Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Statement on Plagiarism

Asher, Shellie; Iserson, Kenneth V.; Merck, Lisa H.

doi:10.1111/acem.13241

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our patients, the clinicians who treat them, and the policymakers involved in various aspects of healthcare rely on credible, honest scholarship to inform decision-making. We agree also with the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine's (SAEM) recently published position statement that "the integrity of the research enterprise is of the utmost importance for the advancement of safe and effective medical practice for patients and for maintaining the public trust in health care" [2].…”

mentioning

confidence: 54%

“…Earlier this year, the editor-in-chief of Annals of Internal Medicine reported that the reviewer of one of its manuscripts "had stolen the contents of a manuscript sent to that reviewer for evaluation" and then that reviewer published that very same content almost verbatim in another journal [11]. Although that is obviously an egregious and bold form of plagiarism, in today's world of electronically shared and distributed data, plagiarism runs the entire gamut from overt plagiarism of another's intellectual property (as in that Annals case) to patchwork plagiarism from various sources, including from oneself [2]. Regardless of how it happens, any form "plagiarism tarnishes the research integrity" [12].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Maintaining the Public Trust in Journals with Ethical Publishing

Mycyk¹

2017

J. Med. Toxicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 54%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Maintaining the Public Trust in Journals with Ethical Publishing

Mycyk¹

2017

J. Med. Toxicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The aim was to inspect knoweldege and attitude of students towards plagiarism and to educate them to avoid plagiarism by means which are acceptable to achieve our objective. (6) The unethical act of using someone else's work as your own without or with the consent of a writer is plagiarism. Scientific writing is threatened for such transgressions since it constitutes literary robbery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Medical Students towards Plagiarism: A Cross-Sectional Study

Dars,

Fatima,

Shahazeb

et al. 2023

PJMHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: This study aims to determine how many medical students at MMC know about plagiarism, how they feel about it, and what they do about it. The study would find out how much they know about plagiarism, how they feel about it, how much they value academic integrity and originality, how smart they are, and what they think about academic honesty and intellectual property rights. Also, the study would look into what makes medical students feel good or bad about cheating. It could mean looking into educational interventions and policies that can raise knowledge of plagiarism and discourage it in the classroom. Methods: The Muhammad Medical College (MMC), located in Mirpurkhas, Sindh, Pakistan, conducted a cross-sectional study on MBBS students from the first to Final year. The self-administered, closed-ended questionnaire evaluated medical students' awareness, respect, and attitude toward plagiarism—a 3-option survey with closed questions. Two hundred medical students, ranging from (A) agree to (N) neutral to (DA) disagree. One hundred seventy medical students provided pros and disadvantages. Data were gathered, processed, and analyzed using Excel and SPSS 22. Results: First-question data demonstrates that most male and female students understand plagiarism's morality. Most students will understand citation and plagiarism if the second question is representative. Apathy helps students learn. The fourth question shows that most medical students—male and female—understand plagiarism's ethical implications. The subsequent questions show that medical students of different academic levels disagree on whether research newbies should be forgiven for plagiarism. Most students are agnostic or share this view. Based on these results, medical students doubt annual anti-plagiarism training. Some pupils need help to create an opinion. Most medical students, especially senior students, want tighter plagiarism laws. Practical Implication: Some learners need clarification on their stance or need extra knowledge and help before formulating an opinion. According to the research, most medical students, especially those in their last year, support discussing plagiarism at all academic levels. It shows a mature perspective of the students. Conclusion: This study illuminates medical students' views on plagiarism at undergraduate and graduate levels. Percentages show students' agreement, disagreement, and ambiguity. Data reveal that students of different academic years agree. These changes show that students question the efficacy of mandatory anti-plagiarism training at the start of each academic year Keywords: Plagiarism, Academic integrity, Intellectual property, Citation, Originality, Copyright infringement, Ethics, Attribution, Academic dishonesty, and Source acknowledgment.

show abstract

“…Disclosure of COI therefore aims to provide readers and other consumers complete context to make an informed judgment of the work . In published science, journal editors and peer reviewers serve as the first set of gatekeepers, but the onus is also on readers of journals to question findings and put a voice to those questions if something seems off …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even different forms of plagiarism can meet the definition of a nonfinancial COI as described in an SAEM Position Statement published recently in this journal . In today's multimedia era where so much scholarship is disseminated and shared electronically, using another's intellectual property by copy‐and‐paste without appropriate attribution, listing colleagues as authors who do not meet the ICMJE standard for authorship, or even recycling one's own previous work may undermine the integrity of the scientific enterprise when done to advance a secondary personal interest …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%