Plagiarism Is Ubiquitous

Shafer, Steven L.

doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000001344

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Deeply committed to improving the journal’s quality and relevance, he carefully reviewed each submission for originality, accuracy, and clarity of thought and expression. 27–29…”

Section: Steven L Shafer Md: Safeguarding Scientific Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Deeply committed to improving the journal's quality and relevance, he carefully reviewed each submission for originality, accuracy, and clarity of thought and expression. [27][28][29] Dr Shafer continued to expand on several of Dr Miller's ideas. First, the "journal within a journal" concept grew, with several more subspecialty societies affiliating with Anesthesia & Analgesia: the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (2007), the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (2007), the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA, 2008), and the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine (2014).…”

Section: Steven L Shafer Md: Safeguarding Scientific Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a series of editorials on scientific integrity and publication ethics with arresting titles like "Shadow of Doubt" (2011), "You Will Be Caught" (2011), "Plagiarism Is Plagiarism Is Plagiarism" (2013), and "Plagiarism Is Ubiquitous" (2016), Dr Shafer openly described his experiences with exposing varying degrees of academic dishonesty. 20,29,37,38 He warned readers and potential authors of the rigorous processes in place at Anesthesia & Analgesia to safeguard against fraud. Dr Shafer's relentless creativity and drive breathed new life into Anesthesia & Analgesia.…”

Section: Steven L Shafer Md: Safeguarding Scientific Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Editors-in-Chief of Anesthesia & Analgesia Over 100 Years: Creating the Voice of the Global Anesthesiology Community

Moon

Bacon

Pittet

2022

Anesthesia &Amp; Analgesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The year 2022 marks the 100th anniversary of Anesthesia & Analgesia, the longest-running anesthesiology publication in the world. Founded in 1922 as Current Researches in Anesthesia & Analgesia by the visionary and charismatic Francis McMechan, MD, the journal served as a reliable mirror for the key scientific and political issues facing the nascent specialty of anesthesiology. Under the leadership of 6 subsequent Editors-in-Chief over the ensuing century-Howard

show abstract

“…Deeply committed to improving the journal’s quality and relevance, he carefully reviewed each submission for originality, accuracy, and clarity of thought and expression. 27–29…”

Section: Steven L Shafer Md: Safeguarding Scientific Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Steven L Shafer Md: Safeguarding Scientific Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Steven L Shafer Md: Safeguarding Scientific Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Editors-in-Chief of Anesthesia & Analgesia Over 100 Years: Creating the Voice of the Global Anesthesiology Community

Moon

Bacon

Pittet

2022

Anesthesia &Amp; Analgesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[ 13 ] Tools such as similarity check[ 14 ] are available to aid researchers detect similarities between manuscripts, and such checks should be done before submission. [ 15 ]…”

Section: Issues Related To the Researchermentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal and ethical issues in research

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legal and ethical issues form an important component of modern research, related to the subject and researcher. This article seeks to briefly review the various international guidelines and regulations that exist on issues related to informed consent, confidentiality, providing incentives and various forms of research misconduct. Relevant original publications (The Declaration of Helsinki, Belmont Report, Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences/World Health Organisation International Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, World Association of Medical Editors Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, CoSE White Paper, International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use-Good Clinical Practice) form the literature that are relevant to the ethical and legal aspects of conducting research that researchers should abide by when conducting translational and clinical research. Researchers should note the major international guidelines and regional differences in legislation. Hence, specific ethical advice should be sought at local Ethics Review Committees.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have revealed the situation around plagiarism in papers from different medical fields; most were focused on specific medical fields, for example, Baskaran et al (2019) analyzed plagiarism in andrology papers from the perspective of trends and differences in similarity indices between review and research articles. Shafer (2016) analyzed plagiarism in papers published in Anesthesia & Analgesia. Few studies have compared differences in text duplication or plagiarism between different medical fields.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Text duplication of papers in four medical related fields

Ni,

Shan,

et al. 2023

Journal of Data and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To reveal the typical features of text duplication in papers from four medical fields: basic medicine, health management, pharmacology and pharmacy, and public health and preventive medicine. To analyze the reasons for duplication and provide suggestions for the management of medical academic misconduct. Design/methodology/approach In total, 2,469 representative Chinese journal papers were included in our research, which were submitted by researchers in 2020 and 2021. A plagiarism check was carried out using the Academic Misconduct Literature Check System (AMLC). We generated a corrected similarity index based on the AMLC general similarity index for further analysis. We compared the similarity indices of papers in four medical fields and revealed their trends over time; differences in similarity index between review and research articles were also analyzed according to the different fields. Further analysis of 143 papers suspected of plagiarism was also performed from the perspective of sections containing duplication and according to the field of research. Findings Papers in the field of pharmacology and pharmacy had the highest similarity index (8.67 ± 5.92%), which was significantly higher than that in other fields, except health management. The similarity index of review articles (9.77 ± 10.28%) was significantly higher than that of research articles (7.41 ± 6.26%). In total, 143 papers were suspected of plagiarism (5.80%) with similarity indices ≥ 15%; most were papers on health management (78, 54.55%), followed by public health and preventive medicine (38, 26.58%); 90.21% of the 143 papers had duplication in multiple sections, while only 9.79% had duplication in a single section. The distribution of sections with duplication varied among different fields; papers in pharmacology and pharmacy were more likely to have duplication in the data/methods and introduction/background sections, however, papers in health management were more likely to contain duplication in the introduction/background or results/discussion sections. Different structures for papers in different fields may have caused these differences. Research limitations There were three limitations to our research. Firstly, we observed that a small number of papers have been checked early. It is unknown who conducted the plagiarism check as this can be included in other evaluations, such as applications for Science and technology projects or awards. If the authors carried out the check, text with high similarity indices may have been excluded before submission, meaning the similarity index in our research may have been lower than the original value. Secondly, there were only four medical fields included in our research. Additional analysis on a wider scale is required in the future. Thirdly, only a general similarity index was calculated in our study; other similarity indices were not tested. Practical implications A comprehensive analysis of similarity indices in four medical fields was performed. We made several recommendations for the supervision of medical academic misconduct and the formation of criteria for defining suspected plagiarism for medical papers, as well as for the improved accuracy of text duplication checks. Originality/value We quantified the differences between the AMLC general similarity index and the corrected index, described the situation around text duplication and plagiarism in papers from four medical fields, and revealed differences in similarity indices between different article types. We also revealed differences in the sections containing duplication for papers with suspected plagiarism among different fields.

show abstract

Plagiarism Is Ubiquitous

Cited by 10 publications

References 9 publications

The Editors-in-Chief of Anesthesia & Analgesia Over 100 Years: Creating the Voice of the Global Anesthesiology Community

The Editors-in-Chief of Anesthesia & Analgesia Over 100 Years: Creating the Voice of the Global Anesthesiology Community

Legal and ethical issues in research

Text duplication of papers in four medical related fields

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About