This study is a critique of two published papers on price clustering in the Taiwan stock market. We identified high-profile firms that were not recognized in the two papers, including HTC, Largan Precision, and Hon Hai. This omission can be put down to carelessness on the part of the authors and the sampling criterion used, which excludes firms distributing stock dividends. The sampling criterion used was specifically chosen to arrive at two different samples, achieved via the selection of two different sample periods. Specifically, one sample period was of nine months' duration, from October 2005 to June 2006, the other was ten, spanning from September 2005 to June 2006. While some firms distributed stock dividends in September 2005, they were excluded from the new paper. It is difficult for readers to fully appreciate the significance of this, as the two papers fail to cite each other. We incorporated the research from both papers to aid readers, since the original authors repeatedly only cited from one of the two papers at a time. As scholars of the Constitution assert, the right to information should be a fundamental right for all citizens. Likewise, we assert that researchers should never hide information in their works, as this impinges upon the information rights of other scholars. Such transparency is imperative for MOE-certified scholars, in particular. From the perspective of the citation index system, this study considers the negative effects of allowing researchers to publish similar works without proper citation. We demonstrate that hiding information deprives subsequent researchers of complete and proper information. It also puts subsequent researchers, especially Taiwanese, in a maladroit position when attempting to interpret two similar papers, where the newer of which are peppered with minor inconsistencies when compared with the original. By tracing three real cases, we show that hiding information directly impacts on reader understanding. Both papers contain minor errors. Some errors are common to both papers, some not. In hindsight, the authors should have endeavored to complete a single error-free paper rather than attempt to produce two, which both ended up being inconsistent in quality and misleading.