Authors, editors, and the signs, symptoms and causes of plagiarism

Shashok, Karen

doi:10.4103/1658-354x.84107

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of note is that more than half the sources in this category were published between 2010 and 2016. , 1981;Goldblatt, 1984;1990-19991 2.4 Samuelson, 1994200016 39.0 Berlin, 2009Bretag & Mahmud, 2009;Clarke, 2009;Collberg & Kobourov, 2005;Collberg et al 2003a;Dellavalle, Banks, & Ellis, 2007;Errami & Garner, 2008;Green, 2005;Hartle et al, 2009;Loui, 2002;Noè, & Batten, 2006;Roig, 2006Roig, , 2008Scanlon, 2007;Sikes;Wen, & Gao, 200721 51.2 Andreescu, 2013Anesa, 2013;Bruton, 2014;de Vasconcelos & Roig, 2015b;Garcia Romero et al, 2014;Gilliver, 2012;Habibzadeh & Shashok, 2011;Helgesson & Eriksson, 2015;Hicks & Berg, 2014;O'Brien Louch, 2016;Robinson, 2014;Roig, 2010Roig, , 2011Roig, , 2015Roig, , 2016Shashok, 2011;Suarez et al, 2012;Šupak-Smolčić, 2013;Šupak-Smolčić & Bilić-Zulle, 2013;…”

Section: Conceptual Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

Eaton

Crossman

2018

Interchange

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-plagiarism is a contentious issue in higher education, research and scholarly publishing contexts. The practice is problematic because it disrupts scientific publishing by overemphasizing results, increasing journal publication costs, and artificially inflating journal impact, among other consequences. We hypothesized that there was a dearth of empirical studies on the topic of self-plagiarism, with an over-abundance of editorial and commentary articles based on anecdotal evidence. The research question was: What typologies of evidence characterize the literature on self-plagiarism in scholarly and research journals? We conducted a scoping review, using the search terms "self-plagiarism" and "self-plagiarism" (hyphenated), consulting five social sciences research databases, supplemented by a manual search for articles, resulting in over 5900 results. After removing duplicates and excluding non-scholarly sources, we arrived at a data set of 133 sources, with publication dates ranging from 1968 to 2017. With an interrater reliability of over 93% between two researchers, our typological analysis revealed 47 sources (34.3%) were editorials; 41 (29.9%) were conceptual research (including teaching cases); 16 (11.7%) were editorial responses; 12 (8.6%) were secondary research; and only 8 sources (5.8%) were primary research. There is little guidance in the available literature to graduate students or their professors about how to disentangle the complexities of self-plagiarism. With primary and secondary research combined accounting for 14.4% of overall contributions to the data set, and primary research constituting only 6% of overall contributions, we conclude with a call for more empirical evidence on the topic to support contributions to the scholarly dialogue.

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

Eaton

Crossman

2018

Interchange

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shashok has also noted that many cases of plagiarism are unintentional and arise from lack of knowledge of citation practices, pressure to increase publication output, and inability to write and communicate ideas in English (which may lead to copy-pasting to improve use of language in the manuscript) (pers comm. Shashok, 2011).…”

Section: Shirazi Et Al Have Attributed Lack Of Training In Research mentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review #1 of "Exploring the attitudes of medical faculty members and students in Pakistan towards plagiarism: a cross sectional survey (v0.2)"

Bazdaric¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methods:The attitudes toward plagiarism questionnaire (ATPQ) was modified and distributed among 550 medical students and 130 faculty members in 7 medical colleges of Lahore and Rawalpindi. Data was entered in the SPSS v.20 and descriptive statistics were analyzed. The questionnaire was validated by principal axis factoring analysis. Results:Response rate was 93% and 73% respectively. Principal axis factoring analysis confirmed one factor structure of ATPQ in the present sample. It had an acceptable Cronbach's alpha value of 0.73. There were 421 medical students (218 (52%) female, 46% 3 rd year MBBS students, mean age of 20.93 ± 1.4 years) and 95 faculty members (54.7% female, mean age 34.5 ± 8.9 years). One fifth of the students (19.7%) trained in medical writing (19.7%), research ethics (25.2%) or were currently involved in medical writing (17.6%). Most of the faculty members were demonstrators (66) or assistant professors (20) with work experience between 1-10 years. Most of them had trained in medical writing (68), research ethics (64) and were currently involved in medical writing (64). Medical students and faculty members had a mean score of 43.21 (7.1) and 48.4 (5.9) respectively on ATPQ. Most of the respondents did not consider that they worked in a plagiarism free environment and reported that self-plagiarism should not be punishable in the same way as plagiarism. Opinion regarding leniency in punishment of younger researchers who were just learning medical writing was divided. Conclusions:The general attitudes of Pakistani medical faculty members and medical students as assessed by ATPQ were positive. We propose training in medical writing and research ethics as part of the under and post graduate medical curriculum.

show abstract

“…Reviewers and editors of different scientific journals are also responsible to avoid plagiarism by using plagiarism detecting software before publishing the research. [ 2 11 12 13 ]…”

Section: Plagiarism Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowing and avoiding plagiarism during scientific writing

Kumar¹,

Priya²,

Musalaiah³

et al. 2014

Ann Med Health Sci Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plagiarism has become more common in both dental and medical communities. Most of the writers do not know that plagiarism is a serious problem. Plagiarism can range from simple dishonesty (minor copy paste/any discrepancy) to a more serious problem (major discrepancy/duplication of manuscript) when the authors do cut-copy-paste from the original source without giving adequate credit to the main source. When we search databases like PubMed/MedLine there is a lot of information regarding plagiarism. However, it is still a current topic of interest to all the researchers to know how to avoid plagiarism. It's time to every young researcher to know ethical guidelines while writing any scientific publications. By using one's own ideas, we can write the paper completely without looking at the original source. Specific words from the source can be added by using quotations and citing them which can help in not only supporting your work and amplifying ideas but also avoids plagiarism. It is compulsory to all the authors, reviewers and editors of all the scientific journals to know about the plagiarism and how to avoid it by following ethical guidelines and use of plagiarism detection software while scientific writing.

show abstract

Authors, editors, and the signs, symptoms and causes of plagiarism

Cited by 15 publications

References 7 publications

Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

Peer Review #1 of "Exploring the attitudes of medical faculty members and students in Pakistan towards plagiarism: a cross sectional survey (v0.2)"

Knowing and avoiding plagiarism during scientific writing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About