A Springer Nature journal’s failure to find duplication in two papers by the same author could cost its official recognition as a scholarly publication in Norway.
The national register in Norway that decides which journals count toward academics’ publication records has concluded there is “no doubt” of duplication between two papers, which appear to use the same student survey. The ruling comes more than a year after Springer Nature, publisher of one of the journals, Innovative Higher Education, investigated the same issue and cleared the author.
Both papers were written by Artur Strzelecki of the University of Economics in Katowice, Poland, who denies there was any wrongdoing. Springer Nature told Retraction Watch it would consider the assessment from Norway, which it said was not available when the journal’s editors investigated.
The concerns relate to two papers Strzelecki published in 2023 on student attitudes toward ChatGPT. He published the first in Interactive Learning Environments, a Taylor & Francis journal, in May that year, and a week later submitted a second manuscript to Innovative Higher Education, which was published in November.
Michael Grothe-Hammer, a professor in sociology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, came across the articles while reading the literature on ChatGPT usage in higher education. He told the editors of both journals the latter paper was “basically a duplicate of the former one,” in a November 2024 email seen by Retraction Watch.
The allegation was based on similarities throughout the two papers’ text, methodologies, hypotheses and statistical analysis. The complaint noted the similarities in the students surveyed: The earlier paper reports 534 valid responses and a 3.99% response rate, implying a pool of about 13,400 students. The second paper states 13,388 students were surveyed.
The hypotheses are “also mostly identical,” Grothe-Hammer wrote to the editors. The first hypothesis in the earlier paper reads: “Performance expectancy has direct and significant impact on Behavioral intention,” and in the second paper: “Performance expectancy will have a direct positive influence on the Behavioral intention to use ChatGPT in higher education by students.” Most other hypotheses in the two papers also follow a similar pattern and order, according to Grothe-Hammer.
“Overall, my strong impression is that this seems a consciously engineered duplicate with lots of paraphrasing, change in style of visualizations, skillful alternative formulations and using a slightly different number of ‘valid’ responses from clearly the same survey,” Grothe-Hammer wrote in the email correspondence seen by Retraction Watch. “To me all this seems engineered to avoid triggering the plagiarism detection tools.”
The day after he sent the complaint, a senior publisher at Springer Nature, Jolanda Voogd, said she would start an investigation, “and when that comes to the same conclusions, a retraction process,” she wrote.
After hearing nothing for five months, Grothe-Hammer followed up in April 2025. A different Springer executive, Cristina Alves dos Santos, responded by asking for a copy of the earlier Taylor & Francis paper, which she said she could not access. She needed it “to proceed further with this investigation,” she wrote.
Four days later, Springer Nature contacted Strzelecki for the first time, in email correspondence seen by Retraction Watch. Alves dos Santos wrote to him: “We have received information that this publication is strongly overlapping or considered as a duplicate of your previously published article in another journal,” and included the accusations.
In his response to Alves dos Santos, Strzelecki called the accusations “unjust” and said his intention was never to duplicate the publications “but rather to explore complementary questions” related to AI in education. He had written them when ChatGPT had first become available, and at the time, “literature on the subject was scarce, and every empirical study had a pioneering character,” he told the publisher. “My objective was to present the findings as quickly as possible,” in two distinct yet complementary applications of his research model.
He said the papers were based on a related but “distinct” dataset and used different samples of the student responses. The second paper added a price value variable, Strzelecki wrote, while the first tested whether the students’ gender and year of study affected the results. He said none of the statistical results were repeated, and any overlap in wording reflected “a consistent scholarly style by a single author — not the result of deliberate ‘duplicate engineering.’”
He also mentioned the papers’ popularity, gaining more than 700 citations between them at the time, as proof of their value as independent works. “If they were, in fact, duplicates, the academic community would not have independently acknowledged them as valuable sources,” he wrote to Alves dos Santos. (The paper in Interactive Learning Environments now has 748 citations and the one in Innovative Higher Education has 375, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.)
Six days after he responded to the allegations, Alves dos Santos told Strzelecki the editors-in-chief had assessed the case “as NOT being inappropriate behavior and for the two articles NOT being duplicates.” She also conveyed this finding to Grothe-Hammer, adding “we consider this matter resolved and trust this is acceptable to you.”
Grothe-Hammer replied that the result was “surprising” given the severity of the issue, and asked how Springer had reached the conclusion. Alves dos Santos replied that after consulting with the author and the journal’s editors, Springer had concluded the papers were “two distinct scientific publications.” Although “they are partially based on a related dataset,” she wrote, “each article analyzes different variables and aspects, leading to separate findings and recommendations.” Her explanation used language that was taken nearly word-for-word from Strzelecki’s own response a few days earlier.
He took the case to the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers, which decides whether journals meet basic standards of publishing, such as peer review and original research. Publishing in an approved journal earns Norwegian researchers publication points, a measure they use to track and compare research outputs. The register solicits complaints from researchers to flag journals they believe don’t meet publication standards.
This June, a committee at the register found “there is no doubt that plagiarism has occurred.” While the public statement refers to the journal, and not the specific paper, Lena-Cecilie Linge, a senior adviser at the organization, confirmed that the statement did refer to Strzelecki’s paper.
She told us the journal would be reassessed in January and may be downgraded to a level 0 if no responses in its favor were received. This rating would mean the title would no longer be recognized as an approved scientific publication in Norway, and Norwegian researchers would earn no credit for publishing there, she explained.
In a statement, Teresa Krauss, publishing director for Springer journals, said the company took the concerns “extremely seriously” and the editors had “carefully investigated the matter.” The Norwegian assessment was not available to the journal when its investigation was conducted, she said. “We will consider this new development, together with any relevant information should it be provided to us, carefully and determine whether any further action is warranted.”
Strzelecki told Retraction Watch he had not known of the Norwegian finding. Apart from Springer Nature, no publisher, journal or researcher had contacted him about the allegations, he said.
“Given the outcome of the publisher’s investigation, I do not intend to request a retraction or correction of either article,” he told us.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].