2012
DOI: 10.4103/1658-354x.97017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Caveat lector

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
(7 reference statements)
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While understandable, this is not justifiable and if excessive may also be grounds for retraction [ 23 ]. Given that scientific journals increasingly screen every submission for plagiarism, the frequency of retraction for plagiarism will probably approach but not reach zero because plagiarism can escape detection by the detection software [ 24 ] It is tempting to speculate on the incidence of plagiarism before the "plagiarism detection software" era. This remains for others to explore.…”
Section: Scientific Misconductmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While understandable, this is not justifiable and if excessive may also be grounds for retraction [ 23 ]. Given that scientific journals increasingly screen every submission for plagiarism, the frequency of retraction for plagiarism will probably approach but not reach zero because plagiarism can escape detection by the detection software [ 24 ] It is tempting to speculate on the incidence of plagiarism before the "plagiarism detection software" era. This remains for others to explore.…”
Section: Scientific Misconductmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 2012, the Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia retracted a paper for plagiarism. [ 1 ] That retraction was accompanied by an editorial[ 2 ] entitled “Caveat Lector” in which Eldawlatly and Shafer exhorted readers to beware, presumably intending that readers of the scientific literature should be aware of the possibility that the content might be fictitious or otherwise affected by some form of misconduct.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Caveat editor . Perhaps Eldawlatly's and Shafer's editorial[ 2 ] would better have been entitled thus – let the editor beware. Editors, and the reviewers who help them, do act as the gatekeepers of the scientific literature to a large extent, and readers have little choice but to rely heavily on them to ensure the published material is of a high standard in all respects.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite all monitoring available to editors, the retraction of article of defaming a researcher in an institute, due to misconducts is still read in scientific journals. [ 7 ] This is rather assuring that like given anesthesia it should carry a lot of examination and far more continuous monitoring. Many human factors counts but honesty, ethics, and searching for truth is the most important quality of anesthesiologists.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%