will send you a link to the errata and corrected paper for your files once they have been published online.”
Again, the above is an excerpt from—not a full transcript of—the publisher’s email to Graffius.
The publisher used the term “unintentionally.” That term, whether referencing a ridiculous excuse of the plagiarizing authors or otherwise, is counter-indicated by the undeniable facts in this serious matter and should not be used. For that reason, Graffius responded to the publisher’s email the same day. Here’s an excerpt from Graffius’ email (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
“Your response warrants a reply. So here it is.
I will not re-state my full 24 September 2024* report of the indisputable facts. But here’s an excerpt:
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “High motivation, trust, and empathy”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “High motivation, trust, and empathy”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Individuals defer to team needs”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Individuals defer to team needs”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Effectively producing deliverables”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Effectively producing deliverables”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Consistent performance”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Consistent performance”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Demonstrations of interdependence”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Demonstrations of interdependence”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Purpose and goals are well-understood”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Purpose and goals are well-understood”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “More confident”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “More confidence”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Members are engaged and supportive”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Members are engaged and supportive”
My copyright ownership details are integrated into and appear on my copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ property. Specifically, it reads: ‘Copyright © 2008-2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. For permission requests, contact scott@scottgraffius.com.’ Additionally, my corresponding publication includes this: ‘© Copyright 2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.’
Authors (Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C) of the JNS paper ('Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery') did not request nor receive permission to use my copyrighted property.
Plagiarism is defined as ‘to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use (another's production) without crediting the source’ (source: Merriam-Webster). It infringes on the intellectual property rights of others, results in misinformation, and often violates copyright.
The authors of the JNS paper used my copyrighted property, including plagiarizing it. Most of their plagiarism was word-for-word use of my intellectual property.
The JNS paper did not attribute material to me through citation or otherwise. By doing so, the authors are wrongly leading others to falsely believe that they are the author and owner of my respective copyrighted content.
So, these author(s)—who have been proven to be plagiarizers—claim the violation was done “unintentionally”? They unintentionally took my copyrighted property and used it (mostly word-for-word) unintentionally, and unintentionally failed to credit me on their respective diagram, and also unintentionally failed to cite me in the references section of the paper? The authors are insulting others with their excuse. “Unintentionally” is a ridiculous and desperate attempt to ‘minimize’ or ‘spin’ their blatant violation. I reject it entirely and so should you.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see the proven plagiarizers take a nice turn and demonstrate integrity, sincerity, and remorse?! They could have, and should have, simply said that what they did was wrong. However, by asserting “unintentionally,” the authors are demonstrating an ongoing lack of integrity, sincerity, and remorse. I must say, I’m greatly concerned.
Maybe the authors are procedurally allowed to (falsely) claim whatever they want, including “unintentionally,” in their response to the charges. However, if “unintentionally” (or a similar term) appears in the official record—whether in an erratum, retraction, or other action—it must be noted that “unintentionally” (or a similar term) is the claim of the authors of the JNS paper. It is vital that the that it is made clear that “unintentionally” (or a similar operative term) is not the conclusion or position of others. Here, 'others' includes me. Given the facts and without bias, ‘others’ certainty also includes you, the Journal of Neurosurgery, JNS Publishing Group, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, and others.
Plagiarism is a profound and disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and intellectual property rights. The authors of the JNS paper damaged the marketability and value of my copyrighted property.
I maintain, enforce, and protect my copyright and other intellectual property rights. As mentioned earlier, I am consulting with an IP attorney in Los Angeles. I reserve my rights in this disturbing and consequential matter.
Given the serious nature of this issue, please reply with a short confirmation that you received this communication.”
Again, the above is an excerpt from—not a full transcript of—Graffius’ email to the publisher.
The publisher replied the same day with (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
“That word was solely mine, and not a reflection of what will be conveyed. You are correct that it is irrelevant to the discussion. Apologies for the miscommunication. Please be assured we do not take this situation lightly. Acknowledging receipt of your correspondence with this email. I will be back in touch soon.”
Again, the above is an excerpt from—not a full transcript of—the publisher’s email to Graffius.
Any further updates will appear here.
Update on 12 November 2024
On 12 November 2024, Graffius sent a follow up email to the publisher. Here's an excerpt from the message (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
"Chief Publications Officer Gillian Shasby,
Until the infringing article is appropriately addressed, it continues to spread misinformation and violate my intellectual property rights.
I provided notification of the infringement on 24 September (which may have appeared a few minutes into the following day). That was 49 days ago.
On 11 October, I was informed that: “... expect this process to be concluded in less than 4 weeks’ time.” That was 32 days (4.6 weeks) ago.
Why hasn’t this been addressed?
Exactly when will it be addressed?
I expressly reserve all rights in this troubling, damaging, and consequential matter.
Sincerely,
Scott M. Graffius"
Any further updates will appear here.
Update on 15 November 2024
Chief Publications Officer Gillian Shasby sent an email to Graffius. The email reported that:
After the changes have been implemented or if there are other updates, the information will be added to this Post-Publication Notes section.
Update on 20 December 2024
This matter was resolved on 20 December 2024.
The publisher published an Erratum.
Graffius published new article.
Copyright
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.
The short link for this article is https://bit.ly/aans-jns
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Introduction
Plagiarism, defined as ‘to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use (another's production) without crediting the source’ (source: Merriam-Webster), damages trust, credibility, and the value of original content. The theft of intellectual property distorts the scholarly record and results in misinformation. It often violates copyright as well.
Publications must respond decisively to plagiarism reports by swiftly acknowledging complaints, conducting thorough investigations, and taking appropriate actions such as retractions.
Quiz Question
The visual at the top of this article depicts a quiz related to a real situation. Here's the question:
You discovered blatant plagiarism in a Journal of Neurosurgery publication of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. You reported it—with detailed specifics and indisputable evidence—to the authors, the editors, and the publisher. What should happen next (within five business days)?
🔘 A. The publisher or one or more of the authors or editors replies with, “Thank you for alerting us about the violation; we’re looking into it.”
🔘 B. The publisher or one or more of the authors or editors challenges you to a duel to defend their honor.
🔘 C. Neither the publisher nor any of the authors or editors responds. Radio silence.
Quiz Answer
The question is about what should happen. For that reason, the correct answer about what should happen is: 'A. The publisher or one or more of the authors or editors replies with, "Thank you for alerting us about the violation; we're looking into it."
When publications receive a report of plagiarism, they should promptly acknowledge receipt of the report by responding within no longer than five business days. This action demonstrates transparency, professionalism, and a commitment to maintaining the integrity of the academic record. Conversely, not expeditiously acknowledging receipt of the report conveys a lack of transparency, a lack of professionalism, and a lack of commitment to integrity.
