The problem of plagiarism

Anderson, Melissa S.; Steneck, Nicholas H.

doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.09.013

Cited by 48 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Largely overlooked, like other forms of misconduct, until the early 1980s, plagiarism is now a priority of the research integrity agenda, and significant efforts are devoted to its identification, prevention and sanctioning (Steneck 1994;Anderson and Steneck 2011). Many research institutions and universities today have endorsed principles and standards for responsible conduct of research, for example by endorsing definitions of plagiarism, producing guidelines and policies to handle allegations, and organizing courses on how to prevent and detect plagiarism (Antes et al 2009;Resnik and Zeng 2010;Resnik and Master 2013;Godecharle et al 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Office of Research Integrity in the United States (hereafter, ORI), for example, reported only 14 findings of plagiarism compared to 119 findings of falsification or fabrication between the years 2000 and 2011 (ORI 2000(ORI -2011. This relative paucity of cases might reflect a lower likelihood of researchers to make formal allegations, possibly because in most cases the evidence for or against plagiarism is relatively clear, or could be explained by ORI's practice not to process allegations reflecting collaborative disputes (ORI 1994;Reich 2010;Anderson and Steneck 2011). The National Science Foundation (hereafter, NSF) reports similarly low numbers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys

Pupovac

Fanelli

2014

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of anonymous surveys asking scientists whether they ever committed various forms of plagiarism. From May to December 2011 we searched 35 bibliographic databases, five grey literature databases and hand searched nine journals for potentially relevant studies. We included surveys that asked scientists if, in a given recall period, they had committed or knew of a colleague who committed plagiarism, and from each survey extracted the proportion of those who reported at least one case. Studies that focused on academic (i.e. student) plagiarism were excluded. Literature searches returned 12,460 titles from which 17 relevant survey studies were identified. Meta-analysis of studies reporting committed (N = 7) and witnessed (N = 11) plagiarism yielded a pooled estimate of, respectively, 1.7% (95% CI 1.2-2.4) and 30% (95% CI 17-46). Basic methodological factors, including sample size, year of survey, delivery method and whether survey questions were explicit rather than indirect made a significant difference on survey results. Even after controlling for these methodological factors, between-study differences in admission rates were significantly above those expected by sampling error alone and remained largely unexplained. Despite several limitations of the data and of this meta-analysis, we draw three robust conclusions: (1) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is higher than for data fabrication and falsification; (2) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is correlated to that of fabrication and falsification; (3) The rate at which scientists admit having committed either form of misconduct (i.e. fabrication, falsification and plagiarism) in surveys has declined over time.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys

Pupovac

Fanelli

2014

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consiste en reproducir ideas y palabras de otros autores, haciéndolas pasar por propias y originales, sin el debido reconocimiento o atribución (Anderson;Steneck, 2011). Además, ante la popularización de software detector de plagio (Garner, 2011), se ha prestado atención a si las revistas someten el manuscrito a pruebas informáticas.…”

Section: Plagiounclassified

Indicaciones éticas en las revistas de educación indexadas en la WoS

Díaz-Campo¹,

Segado‐Boj²

2016

EPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceThe presence of ethical guidelines in the instructions for authors and reviewers from 214 journals indexed in the Educationand Educational Research category of the 2014 edition of the Journal Citation Reports is analyzed. Content and thematicanalysis methodology has been followed to examine the presence of topics regarding ethics of scholarly publishing andresearch. According to the results, 11.2% of the analyzed journals do not include mentions of any ethical topic and thepresence of the various subjects studied differs among the rest. The most frequent are criteria for determining plagiarism(63.01%) and duplicate publication (67.12%). Ethical responsibilities of reviewers (7.76%) and sanctions for misconduct(3.20%) have a low presence.Se investiga la presencia de indicaciones éticas en las directrices para autores y revisores de 214 revistas de la categoríaEducación e Investigación en Educación de los Journal Citation Reports de 2014. Se ha empleado un análisis de contenido y temático para examinar qué principios aparecen recogidos y cómo se abordan. Un 11,2% de revistas no incluye ningún tipo de directriz y existe una presencia desigual de los diferentes principios éticos en el resto. Los más abundantes son los criterios para establecer el plagio (63,01%) y la redundancia o duplicación de publicaciones (67,12%). Las responsabilidades éticas de los revisores (7,76%) y las sanciones (3,20%) por conducta poco ética tienen una presencia mínima

show abstract

“…Such critics often seem to view plagiarism through the lens of ownership and theft, and then infer that the notion of self-plagiarism is incoherent because stealing from oneself is impossible. Yet the predominant view is that misleading as the term might be, self-plagiarism is unethical primarily because it is deceptive and misleading (Anderson and Steneck 2011;Bruton 2014;Martin 2013). Authors typically must pledge that their work is original at the time of submission, and publishers, editors and readers generally assume and expect originality in academic publications.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Education Journal Editors’ Perspectives on Self-Plagiarism

Bruton

Rachal

2015

J Acad Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perspectives of academic journal editors regarding self-plagiarism were examined by means of an online survey in which 277 editors of education journals participated. Following the survey, a sub-sample of 14 editors were interviewed. A substantial majority of editors were found to be in accord with the most recent edition of the Publication Manual of the APA in believing that re-use of long, verbatim passages or tables, figures and images from an author's previously published work without appropriate citation is unethical, and most editors viewed less egregious self-borrowing as wrong also. However, numerous editors expressed unease with the general concept of self-plagiarism, and several of them noted contextual factors that can make limited self-plagiarism acceptable. A clear majority indicated support for a common policy regarding self-plagiarism but had doubts about the feasibility of getting agreement on a comprehensive statement.

show abstract

The problem of plagiarism

Cited by 48 publications

References 5 publications

Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys

Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys

Indicaciones éticas en las revistas de educación indexadas en la WoS

Education Journal Editors’ Perspectives on Self-Plagiarism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About