After comparing source text and the IntechOpen text, some parts are a nearly perfect match, but there are also some parts from the chapter that do not match that source. Below, section 4 about microarrays does not match the Lovley article. Could that be taken from another paper?
Let's take part of a sentence from that paragraph and put that into Google Scholar again. And yes, we find another source document, Singh and Nagaraj 2006. It's older and well-cited. Let's download that one and put it into SimTexter.
And bingo! While sections 2 and 7-8 of the @IntechOpen chapter matched the Lovley 2003 paper, sections 3-6 are a nearly perfect hit to the Singh and Nagaraj 2006 paper.
I can repeat this process a couple of times to maybe find the sources of sections 9-12, but the point has been made and a girl gotta move on. Let's look at the figures and tables in the IntechOpen chapter.
Often, figures and tables in plagiarized articles might also have been copied from the same sources. Figure 1 from the 2013 chapter surely seems inspired by Figure 1 from the Singh and Nagaraj paper. Although a bit more colorful, the text boxes are the same.
Of particular note, the Singh and Nagaraj 2006 paper, which text was 'borrowed' to write complete sections 3-6 of the @IntechOpen chapter, is NOT listed in the references at the end of the chapter.
The Lovley 2003 paper, which was copied in sections 2, 7, and 8 IS listed in the references as #48 / 'Lovley 2003'. But the only place where that paper is cited is in section 4, so nowhere near the copied text.
To wrap this up - this @IntechOpen chapter appears to contain significant plagiarism. I will post this on @PubPeer and hope that the publisher will retract this book chapter.
And I am very grateful for Dr. Weber-Wulff for making this tool, SimilarityTexter, available and free! Here is that link again: people.f4.htw-berlin.de/~weberwu/simte…