Radio Silence by the Publisher, the Editors, and the Authors
It would be nice if the quiz above was just a hypothetical/thought experiment. Unfortunately, it's related to the real situation where Scott M. Graffius discovered blatant plagiarism in a Journal of Neurosurgery publication of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and notified the authors, the editors, and the publisher of the violation on 24 September 2024.
As mentioned earlier, publishers should promptly acknowledge receipt of plagiarism reports by responding within no longer than five business days. As of the date of this article (8 October 2024), 10 business days (14 calendar days) have elapsed since the violation was reported. And the publisher, the editors, and the authors maintain radio silence.
Plagiarism is bad. By not acknowledging receipt of the report, the publisher, the editors, and the authors made the bad situation worst. And the publisher (JNS Publishing Group / American Association of Neurological Surgeons) has not yet taken action such as retraction or removal of the infringing material.
It is imperative that the publisher demonstrate—through their actions—a commitment to upholding the highest standards of ethics and intellectual property rights. The publisher must take immediate and decisive action such as retracting or removing the infringing content. Otherwise, the publisher is knowingly endorsing, permitting or otherwise allowing ongoing misinformation and the perpetual violation of Graffius' intellectual property.
Details follow. If there's an update on this consequential matter after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Details on the Plagiarism
On 24 September 2024, Scott M. Graffius observed plagiarism in a Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) publication of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. That same day, Graffius wrote to the publisher, the editors, and the authors of the violating material. His email was titled, 'JNS paper plagiarized and damaged the marketability and value of Scott M. Graffius’ copyrighted property.' It contained detailed specifics and indisputable evidence. Saved as a PDF, Graffius' email is 19 pages.
As a high-level overview, thumbnails of the 19-page email are shown below. Then, select 'readable' excerpts are provided.
Excerpts from Graffius' 19-page email follow. They're shown in italic font.
Here's an excerpt from the introduction section of Graffius' email.
Authors of a Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) paper plagiarized Graffius’ copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ property, constituting a profound and disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and Graffius’ intellectual property rights. Here are the specifics on the publication.
- Publication: Journal of Neurosurgery
- Publisher: JNS Publishing Group, American Association of Neurological Surgeons
- Paper: Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery
- Authors: Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C
- Publication Date: 12 May 2023
- Volume/Issue: Volume 139: Issue 6
- Page Range: 1552-1559
- DOI link: https://doi.org/10.3171/2023.4.JNS222254
Here's an excerpt from the section of the email with background information.
Informed by the research of Bruce W. Tuckman, Ph.D. and Mary Ann C. Jensen, over 100 subsequent studies, and Scott M. Graffius’ first-hand professional experience with, and analysis of, team leadership and performance, Graffius created his ‘Phases of Team Development.’ It’s a unique perspective on the five phases of team development — Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning — and it’s inclusive of the characteristics/features/traits and strategies for each phase.
Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’ intellectual property is registered with the United States Copyright Office.
The integrated text from Graffius’ copyrighted property applies in this case.
Graffius initially developed his intellectual property in 2008, and he periodically refreshes it. An authorized example of his copyrighted property applicable in this case (2022 edition) is here: https://www.scottgraffius.com/blog/files/teams- 2022.html .
Here's more from the section of the email with background information.
Graffius’ copyright ownership details are integrated into and appear on his copyrighted property. Specifically, it reads: “Copyright © 2008-2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. For permission requests, contact scott@scottgraffius.com.”
Additionally, his respective article includes this: “To request permission to use the 'Phases of Team Development' visual, contact Scott M. Graffius. If approved, high resolution JPG and PNG image files will be provided, subject to terms and conditions.”
And also this: “© Copyright 2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.”
Conference organizers, businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities around the world engage Graffius to deliver compelling talks and workshops. To date, he’s presented sessions at 91 conferences and other events across 25 countries, including:
- Armenia,
- Australia,
- Brazil,
- Canada,
- Czech Republic,
- Finland,
- France,
- Germany,
- Greece,
- Hong Kong,
- Hungary,
- India,
- Ireland,
- Lithuania,
- Luxembourg,
- Nepal,
- Netherlands,
- New Zealand,
- Norway,
- Romania,
- Sweden,
- Switzerland,
- United Arab Emirates,
- United Kingdom,
- and the United States.
Graffius’ ‘Phases of Team Development’ intellectual property is central and key to many of those sessions. His rate card and a listing of his engagements are at https://scottgraffius.com/resources/Exceptional-PPM-and-PMO-Solutions- Rate-Card-for-2024-2025-v24071607.pdf and https://scottgraffius.com/publicspeaker.html, respectively.
With an authorization/license from Graffius, many organizations around the world have featured and used his copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ work. Select examples include:
- Adobe,
- American Management Association,
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute,
- Boston University,
- Broadcom,
- Cisco,
- Deimos Aerospace,
- DevOps Institute,
- Erste Group Bank AG (Austria),
- FINAT,
- Ford Motor Company,
- FSU College of Medicine,
- Hasso Plattner Institute (Germany),
- IEEE,
- Johns Hopkins University,
- LeadingEng,
- London South Bank University,
- Manufacturers Alliance,
- Microsoft,
- New Zealand Government,
- Oracle,
- Royal Australasian College of Physicians,
- TBS Switzerland,
- Torrens University (Australia),
- Tufts University,
- U.S. National Park Service,
- U.S. Tennis Association,
- UC San Diego,
- UK Sports Institute,
- University of Galway (Ireland),
- Victorian Institute of Technology (Australia),
- Virginia Tech,
- Warsaw University,
- Western Sydney University (Australia),
- World Resources Institute,
- Yale University,
- ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences,
- and many others.
The following excerpts are from the section of the email detailing the violation.
Again, Graffius’ copyright ownership details and permission request information are clearly noted.
Authors (Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C) of the JNS paper ('Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery') did not request nor receive permission to use Graffius’ copyrighted property.
Nevertheless, the authors used Graffius’ copyrighted property in their JNS article: they plagiarized Graffius’ work, damaging the marketability and value of his intellectual property.
The following excerpts from the email provide some side-by-side examples of Graffius' copyrighted property and the plagiarism in the JNS publication.
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “High motivation, trust, and empathy”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “High motivation, trust, and empathy”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Individuals defer to team needs”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Individuals defer to team needs”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Effectively producing deliverables”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Effectively producing deliverables”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Consistent performance”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Consistent performance”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Demonstrations of interdependence”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Demonstrations of interdependence”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Purpose and goals are well-understood”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Purpose and goals are well-understood”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “More confident”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “More confidence”
- Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Members are engaged and supportive”
- Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Members are engaged and supportive”
The exhibit below also shows some examples of the blatant plagiarism.
The following excerpts are from the conclusion section of Graffius' email.
Graffius’ copyright ownership details are integrated into and appear on his copyrighted property. Specifically, it reads: “Copyright © 2008-2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. For permission requests, contact scott@scottgraffius.com.” Additionally, his article includes this: “To request permission to use the 'Phases of Team Development' visual, contact Scott M. Graffius. If approved, high resolution JPG and PNG image files will be provided, subject to terms and conditions.” And also this: “© Copyright 2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.”
