Plagiarism in scientific writing: words or ideas?

Habibzadeh, Farrokh; Shashok, Karen

doi:10.3325/cmj.2011.52.576

Cited by 35 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Simply, when an author copies others’ text word for word, the borrowed passage should be enclosed in the quotation marks (inverted commas). The reader should be clearly informed over what is original and recycled from other sources (2, 9, 14, 15). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plagiarism in Scientific Publishing

Masic

2012

Acta Inform Med

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific publishing is the ultimate product of scientist work. Number of publications and their quoting are measures of scientist success while unpublished researches are invisible to the scientific community, and as such nonexistent. Researchers in their work rely on their predecessors, while the extent of use of one scientist work, as a source for the work of other authors is the verification of its contributions to the growth of human knowledge. If the author has published an article in a scientific journal it cannot publish the article in any other journal h with a few minor adjustments or without quoting parts of the first article, which are used in another article. Copyright infringement occurs when the author of a new article with or without the mentioning the author used substantial portions of previously published articles, including tables and figures. Scientific institutions and universities should,in accordance with the principles of Good Scientific Practice (GSP) and Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) have a center for monitoring,security, promotion and development of quality research. Establish rules and compliance to rules of good scientific practice are the obligations of each research institutions,universities and every individual-researchers,regardless of which area of science is investigated. In this way, internal quality control ensures that a research institution such as a university, assume responsibility for creating an environment that promotes standards of excellence, intellectual honesty and legality. Although the truth should be the aim of scientific research, it is not guiding fact for all scientists. The best way to reach the truth in its study and to avoid the methodological and ethical mistakes is to consistently apply scientific methods and ethical standards in research. Although variously defined plagiarism is basically intended to deceive the reader’s own scientific contribution. There is no general regulation of control of scientific research and intellectual honesty of researchers which would be absolutely applicable in all situations and in all research institutions. A special form of plagiarism is self-plagiarism. Scientists need to take into consideration this form of plagiarism, though for now there is an attitude as much as their own words can be used without the word about plagiarism. If the authors cite their own research facilities already stated then they should be put in quote sand cite the source in which it was published. Science should not be exempt from disclosure and sanctioning plagiarism. In the fight against intellectual dishonesty on ethics education in science has a significant place. A general understanding of ethics in scientific research work in all its stages had to be acquired during the undergraduate course and continue to intensify. It is also important ethical aspect of the publishing industry,especially in small and developing economies,because the issuer has an educational role in the development of the scientific community that aspires to relish so...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plagiarism in Scientific Publishing

Masic

2012

Acta Inform Med

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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

“…Plagiarism can be divided into direct (plagiarism of the text); mosaic ((the borrowing ideas and opinions from original source and a few verbatim words of phrases without crediting the author) and self-plagiarism (which referes to re-using one’s own work without citations) (21, 22). …”

Section: Plagiarism or Duplication Of Published Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reader should know in that article which are the words of the author, and which belonging to someone else. If the author has copied his own previously published material, it is a double publications or “ self-plagiarism ” (21, 22). …”

Section: Plagiarism or Duplication Of Published Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Aspects and Dilemmas of Preparing, Writing and Publishing of the Scientific Papers in the Biomedical Journals

Masic¹

2012

Acta Inform Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:In this paper author discussed about preparing and submitting manuscripts - scientific, research, professional papers, reviews and case reports. Author described it from the Editor’s perspective, and specially talked about ethical aspects of authorship, conflict of interest, copyright, plagiarism and duplicate publication from the point of view of his experiences as Editor-in-Chief of several biomedical journals and Chief of Task Force of European Federation of Medical Informatics journals and member of Task Force of European Cardiology Society journals. The scientific process relies on trust and credibility. The scientific community demands high ethical standards to conduct biomedical research and to publish scientific contents. During the last decade, disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI ), (also called competing loyalties, competing interests or dual commitments), has been considered as a key element to guarantee the credibility of the scientific process. Biases in design, analysis and interpretation of studies may arise when authors or sponsors have vested interests. Therefore, COI should be made clear to the readers to facilitate their own judgment and interpretation of their relevance and potential implications.Results and Discussion:Authors are responsible to fully disclose potential COI . In October 2009 the ICMJE proposed an electronic “uniform” format for COI disclosure. Four main areas were addressed: authors´ associations with entities that supported the submitted manuscript (indefinite time frame), associations with commercial entities with potential interest in the general area of the manuscript (time frame 36 months), financial association of their spouse and children and, finally, non-financial associations potentially relevant to the submitted manuscript. Consumers of medical scholarship expect a reliable system of disclosure in which journals and authors make disclosures appropriately and consistently. There is a stigma surrounding the reporting of COI that should be progressively overcome. Further actions are required to increase awareness of the importance of COI disclosure and to promote policies aimed to enhance transparency in biomedical research. In this article author discuss about important ethical dilemmas in preparing, writing and publishing of scientific manuscripts in biomedical journals.

show abstract

Plagiarism in scientific writing: words or ideas?

Cited by 35 publications

References 5 publications

Plagiarism in Scientific Publishing

Plagiarism in Scientific Publishing

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

Ethical Aspects and Dilemmas of Preparing, Writing and Publishing of the Scientific Papers in the Biomedical Journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About