Plagiarism in Manuscripts Submitted to the <i>AJR</i>: Development of an Optimal Screening Algorithm and Management Pathways

Taylor, Donna

doi:10.2214/ajr.17.18078

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, even the most liberal estimates of the total number of papers that are candidates for retraction represent a very small percentage of the literature. Our findings are consistent with other studies reporting that a sizable number of papers in the literature have problems associated with misconduct (11,12).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Some publishers, including ASM, already perform routine screening of manuscripts using plagiarism detection software. Combined with manual curation and supervision, these tools work reasonably well (12,17). However, identifying image duplication of the types reported here and in our prior study (1) is more challenging and dependent on individuals capable of spotting suspicious patterns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication: the Molecular and Cellular Biology Experience

Bik¹,

Fang

Kullas

et al. 2018

Molecular and Cellular Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyzed 960 papers published in (MCB) from 2009 to 2016 and found 59 (6.1%) to contain inappropriately duplicated images. The 59 instances of inappropriate image duplication led to 41 corrections, 5 retractions, and 13 instances in which no action was taken. Our experience suggests that the majority of inappropriate image duplications result from errors during figure preparation that can be remedied by correction. Nevertheless, ∼10% of papers with inappropriate image duplications in MCB were retracted (∼0.5% of total). If this proportion is representative, then as many as 35,000 papers in the literature are candidates for retraction due to inappropriate image duplication. The resolution of inappropriate image duplication concerns after publication required an average of 6 h of journal staff time per published paper. MCB instituted a pilot program to screen images of accepted papers prior to publication that identified 12 manuscripts (14.5% out of 83) with image concerns in 2 months. The screening and correction of papers before publication required an average of 30 min of staff time per problematic paper. Image screening can identify papers with problematic images prior to publication, reduces postpublication problems, and requires less staff time than the correction of problems after publication.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication: the Molecular and Cellular Biology Experience

Bik¹,

Fang

Kullas

et al. 2018

Molecular and Cellular Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our sample, the sensitivity for an OSI threshold of 10% was 84%, compared with 97% for a threshold of 5%. Taylor et al found an even lower sensitivity of 67% for an OSI threshold of 11.5%, excluding citations and references, 20 while Higgins et al found that an OSI threshold of 10% yielded a sensitivity of 95.5%. 13 Zhang used text matching software to screen manuscripts submitted to a Chinese journal for plagiarism 14 and found that 23% contained plagiarism or redundancy, of which 25% contained high levels of plagiarism.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Plagiarism in research: a survey of African medical journals

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo examine whether regional biomedical journals in Africa had policies on plagiarism and procedures to detect it; and to measure the extent of plagiarism in their original research articles and reviews.DesignCross sectional survey.Setting and participantsWe selected journals with an editor-in-chief in Africa, a publisher based in a low or middle income country and with author guidelines in English, and systematically searched the African Journals Online database. From each of the 100 journals identified, we randomly selected five original research articles or reviews published in 2016.OutcomesFor included journals, we examined the presence of plagiarism policies and whether they referred to text matching software. We submitted articles to Turnitin and measured the extent of plagiarism (copying of someone else’s work) or redundancy (copying of one’s own work) against a set of criteria we had developed and piloted.ResultsOf the 100 journals, 26 had a policy on plagiarism and 16 referred to text matching software. Of 495 articles, 313 (63%; 95% CI 58 to 68) had evidence of plagiarism: 17% (83) had at least four linked copied or more than six individual copied sentences; 19% (96) had three to six copied sentences; and the remainder had one or two copied sentences. Plagiarism was more common in the introduction and discussion, and uncommon in the results.ConclusionPlagiarism is common in biomedical research articles and reviews published in Africa. While wholesale plagiarism was uncommon, moderate text plagiarism was extensive. This could rapidly be eliminated if journal editors implemented screening strategies, including text matching software.

show abstract

“…The advanced software is integrated with numerous publishers and online platforms to allow scanning of potential overlaps among countless open-access and subscription literature items [40]. Perhaps the most advanced anti-plagiarism system is iThenticate, which is employed by most established publishers to report the overall similarity score and similarity score from a single source [41]. The system offers options to filter direct quotations, bibliographies, and methodologies to minimize chances of erroneous reports [42].…”

Section: Plagiarism Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plagiarism detection and prevention: a primer for researchers

Zimba¹,

Gasparyan²

2021

Reumatologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plagiarism is an ethical misconduct affecting the quality, readability, and trustworthiness of scholarly publications. Improving researcher awareness of plagiarism of words, ideas, and graphics is essential for avoiding unacceptable writing practices. Global editorial associations have publicized their statements on strategies to clean literature from redundant, stolen, and misleading information. Consulting related documents is advisable for upgrading author instructions and warning plagiarists of academic and other consequences of the unethical conduct. A lack of creative thinking and poor academic English skills are believed to compound most instances of redundant and "copy-and-paste" writing. Plagiarism detection software largely relies on reporting text similarities. However, manual checks are required to reveal inappropriate referencing, copyright violations, and substandard English writing. Medical researchers and authors may improve their writing skills and avoid the same errors by consulting the list of retractions due to plagiarism which are tracked on the PubMed platform and discussed on the Retraction Watch blog.

show abstract

Plagiarism in Manuscripts Submitted to the AJR: Development of an Optimal Screening Algorithm and Management Pathways

Cited by 7 publications

References 3 publications

Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication: the Molecular and Cellular Biology Experience

Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication: the Molecular and Cellular Biology Experience

Plagiarism in research: a survey of African medical journals

Plagiarism detection and prevention: a primer for researchers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About