Authors (Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C) of the JNS paper (Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery) did not request nor receive permission to use Graffius’ copyrighted property.
The authors of the JNS paper used Graffius’ copyrighted property, including plagiarizing it. The JNS paper did not attribute material to Graffius through citation or otherwise. By doing so, the authors are wrongly leading others to falsely believe that they are the author and owner of Graffius’ respective copyrighted content.
The JNS authors’ plagiarism damaged the marketability and value of Graffius’ copyrighted property.
The aforementioned actions of the authors of the JNS paper are a disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and Graffius’ intellectual property rights.
The following excerpt is also from the conclusion section of Graffius' email.
Graffius maintains, enforces, and protects his copyright and other intellectual property rights. He is consulting with an IP attorney in Los Angeles. Graffius reserves his rights in this disturbing and consequential matter.
The preceding provided excerpts of key content—not the full transcript—of Graffius' email.
Authors of the Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) paper blatantly plagiarized Graffius’ copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ property, constituting a profound and disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and Graffius’ intellectual property rights.
It is shocking that neither the publisher nor any of the editors or authors have responded to Graffius' report on the violation. By not acknowledging receipt of the plagiarism report, the publisher signals a lack of transparency, a lack of professionalism, and a lack of commitment to integrity.
It is imperative that the publisher, JNS Publishing Group / the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, demonstrate—through their actions—a commitment to upholding the highest standards of ethics and intellectual property rights. The publisher must take immediate and decisive action such as retracting or removing the infringing content. Otherwise, they risk losing their credibility and the trust placed in them by scientific and academic communities.
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Read on to learn:
- About the Journal of Neurosurgery,
- About the American Association of Neurological Surgeons,
- About Scott M. Graffius,
- References/Sources,
- How to Cite This Article,
- Post-Publication Notes,
- and more.
About the Journal of Neurosurgery
The Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) is a monthly peer-reviewed medical journal covering all aspects of neurosurgery. It is published by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the editor-in-chief is James Rutka. The JNS brands itself as the world’s leading journal on neurosurgery and the official journal of the AANS.
Visit the JNS website to learn more.
Note: Scott M. Graffius included (among others) James Rutka, AANS Editor-in-Chief, on the 24 September 2024 email detailing the plagiarism violation.
About the American Association of Neurological Surgeons
The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) is dedicated to advancing neurological surgery. The AANS says that through rigorous education, groundbreaking research, robust advocacy, and the advancement of outcomes science, it strives to ensure the highest standards of patient care are met and exceeded. Katie O. Orrico is Chief Executive Officer of the AANS.
Visit the AANS website to learn more.
Note: Scott M. Graffius included (among others) Katie O. Orrico, AANS CEO, on the 24 September 2024 email detailing the plagiarism violation.
About Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius is a global leader in agile project management, an expert on teamwork tradecraft, an authority on temporal dynamics on social media platforms, a creator, a consultant, a trainer, an award-winning author, and an international public speaker.
He's generated over $1.9 billion of business value in aggregate for Global Fortune 500 businesses and other organizations he's served — as a consultant through Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions and Exceptional Agility, and as a member of staff at organizations. Businesses and industries range from consumer products to advanced technology (including AI, R&D), e-commerce, music, streaming/OTT video, television, film, video games, financial services, government, and more.
Graffius and content from his books (Agile Scrum and Agile Transformation), talks, workshops, and more have been featured and used by businesses, professional associations, governments, and universities around the world. Examples include Adobe, American Management Association, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Bayer, Boston University, Broadcom, Cisco, Deimos Aerospace, DevOps Institute, EU's European Commission, Ford Motor Company, Hasso Plattner Institute Germany, IEEE, Johns Hopkins University, London South Bank University, Microsoft, National Academy of Sciences, New Zealand Government, Oracle, Project Management Institute, Torrens University Australia, UC San Diego, TBS Switzerland, UK Sports Institute, University of Galway Ireland, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Tennis Association, Virginia Tech, Warsaw University of Technology, Yale University, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, and many others.
He delights audiences around the world with dynamic and engaging talks and workshops. He's presented sessions at 91 conferences and other events across 25 countries. Visit here to learn more and here to ask Scott to speak at your event.
About Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions
Shifting customer needs are common in today's marketplace. Businesses must be adaptive and responsive to change while delivering an exceptional customer experience to be competitive.
There are a variety of frameworks supporting the development of products and services, and most approaches fall into one of two broad categories: traditional or agile. Traditional practices such as waterfall engage sequential development, while agile involves iterative and incremental deliverables. Organizations are increasingly embracing agile to manage projects, and best meet their business needs of rapid response to change, fast delivery speed, and more.
With clear and easy to follow step-by-step instructions, Scott M. Graffius's award-winning Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions helps the reader:
- Implement and use the most popular agile framework―Scrum;
- Deliver products in short cycles with rapid adaptation to change, fast time-to-market, and continuous improvement; and
- Support innovation and drive competitive advantage.
Hailed by Literary Titan as “the book highlights the versatility of Scrum beautifully.”
Winner of 17 first place awards.
Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions is available in paperback and ebook/Kindle in the United States and around the world. Some links by country follow.
- 🇧🇷 Brazil
- 🇨🇦 Canada
- 🇨🇿 Czech Republic
- 🇩🇰 Denmark
- 🇫🇮 Finland
- 🇫🇷 France
- 🇩🇪 Germany
- 🇬🇷 Greece
- 🇭🇺 Hungary
- 🇮🇳 India
- 🇮🇪 Ireland
- 🇮🇱 Israel
- 🇮🇹 Italy
- 🇯🇵 Japan
- 🇱🇺 Luxembourg
- 🇲🇽 Mexico
- 🇳🇱 Netherlands
- 🇳🇿 New Zealand
- 🇳🇴 Norway
- 🇪🇸 Spain
- 🇸🇪 Sweden
- 🇨🇭 Switzerland
- 🇦🇪 UAE
- 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
- 🇺🇸 United States
About Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change
Thriving in today's marketplace frequently depends on making a transformation to become more agile. Those successful in the transition enjoy faster delivery speed and ROI, higher satisfaction, continuous improvement, and additional benefits.
Based on actual events, Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change provides a quick (60-90 minute) read about a successful agile transformation at a multinational entertainment and media company, told from the author's perspective as an agile coach.
The award-winning book by Scott M. Graffius is available in paperback and ebook/Kindle in the United States and around the world. Some links by country follow.
