More on Plagiarism in the Social Sciences*

Stitzel, Brandli; Hoover, Gary A.; Clark, William C.

doi:10.1111/ssqu.12481

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After distributing our questionnaire to these journals and sending out two reminders, we eventually obtained a total of 361 useful responses. The final response rate of 6.12% is low, but comparable to, or even higher than response rates of similar online surveys among journal editors or authors regarding issues related to academic integrity (Hopp and Hoover 2017;Stitzel et al 2018). Nevertheless, our sample covers a wide range of research fields and reflects the distribution of journals over fields.…”

Section: The Samplementioning

confidence: 68%

Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?

Horbach

Halffman

2019

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review of journal submissions has become one of the most important pillars of quality management in academic publishing. Because of growing concerns with the quality and effectiveness of the system, a host of enthusiastic innovators has proposed and experimented with new procedures and technologies. However, little is known about whether these innovations manage to convince other journal editors. This paper will address open questions regarding the implementation of new review procedures, the occurrence rate of various peer review procedures and their distribution over scientific disciplines or academic publishers, as well as the motivations for editors or publishers to engage in novel review procedures. It shows that in spite of enthusiastic innovation, the adoption of new peer review procedures is in fact very slow, with the exception of text similarity scanners. For now, peer review innovations appear to be restricted to specific niches in academic publishing. Analysing these niches, the article concludes with a reflection on the circumstances in which innovations might be more widely implemented.

show abstract

Section: The Samplementioning

confidence: 68%

Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?

Horbach

Halffman

2019

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After the reminders, we eventually obtained a total of 361 useful responses. The final response rate of 6.12% is low, but comparable to, or even higher, than response rates of similar online surveys among journal editors or authors regarding issues related to academic integrity (Hopp and Hoover 2017 ; Stitzel et al 2018 ). Nevertheless, our sample covers a wide range of research fields and reflects the distribution of journals over research fields.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 67%

The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications

Horbach

Halffman

2018

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a mounting worry about erroneous and outright fraudulent research that gets published in the scientific literature. Although peer review’s ability to filter out such publications is contentious, several peer review innovations attempt to do just that. However, there is very little systematic evidence documenting the ability of different review procedures to flag problematic publications. In this article, we use survey data on peer review in a wide range of journals to compare the retraction rates of specific review procedures, using the Retraction Watch database. We were able to identify which peer review procedures were used since 2000 for 361 journals, publishing a total of 833,172 articles, of which 670 were retracted. After addressing the dual character of retractions, signalling both a failure to identify problems prior to publication, but also the willingness to correct mistakes, we empirically assess review procedures. With considerable conceptual caveats, we were able to identify peer review procedures that seem able to detect problematic research better than others. Results were verified for disciplinary differences and variation between reasons for retraction. This leads to informed recommendations for journal editors about strengths and weaknesses of specific peer review procedures, allowing them to select review procedures that address issues most relevant to their field. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11192-018-2969-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…A later Internet survey by Enders and Hoover 40 indicated that approximately two-thirds of their sample believed that plagiarism could be addressed by a profession-wide code of ethics. Over 10 years later, Stitzel et al 41 expanded the Enders and Hoover 39 study to other disciplines and found that 45% of journal editors in their sample reported having instituted a formal plagiarism policy, against the 19% reported in the Enders and Hoover 39 study. Stitzel et al 41 believe that, increasingly, the problem of plagiarism is being taken more seriously, with approximately 80% of journal editors suggesting that when clear-cut plagiarism is detected, it would be appropriate to ban the plagiarist from submitting future work to the journal.…”

Section: Role Of Journal Editors and Publishers In Addressing Plagiarismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plagiarism in South African management journals: A follow-up study

Thomas¹

2019

S. Afr. J. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internationally, a rise in plagiarism by academics has been reported. The objective of the present study was to examine the extent of plagiarism in articles appearing in 19 South African management journals published in 2016 and to compare the findings to a study undertaken in 2015 using 2011 data from the same 19 journals. This study progresses the debate around academic ethics and academic integrity in the country – a topic, thus far, that has received little research attention. A total of 454 published articles were submitted through the similarity detection software Turnitin™. High and excessive similarity was identified and over 80% of submissions evidenced similarity in excess of 9%. University administrators, journal editors and publishers, and the South African Department of Higher Education and Training are alerted to this plagiarism that undermines the academic pursuit. This awareness is particularly important as faculty serve as role models to students. Measures should thus be taken to ensure that faculty provide sound role models as ethical researchers. Significance: Plagiarism is an ongoing and increasing problem and is particularly concerning when faculty themselves plagiarise, as it impacts institutional integrity and culture, and negatively influences role modelling for students. The present study highlights the increase in plagiarism in the field of management and alerts other fields of academia to this problem. University administrators and journal editors and publishers are reminded about the roles they can play to address plagiarism.

show abstract

More on Plagiarism in the Social Sciences*

Cited by 9 publications

References 16 publications

Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?

Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?

The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications

Plagiarism in South African management journals: A follow-up study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About