The Administrative Paradox: Why Integrity Protocols Crumble at the Top

The 'Double Dip' is Only the Surface

Duplicate publication is often dismissed as a clerical error or a misunderstanding of submission guidelines. It is neither. When the president of a major institution, such as Bahram Azizollah Ganji of Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, is implicated in "recycling" a microelectronics paper across two different journals, we aren't looking at a lapse in judgment. We are looking at a systemic feature of the modern academic hierarchy where volume is a proxy for power and prestige is a shield against scrutiny.

Peer review is not necessarily broken. It is being sidestepped by the exact people who should be protecting it. The real mess here is not just that two papers happen to share essentially identical data. It is the sheer guts of the move. Publishing first in a small, regional outlet and then "upgrading" to a Springer title to snag a better impact factor is a calculated move. It's arbitrage, plain and simple.

The Failure of Gatekeeping and the Prestige Shield

The question is how an "exact copy" of visuals and text makes it through the filters of a name like Microsystem Technologies. It comes down to the name on the letterhead. When a University President submits work, editors usually give them a pass. We can call it a deference discount. This is the dark side of the reputation game: the higher you climb, the less likely anyone is to actually check your work against the same standards a PhD student has to meet.

According to the recent report by Frederik Joelving on the situation, the International Community of Iranian Academics has already highlighted these overlaps, yet the reaction from publishers (while acknowledging a "serious breach") remains stuck in the slow speed gears of investigative protocols. This lethargy is exactly what predatory and unethical actors count on. They know that by the time a retraction is issued, the merit, the promotion, or the administrative appointment secured by the paper has already been cemented.

The Ghost in the Machine: Academic Arbitrage

We need to stop treating duplication as a minor slip and start viewing it as a form of intellectual insurance. In several political climates, metrics are the only thing keeping state funding and administrative jobs alive. By double-publishing, authors build a backup plan. If one journal goes under or loses its ranking, the other still stands. It is basically the academic version of money laundering (moving ideas through different accounts to inflate their worth).

This behavior is encouraged by our current obsession with metrics. When we value the container (the journal) more than the content, we create a market for this kind of fraud. The authors targeted the Slovenia-based Journal of Microelectronics, Electronic Components and Materials likely for the quick win, then set their sights on the Springer title for the prestige. This is not research; it is resume-padding masquerading as science.

Toward Radical Decoupling: The Solution

Fixing this requires more than just pulling papers. We need to destroy the incentives. First, publishers have to get serious about image fingerprinting. Plagiarism tools catch text, but we need automated checks for figures at the point of submission, not after a whistleblower posts them online. Second, there has to be a real cost for leadership. If a rector or president is caught in a breach, it should be on a public record. Leadership should be tied to a clean record by contract. So, until we hold the top floor to the same rules as the basement, the whole system is just a house of cards.