- 🇦🇺 Australia
- 🇦🇹 Austria
- 🇧🇷 Brazil
- 🇨🇦 Canada
- 🇨🇿 Czech Republic
- 🇩🇰 Denmark
- 🇫🇮 Finland
- 🇫🇷 France
- 🇩🇪 Germany
- 🇬🇷 Greece
- 🇮🇳 India
- 🇮🇪 Ireland
- 🇯🇵 Japan
- 🇱🇺 Luxembourg
- 🇲🇽 Mexico
- 🇳🇱 Netherlands
- 🇳🇿 New Zealand
- 🇪🇸 Spain
- 🇸🇪 Sweden
- 🇨🇭 Switzerland
- 🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates
- 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
- 🇺🇸 United States
References/Sources
The following is a list of material on publishing standards and procedures. Some cover the reporting and handling of plagiarism.
- Alter, Alexandra (2019, September 22). It’s a Fact: Mistakes are Embarrassing the Publishing Industry. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/business/publishing-books-errors.html.
- American Psychological Association (2019, November). Correction Notices. Available at: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/research-publication/correction-notices.
- Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) (2018, November 15). ACM Publications Policy on the Withdrawal, Correction, Retraction, and Removal of Works from ACM Publications and ACM DL. Available at: https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/retraction-policy.
- Cambridge University Press (n.d.). Publishing Ethics. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/flow/information/journal-policies/publishing-ethics.
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (n.d.). Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/postpublication.
- Elsevier (n.d.). Policy and Best practice: Errata & Corrigenda. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/editor/perk/policy-and-best-practice-errata-and-corrigenda.
- Emerald Publishing (n.d.). Article Withdrawal & Correction. Available at: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/publish-with-us/author-policies/article-withdrawal-correction.
- Faust, Jessica (2007, October 3). Typos and Errors After Publication. Available at: https://bookendsliterary.com/typos-and-errors-after-publication.
- Graffius, Scott M. (2024, March 22). The Protocol for Reporting an Error to an Author or Publisher. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/error-reporting.html. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18830.98883.
- Graffius, Scott M. (2021, November 10). An Error Was Introduced Into the Seventh Edition of 'A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK)'. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/pmbok7.html.
- Idunn (n.d.). Publishing and Research Ethics Policy. Available at: https://www.idunn.no/info/publiseringsetikk.
- IEEE (n.d.). Publishing Ethics: Guidelines and Policies: Post-Publication Policies. Available at: https://books.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/book-publishing-at-ieee/publishing-ethics/guidelines-and-policies/post-publication-policies.
- Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) (n.d.). Guidelines for Ethical Behavior in Publishing. Available at: https://pubsonline.informs.org/page/opre/guidelines-for-ethical-behavior-in-publishing.
- IntechOpen (n.d.). Retraction and Correction Policy. Available at: https://www.intechopen.com/page/retraction-and-correction-policy.
- Marasović, Tea; Utrobiĉić, Ana; and Maruŝić, Ana (2018, March 31). Transparency of Retracting and Replacing Articles. The Lancet, 391 (10127): 1244-1245.
- Nature (n.d.). Editorial and Publishing Policies. Available at: https://www.nature.com/srep/journal-policies/editorial-policies.
- O’Reilly Media (n.d.). Errata for Java in a Nutshell. Available at: https://www.oreilly.com/catalog/errata.csp?isbn=0636920030775.
- Palgrave Macmillan (n.d.). Corrections and Retractions. Available at: https://www.palgrave.com/gp/editorial-policies/corrections-and-retractions.
- Pearson Education / InformIT (n.d.). Contact Us: Submit Errata. Available at: https://www.informit.com/about/contact_us/index.aspx?ContactUs_Topics_Partners_id=9d39709c-c911-4c96-ac2c-2c5a22d68ba9.
- Project Management Institute (PMI) (n.d.). PMI Standards Program Comment Form. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/pmbok-standards/pmi-standards-program-comment-form.pdf.
- Project Management Institute (PMI) (n.d.). Standards Errata Sheets. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok/errata-sheets.
- Public Library of Science (PLOS) (n.d.). Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/corrections-and-retractions.
- SAE International (n.d.). ARINC Standard – Errata Report Template. Available at: https://wcm14.sae.org/site/binaries/content/assets/itc/content/arinc/errata-form.docx [note: selecting the link will download the file].
- Sage Publications (n.d.). Sage Corrections and Retractions Policy. Available at: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/sage-corrections-and-retractions-policy.
- Science Publishing Group (n.d.). Ethical Guidelines. Available at: https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/information/ethical-guidelines.
- Springer (n.d.). Editorial Policies: Corrections and Retractions. Available at: https://www.springer.com/gp/editorial-policies/corrections-and-retractions.
- Taylor & Francis (n.d.). Publishing Ethics for Journal Editors: FAQs. Available at: https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-ethics-for-editors/publishing-ethics-faqs.
- Ubiquity Press (n.d.). Correction and Retraction Policy. Available at: https://ubiquitypress.com/site/corrections.
- Warner, Brooke (2019, April 26). How to Publish a Perfect Book. Available at: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/authors/pw-select/article/79902-how-to-publish-a-perfect-book.html.
- Wiley (n.d.). Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics. Available at: https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html.
- Wiley Author Services (n.d.). Wiley's Policy for Handling Retractions, Withdrawals, and Expressions of Concern. Available at: https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/retractions-and-expressions-of-concern.html.
- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (n.d.). Managing Intellectual Property in the Book Publishing Industry. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/868/wipo_pub_868.pdf.
How to Cite This Article
Graffius, Scott M. (2024, October 8). Radio Silence from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons on Report of Blatant Plagiarism in Their ‘Journal of Neurosurgery’ Publication. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/aans-jns-publication.html. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25837.40160
Post-Publication Notes
If there are any supplements or updates to this article after the date of publication, they will appear here.
Update on 11 October 2024
As a recap, Graffius’ 24 September 2024 report provided indisputable proof of plagiarism. Graffius emailed the detailed report to the publisher, the editors, and the authors. However, weeks passed with radio silence. There was not even an acknowledgement of receipt of the report.
Graffius maintains, enforces, and protects his copyright and other intellectual property rights. The publisher’s non-response signaled that they were knowingly endorsing, permitting or otherwise allowing ongoing misinformation and the perpetual violation of Graffius' intellectual property. For those reasons, Graffius expanded communications on this consequential matter. Here's one example (of many).
On 11 October 2024, the publisher sent their first response to Graffius. Here’s an excerpt from the publisher’s email (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
“Thank you for your email and your patience as we have looked into this matter. We have concluded our investigation. The author did indeed unintentionally include unattributed references to your work. An erratum and article correction by the author are in process. Once submitted to us, time to publication is usually 2-3 weeks. I would expect this process to be concluded in less than 4 weeks’ time. I will send you a link to the errata and corrected paper for your files once they have been published online.”
Again, the above is an excerpt from—not a full transcript of—the publisher’s email to Graffius.
The publisher used the term “unintentionally.” That term, whether referencing a ridiculous excuse of the plagiarizing authors or otherwise, is counter-indicated by the undeniable facts in this serious matter and should not be used. For that reason, Graffius responded to the publisher’s email the same day. Here’s an excerpt from Graffius’ email (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
“Your response warrants a reply. So here it is.
I will not re-state my full 24 September 2024* report of the indisputable facts. But here’s an excerpt:
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “High motivation, trust, and empathy”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “High motivation, trust, and empathy”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Individuals defer to team needs”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Individuals defer to team needs”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Effectively producing deliverables”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Effectively producing deliverables”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Consistent performance”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Consistent performance”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Demonstrations of interdependence”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Demonstrations of interdependence”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Purpose and goals are well-understood”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Purpose and goals are well-understood”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “More confident”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “More confidence”
🟢 Content from Scott M. Graffius 2022 copyrighted property: “Members are engaged and supportive”
🔴 Content from 2023 JNS article, plagiarizing Graffius’ work: “Members are engaged and supportive”
My copyright ownership details are integrated into and appear on my copyrighted ‘Phases of Team Development’ property. Specifically, it reads: ‘Copyright © 2008-2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. For permission requests, contact scott@scottgraffius.com.’ Additionally, my corresponding publication includes this: ‘© Copyright 2022 Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.’
Authors (Whitney E. Muhlestein, MD; Kate W. C. Chang, MA, MS; Denise Justice, OTRL, Sarah Johnson, MS, OTRL; Shawn Brown; and Miriana Popadich, MSN, NP-C) of the JNS paper ('Developing interdisciplinary research teams in neurosurgery: key elements to success in brachial plexus and peripheral nerve surgery') did not request nor receive permission to use my copyrighted property.
Plagiarism is defined as ‘to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use (another's production) without crediting the source’ (source: Merriam-Webster). It infringes on the intellectual property rights of others, results in misinformation, and often violates copyright.
The authors of the JNS paper used my copyrighted property, including plagiarizing it. Most of their plagiarism was word-for-word use of my intellectual property.
The JNS paper did not attribute material to me through citation or otherwise. By doing so, the authors are wrongly leading others to falsely believe that they are the author and owner of my respective copyrighted content.
So, these author(s)—who have been proven to be plagiarizers—claim the violation was done “unintentionally”? They unintentionally took my copyrighted property and used it (mostly word-for-word) unintentionally, and unintentionally failed to credit me on their respective diagram, and also unintentionally failed to cite me in the references section of the paper? The authors are insulting others with their excuse. “Unintentionally” is a ridiculous and desperate attempt to ‘minimize’ or ‘spin’ their blatant violation. I reject it entirely and so should you.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see the proven plagiarizers take a nice turn and demonstrate integrity, sincerity, and remorse?! They could have, and should have, simply said that what they did was wrong. However, by asserting “unintentionally,” the authors are demonstrating an ongoing lack of integrity, sincerity, and remorse. I must say, I’m greatly concerned.
Maybe the authors are procedurally allowed to (falsely) claim whatever they want, including “unintentionally,” in their response to the charges. However, if “unintentionally” (or a similar term) appears in the official record—whether in an erratum, retraction, or other action—it must be noted that “unintentionally” (or a similar term) is the claim of the authors of the JNS paper. It is vital that the that it is made clear that “unintentionally” (or a similar operative term) is not the conclusion or position of others. Here, 'others' includes me. Given the facts and without bias, ‘others’ certainty also includes you, the Journal of Neurosurgery, JNS Publishing Group, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, and others.
Plagiarism is a profound and disgraceful breach of professional ethics, moral standards, and intellectual property rights. The authors of the JNS paper damaged the marketability and value of my copyrighted property.
I maintain, enforce, and protect my copyright and other intellectual property rights. As mentioned earlier, I am consulting with an IP attorney in Los Angeles. I reserve my rights in this disturbing and consequential matter.
Given the serious nature of this issue, please reply with a short confirmation that you received this communication.”
Again, the above is an excerpt from—not a full transcript of—Graffius’ email to the publisher.
The publisher replied the same day with (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
“That word was solely mine, and not a reflection of what will be conveyed. You are correct that it is irrelevant to the discussion. Apologies for the miscommunication. Please be assured we do not take this situation lightly. Acknowledging receipt of your correspondence with this email. I will be back in touch soon.”
Again, the above is an excerpt from—not a full transcript of—the publisher’s email to Graffius.
Any further updates will appear here.
Update on 12 November 2024
On 12 November 2024, Graffius sent a follow up email to the publisher. Here's an excerpt from the message (it appears in italic font, within quotation marks):
"Chief Publications Officer Gillian Shasby,
Until the infringing article is appropriately addressed, it continues to spread misinformation and violate my intellectual property rights.
I provided notification of the infringement on 24 September (which may have appeared a few minutes into the following day). That was 49 days ago.
On 11 October, I was informed that: “... expect this process to be concluded in less than 4 weeks’ time.” That was 32 days (4.6 weeks) ago.
Why hasn’t this been addressed?
Exactly when will it be addressed?
I expressly reserve all rights in this troubling, damaging, and consequential matter.
Sincerely,
Scott M. Graffius"
Any further updates will appear here.
Update on 15 November 2024
Chief Publications Officer Gillian Shasby sent an email to Graffius. The email reported that:
- The publisher will rectify the current lack of attribution and correct the scientific record by updating the legend to Figure 3 and add Graffius’ work to the References.
- The publisher will publish an Erratum, stating that permission was not received and proper attribution was not given for the use of copyrighted material in Figure 3 of the paper and that permission has now been received and correctly attributed, and will include a link to the corrected paper. The Erratum will be deposited to PubMed and Crossref.
- The publisher will correct the paper and upload it to replace the current version. A note will appear within the corrected paper, informing the reader of the change that has been made and linking to the Erratum. All deposited versions (PubMed, CrossRef) will be replaced with the corrected paper. This process is in accordance with best practices for scientific publication.
After the changes have been implemented or if there are other updates, the information will be added to this Post-Publication Notes section.
Update on 20 December 2024
This matter was resolved on 20 December 2024.
The publisher published an Erratum.
Graffius published new article.
Copyright
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.
The short link for this article is https://bit.ly/aans-jns
Reporting Errors in a Publication: A Case Study on ‘Frontiers in Public Health’
20 March 2025
BY SCOTT M. GRAFFIUS | ScottGraffius.com
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Introduction
Errors in published works can unleash a cascade of profound effects: they corrupt the well of knowledge, deceive those seeking truth, and shatter the foundation of credibility. As explored in the widely read article on reporting errors, taking action to address such issues plays a pivotal role in ensuring the accuracy and integrity of knowledge.
But what happens when errors go unaddressed, even after being reported with detailed evidence? This article presents a case study from Graffius’ own experience, where a publication in Frontiers in Public Health mischaracterized his research on the lifespan (half-life) of social media posts (2024 edition) and incorrectly cited his work. Despite reporting these issues to the lead author and publisher, the response—or lack thereof in this case—reveals the challenges and persistence required to uphold research integrity. Through this case study, this article illustrates the error reporting process, the importance of follow-through, and the lessons learned.
Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' Research
When content is published on social media platforms, relevance and engagement have a limited lifespan. Most posts receive half of their total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments) relatively soon, with the remainder spread out over a comparatively longer period. Said differently, plotting engagement against time typically reveals a distribution where the peak engagement occurs early, with a long tail of diminishing interaction, resembling a positively skewed unimodal distribution.
Given the above, an advantageous, objective metric for social media posts is half-life. It’s the time it takes for a post to receive half of its total engagement. Data can help inform strategic and tactical decisions, such as the frequency and scheduling of posts.
In 2018, Scott M. Graffius first published data on the average half-life of posts based on a large dataset comprised of multiple sources. Algorithms and other factors on platforms change over time. For that reason, Graffius periodically updates his 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' research. His work has captured the attention of, and is used by, a diverse global audience of businesses, professional associations, government agencies, universities, and others.
Errors in Frontiers in Public Health
A paper published in Frontiers in Public Health, titled 'Public perceptions of digital mental health awareness campaign in the Arab Gulf states: a qualitative thematic analysis,' inaccurately portrayed findings from the 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' research. The Frontiers authors wrongly claimed that, "the lifespan of social media posts on most platforms is, at most, 9 days," conflating 'lifespan' with 'half-life.' Their error misrepresented the research’s conclusions. Furthermore, the Frontiers paper misreferenced Graffius’ work, citing an incorrect title and omitting the DOI, undermining the accuracy of the scholarship.
Limited excerpts from the problematic Frontiers in Public Health paper follow.
Due to its errors, the Frontiers paper misleads readers, posing a risk of misinformation that could negatively impact future research or the improper application of its findings.
Action Taken: Reporting and Following Up on the Errors
Following Graffius' own recommendation on what to do when discovering errors (available at https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/error-reporting.html), he took action. On 18 December 2024, Graffius sent an email to the lead author, Noura Alomair, and included the editorial and publishing team at Frontiers in Public Health. The email delineated the factual error and the citation error, and it provided specific corrections for both. Excerpts from Graffius' email are shown in blue font.
1. Factual error.
The data collection section on page 03 includes this: "The lifespan of social media posts on most platforms is, at most, 9 days (19)."
However, the metric is half-life. I defined it in my research (which you cited): "The lifespan of posts is of interest, and a helpful metric is half-life. It’s the amount of time it takes for a post to receive half of its total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments)."
Additional information — for background and context only:
Accordingly, I suggest that this:
"The lifespan of social media posts on most platforms is, at most, 9 days (19)."
is corrected to this (or similar):
"Posts on top social media platforms typically receive half of their total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments) quickly, ranging from seconds to under nine days. After that half-life point, posts start to get buried in the news feed."
2. Citation error.
Except for my work, items in the references section reflect the following template/example: "Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport, Exerc Health. (2019) 11:589– 97. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806". The reference for my work is shown as: "GRAFFIUS SM. Half-life for posts on different social media platforms. (2024)." My last name is in all caps, which is not consistent with other entries. Additionally, the title is wrong, and the DOI (or, alternatively, link) is missing.
I suggest that it is corrected to this:
"Graffius SM. Lifespan (half-life) of social media posts: update for 2024. (2024). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21043.60965."
Except for an auto-reply—which promised communication "within 5 business days"—there was no response to Graffius' report of the errors. As of 20 March 2025, there has been 92 days of radio silence.
Consistent with the persistence advocated for in Graffius' own error-reporting guide, he sent a follow-up email on 20 March 2025, reiterating the errors and emphasizing the importance of research integrity. He wrote, "I imagine that, like me, you value the integrity of the academic record and would want to correct these errors to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the published work." This case study—inclusive of finding and reporting errors, getting radio silence, and more—underscores challenges of ensuring accountability in publishing.
Conclusion
As demonstrated by their action or inaction, some authors, editors, and publishers appreciate finding out about errors so that they can correct them, while others do not. The error reporting experience with Frontiers in Public Health was frustrating due to inaction from both the lead author and the publishing team. Despite providing detailed evidence and following up after 92 days of silence, Graffius has yet to receive a response. This case underscores the persistence sometimes required to uphold integrity. It also highlights the importance of taking action: while the ideal response to an error report is prompt acknowledgment and correction, the reality can be radio silence—necessitating further effort.
Whether it's enhancing the experience for future readers or upholding the accuracy and integrity of scientific works, vigilance in reporting errors plays a pivotal role.
If there is an update on this case, it will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section which appears at the end of the article.
Read on for:
About Frontiers in Public Health
Frontiers in Public Health is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes research spanning multiple aspects of public health. Launched in 2013 by Frontiers Media, it covers topics such as health policy, epidemiology, environmental health, digital public health, and more. The journal is structured into specialty sections, including Public Mental Health, Health Economics, Aging and Public Health, and more. By fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and focused on disseminating high-quality research, Frontiers in Public Health plays a vital role in shaping public health policies and interventions worldwide.
About Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' Research
Scientists, researchers, journalists, academics, YouTubers, podcasters, SEO experts, analysts, businesses, and others around with world feature and use Scott M. Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' research. The current (2025) edition is available here.
About Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius is a high impact and globally recognized AI, advanced technology, agile, and project management researcher, thought leader, author, and public speaker.
Graffius has generated more than USD $1.9 billion in business value for organizations served, including Fortune 500 companies. Businesses and industries range from technology (including R&D and AI) to entertainment, financial services, and healthcare, government, social media, and more.
Graffius leads the professional services firm Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions, along with its subsidiary Exceptional Agility. These consultancies offer strategic and tactical advisory, training, embedded talent, and consulting services to public, private, and government sectors. They help organizations enhance their capabilities and results in agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and PMO leadership, supporting innovation and driving competitive advantage. The consultancies confidently back services with a Delighted Client Guarantee™. Graffius is a former vice president of project management with a publicly traded provider of diverse consumer products and services over the Internet. Before that, he ran and supervised the delivery of projects and programs in public and private organizations with businesses ranging from e-commerce to advanced technology products and services, retail, manufacturing, entertainment, and more. He has experience with consumer, business, reseller, government, and international markets.
He is the author of two award-winning books.
Prominent businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities have featured Graffius and his work including content from his books, talks, workshops, and more. Select examples include:
Graffius has been actively involved with the Project Management Institute (PMI) in the development of professional standards. He was a member of the team which produced the Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structures—Second Edition. Graffius was a contributor and reviewer of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge—Sixth Edition, The Standard for Program Management—Fourth Edition, and The Practice Standard for Project Estimating—Second Edition. He was also a subject matter expert reviewer of content for the PMI’s Congress. Beyond the PMI, Graffius also served as a member of the review team for two of the Scrum Alliance’s Global Scrum Gatherings.
Graffius has a bachelor’s degree in psychology with a focus in Human Factors. He holds eight professional certifications:
He is an active member of the Scrum Alliance, the Project Management Institute (PMI), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
He divides his time between Los Angeles and Paris, France.
Thought Leader | Public Speaker | Agile Scrum Book | Agile Transformation Book | Blog | Photo | X | LinkedIn | Email
How to Cite This Article
Graffius, Scott M. (2025, March 20). Reporting Errors in 'Frontiers in Public Health': A Case Study. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/reporting-errors-in-frontiers-of-public-health-publication.html.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
DOI: (coming soon)
Content Acknowledgements
This article includes brief excerpts from Frontiers in Public Health ('Public perceptions of digital mental health awareness campaign in the Arab Gulf states: a qualitative thematic analysis' by Noura Alomair, Ghadah Alkhaldi, Norah M. Alsadhan, Rawan Alkasabi, and Samah Alageel), attributed and used under fair use for news reporting and analysis.
Frontiers in Public Health is the property of Frontiers Media S.A.
Graffius’ Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' is copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Post-Publication Notes
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear here.
Update on 24 March 2025
On 24 March 2025, Frontiers (the publisher) sent an email to Graffius. Here’s an excerpt:
"This is to let you know that the corresponding author has submitted a corrigendum for the article based on your comments. Our editorial team will review the corrigendum."
Update on 24 March 2025
On 24 March 2025, Graffius replied to Frontiers’ email. Here’s an excerpt:
"Please:
1. Inform me know when you’re scheduled to implement the corrections (or an estimated date), and
2. Update me after you’ve implemented the corrections."
Copyright
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section.
Introduction
Errors in published works can unleash a cascade of profound effects: they corrupt the well of knowledge, deceive those seeking truth, and shatter the foundation of credibility. As explored in the widely read article on reporting errors, taking action to address such issues plays a pivotal role in ensuring the accuracy and integrity of knowledge.
But what happens when errors go unaddressed, even after being reported with detailed evidence? This article presents a case study from Graffius’ own experience, where a publication in Frontiers in Public Health mischaracterized his research on the lifespan (half-life) of social media posts (2024 edition) and incorrectly cited his work. Despite reporting these issues to the lead author and publisher, the response—or lack thereof in this case—reveals the challenges and persistence required to uphold research integrity. Through this case study, this article illustrates the error reporting process, the importance of follow-through, and the lessons learned.
Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' Research
When content is published on social media platforms, relevance and engagement have a limited lifespan. Most posts receive half of their total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments) relatively soon, with the remainder spread out over a comparatively longer period. Said differently, plotting engagement against time typically reveals a distribution where the peak engagement occurs early, with a long tail of diminishing interaction, resembling a positively skewed unimodal distribution.
Given the above, an advantageous, objective metric for social media posts is half-life. It’s the time it takes for a post to receive half of its total engagement. Data can help inform strategic and tactical decisions, such as the frequency and scheduling of posts.
In 2018, Scott M. Graffius first published data on the average half-life of posts based on a large dataset comprised of multiple sources. Algorithms and other factors on platforms change over time. For that reason, Graffius periodically updates his 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' research. His work has captured the attention of, and is used by, a diverse global audience of businesses, professional associations, government agencies, universities, and others.
Errors in Frontiers in Public Health
A paper published in Frontiers in Public Health, titled 'Public perceptions of digital mental health awareness campaign in the Arab Gulf states: a qualitative thematic analysis,' inaccurately portrayed findings from the 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' research. The Frontiers authors wrongly claimed that, "the lifespan of social media posts on most platforms is, at most, 9 days," conflating 'lifespan' with 'half-life.' Their error misrepresented the research’s conclusions. Furthermore, the Frontiers paper misreferenced Graffius’ work, citing an incorrect title and omitting the DOI, undermining the accuracy of the scholarship.
Limited excerpts from the problematic Frontiers in Public Health paper follow.
Due to its errors, the Frontiers paper misleads readers, posing a risk of misinformation that could negatively impact future research or the improper application of its findings.
Action Taken: Reporting and Following Up on the Errors
Following Graffius' own recommendation on what to do when discovering errors (available at https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/error-reporting.html), he took action. On 18 December 2024, Graffius sent an email to the lead author, Noura Alomair, and included the editorial and publishing team at Frontiers in Public Health. The email delineated the factual error and the citation error, and it provided specific corrections for both. Excerpts from Graffius' email are shown in blue font.
1. Factual error.
The data collection section on page 03 includes this: "The lifespan of social media posts on most platforms is, at most, 9 days (19)."
However, the metric is half-life. I defined it in my research (which you cited): "The lifespan of posts is of interest, and a helpful metric is half-life. It’s the amount of time it takes for a post to receive half of its total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments)."
Additional information — for background and context only:
- When content is published online, relevance and engagement have a limited lifespan. Engagement is typically not distributed as a normal bell curve. Rather, it’s generally a unimodal distribution-based, positively skewed curve.
- Here’s a description of the prototypical distribution of data (engagement): On average, most posts receive half of their total engagement relatively soon, with the remainder spread out over a comparatively long(er) period.
- For those reasons, an advantageous respective objective metric for posts on social media platforms is half-life. It’s the time it takes for a post to receive half of its total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments).
- Built on a large dataset from multiple sources, Graffius’ research reveals the average lifespan (half-life) for posts on different social media platforms.
- Note: Findings from others — including anecdotal experience from select posts or otherwise the experience of one person, one organization, or a limited dataset — may vary from the average half-life data in Graffius’ research.
Accordingly, I suggest that this:
"The lifespan of social media posts on most platforms is, at most, 9 days (19)."
is corrected to this (or similar):
"Posts on top social media platforms typically receive half of their total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments) quickly, ranging from seconds to under nine days. After that half-life point, posts start to get buried in the news feed."
2. Citation error.
Except for my work, items in the references section reflect the following template/example: "Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport, Exerc Health. (2019) 11:589– 97. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806". The reference for my work is shown as: "GRAFFIUS SM. Half-life for posts on different social media platforms. (2024)." My last name is in all caps, which is not consistent with other entries. Additionally, the title is wrong, and the DOI (or, alternatively, link) is missing.
I suggest that it is corrected to this:
"Graffius SM. Lifespan (half-life) of social media posts: update for 2024. (2024). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21043.60965."
Except for an auto-reply—which promised communication "within 5 business days"—there was no response to Graffius' report of the errors. As of 20 March 2025, there has been 92 days of radio silence.
Consistent with the persistence advocated for in Graffius' own error-reporting guide, he sent a follow-up email on 20 March 2025, reiterating the errors and emphasizing the importance of research integrity. He wrote, "I imagine that, like me, you value the integrity of the academic record and would want to correct these errors to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the published work." This case study—inclusive of finding and reporting errors, getting radio silence, and more—underscores challenges of ensuring accountability in publishing.
Conclusion
As demonstrated by their action or inaction, some authors, editors, and publishers appreciate finding out about errors so that they can correct them, while others do not. The error reporting experience with Frontiers in Public Health was frustrating due to inaction from both the lead author and the publishing team. Despite providing detailed evidence and following up after 92 days of silence, Graffius has yet to receive a response. This case underscores the persistence sometimes required to uphold integrity. It also highlights the importance of taking action: while the ideal response to an error report is prompt acknowledgment and correction, the reality can be radio silence—necessitating further effort.
Whether it's enhancing the experience for future readers or upholding the accuracy and integrity of scientific works, vigilance in reporting errors plays a pivotal role.
If there is an update on this case, it will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section which appears at the end of the article.
Read on for:
- About Frontiers in Public Health,
- About Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' Research,
- About Scott M. Graffius,
- How to Cite This Article,
- Post-Publication Notes,
- and more.
About Frontiers in Public Health
Frontiers in Public Health is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes research spanning multiple aspects of public health. Launched in 2013 by Frontiers Media, it covers topics such as health policy, epidemiology, environmental health, digital public health, and more. The journal is structured into specialty sections, including Public Mental Health, Health Economics, Aging and Public Health, and more. By fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and focused on disseminating high-quality research, Frontiers in Public Health plays a vital role in shaping public health policies and interventions worldwide.
About Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' Research
Scientists, researchers, journalists, academics, YouTubers, podcasters, SEO experts, analysts, businesses, and others around with world feature and use Scott M. Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' research. The current (2025) edition is available here.
About Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius is a high impact and globally recognized AI, advanced technology, agile, and project management researcher, thought leader, author, and public speaker.
Graffius has generated more than USD $1.9 billion in business value for organizations served, including Fortune 500 companies. Businesses and industries range from technology (including R&D and AI) to entertainment, financial services, and healthcare, government, social media, and more.
Graffius leads the professional services firm Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions, along with its subsidiary Exceptional Agility. These consultancies offer strategic and tactical advisory, training, embedded talent, and consulting services to public, private, and government sectors. They help organizations enhance their capabilities and results in agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and PMO leadership, supporting innovation and driving competitive advantage. The consultancies confidently back services with a Delighted Client Guarantee™. Graffius is a former vice president of project management with a publicly traded provider of diverse consumer products and services over the Internet. Before that, he ran and supervised the delivery of projects and programs in public and private organizations with businesses ranging from e-commerce to advanced technology products and services, retail, manufacturing, entertainment, and more. He has experience with consumer, business, reseller, government, and international markets.
He is the author of two award-winning books.
- His first book, Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions (ISBN-13: 9781533370242), received 17 awards.
- His second book is Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change (ISBN-13: 9781072447962). BookAuthority named it one of the best Scrum books of all time.
Prominent businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities have featured Graffius and his work including content from his books, talks, workshops, and more. Select examples include:
- Adobe,
- American Management Association,
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute,
- Bayer,
- BMC Software,
- Boston University,
- Broadcom,
- Cisco,
- Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts Germany,
- Computer Weekly,
- Constructor University Germany,
- Data Governance Success,
- Deimos Aerospace,
- DevOps Institute,
- EU's European Commission,
- Ford Motor Company,
- GoDaddy,
- Harvard Medical School,
- Hasso Plattner Institute Germany,
- IEEE,
- Innovation Project Management,
- Johns Hopkins University,
- Journal of Neurosurgery,
- Lam Research (Semiconductors),
- Leadership Worthy,
- Life Sciences Trainers and Educators Network,
- London South Bank University,
- Microsoft,
- NASSCOM,
- National Academy of Sciences,
- New Zealand Government,
- Oracle,
- Pinterest Inc.,
- Project Management Institute,
- SANS Institute,
- SBG Neumark Germany,
- Singapore Institute of Technology,
- Torrens University Australia,
- TBS Switzerland,
- Tufts University,
- UC San Diego,
- UK Sports Institute,
- University of Galway Ireland,
- US Department of Energy,
- US National Park Service,
- US Tennis Association,
- Veleučilište u Rijeci Croatia,
- Verizon,
- Virginia Tech,
- Warsaw University of Technology,
- Wrike,
- Yale University,
- and many others.
Graffius has been actively involved with the Project Management Institute (PMI) in the development of professional standards. He was a member of the team which produced the Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structures—Second Edition. Graffius was a contributor and reviewer of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge—Sixth Edition, The Standard for Program Management—Fourth Edition, and The Practice Standard for Project Estimating—Second Edition. He was also a subject matter expert reviewer of content for the PMI’s Congress. Beyond the PMI, Graffius also served as a member of the review team for two of the Scrum Alliance’s Global Scrum Gatherings.
Graffius has a bachelor’s degree in psychology with a focus in Human Factors. He holds eight professional certifications:
- Certified SAFe 6 Agilist (SA),
- Certified Scrum Professional - ScrumMaster (CSP-SM),
- Certified Scrum Professional - Product Owner (CSP-PO),
- Certified ScrumMaster (CSM),
- Certified Scrum Product Owner (CSPO),
- Project Management Professional (PMP),
- Lean Six Sigma Green Belt (LSSGB), and
- IT Service Management Foundation (ITIL).
He is an active member of the Scrum Alliance, the Project Management Institute (PMI), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
He divides his time between Los Angeles and Paris, France.
Thought Leader | Public Speaker | Agile Scrum Book | Agile Transformation Book | Blog | Photo | X | LinkedIn | Email
How to Cite This Article
Graffius, Scott M. (2025, March 20). Reporting Errors in 'Frontiers in Public Health': A Case Study. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/reporting-errors-in-frontiers-of-public-health-publication.html.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
DOI: (coming soon)
Content Acknowledgements
This article includes brief excerpts from Frontiers in Public Health ('Public perceptions of digital mental health awareness campaign in the Arab Gulf states: a qualitative thematic analysis' by Noura Alomair, Ghadah Alkhaldi, Norah M. Alsadhan, Rawan Alkasabi, and Samah Alageel), attributed and used under fair use for news reporting and analysis.
Frontiers in Public Health is the property of Frontiers Media S.A.
Graffius’ Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' is copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Post-Publication Notes
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear here.
Update on 24 March 2025
On 24 March 2025, Frontiers (the publisher) sent an email to Graffius. Here’s an excerpt:
"This is to let you know that the corresponding author has submitted a corrigendum for the article based on your comments. Our editorial team will review the corrigendum."
Update on 24 March 2025
On 24 March 2025, Graffius replied to Frontiers’ email. Here’s an excerpt:
"Please:
1. Inform me know when you’re scheduled to implement the corrections (or an estimated date), and
2. Update me after you’ve implemented the corrections."
Copyright
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.