How to Check From Plagiarism Agains Refereed Journals
J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Jul 13; 35(27): e217.
Similarity and Plagiarism in Scholarly Periodical Submissions: Bringing Clarity to the Concept for Authors, Reviewers and Editors
Aamir Raoof Memon
Institute of Physiotherapy & Rehabilitation Sciences, Peoples Academy of Medical & Health Sciences for Women, Nawabshah (Shaheed Benazirabad), Sindh, Islamic republic of pakistan.
Received 2020 Apr 2; Accustomed 2020 May 7.
INTRODUCTION
What constitutes plagiarism? What are the methods to observe plagiarism? How exercise "plagiarism detection tools" help in detecting plagiarism? What is the divergence betwixt plagiarism and similarity index? These are probably the most common questions regarding plagiarism that many research experts in scientific writing are usually faced with, simply a definitive respond to them is less known to many. According to a written report published in 2018, papers retracted for plagiarism have sharply increased over the last two decades, with college rates in developing and non-English language speaking countries.ane Several studies take reported similar findings with Iran, Prc, Bharat, Japan, Korea, Italy, Romania, Turkey, and France amongst the countries with highest number of retractions due to plagiarism.one,2,3,4 A study reported that duplication of text, figures or tables without appropriate referencing deemed for 41.iii% of post-2009 retractions of papers published from Bharat.5 In Islamic republic of pakistan, Journal of Islamic republic of pakistan Medical Association started a special section titled "Learning Research" and published a couple of papers on research writing skills, research integrity and scientific misconduct.half-dozen,seven However, the trouble has not been adequately addressed and specific issues nearly information technology remain unresolved and unclear. According to an unpublished data based on 1,679 students from four universities of Pakistan, 85.5% did not have a articulate understanding of the divergence between similarity index and plagiarism (unpublished data). Smart et al.8 in their global survey of editors reported that effectually 63% experienced some plagiarized submissions, with Asian editors experiencing the highest levels of plagiarized/duplicated content. In some papers, journals from non-English speaking countries have specifically discussed the cases of plagiarized submissions to them and have highlighted the drawbacks in relying on similarity checking programs.nine,10,11 The cases of plagiarism in non-English speaking countries have a strong bulletin for honest researchers that they should ameliorate their English writing skills and credit used sources past properly citing and referencing them.12
Despite aggregating literature on plagiarism from non-Anglophonic countries, the answers to the aforementioned questions remain unclear. In order to answer these questions, it is important to have a thorough understanding of plagiarism and bring clarity to the less known bug well-nigh it. Therefore, this newspaper aims to ane) ascertain plagiarism and growth in its prevalence as well as literature on it; 2) explain the difference between similarity and plagiarism; 3) discuss the role of similarity checking tools in detecting plagiarism and the flaws on completely relying on them; and 4) discuss the phenomenon called Trojan commendation. At the stop, suggestions are provided for authors and editors from developing countries and then that this result maybe collectively addressed.
PLAGIARISM
Defining plagiarism and its prevalence in manuscripts
To begin with, plagiarism maybe divers as "when somebody presents the published or unpublished work of others, including ideas, scholarly text, images, research design and information, every bit new and original rather than crediting the existing source of it."thirteen The common types of plagiarism, including direct, mosaic, paraphrasing, intentional (covert) or unintentional (accidental) plagiarism, and cocky-plagiarism take been discussed in previous reviews.14,15,16
Bear witness suggests that the first paper accused for plagiarism was published in 1979 and in that location has been a substantial growth in the cases of plagiarism over time.1,two,3,4,v,8,17 Previous studies have pointed that plagiarism is prevalent in developing and non-English speaking countries merely the occurrence of plagiarism in developed countries suggests that it is rather a global trouble.1,2,3,iv,18,nineteen,20 Every bit of today (1 April 2020), the search conducted in Retraction Database (http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?) for papers retracted for plagiarism found 2,280 documents. Similarly, Scopus search for plagiarism in title of journal manufactures plant 2,159 results. This suggests that the papers retracted for plagiarism are in fact higher than the papers published on this event. However, what we see at present may not necessary be true i.eastward., the cases of plagiarism might be higher than we know. Certainly, database search for papers tagged for plagiarism is limited to indexed journals but, which keeps non-indexed journals (both low-quality and deceptive journals) out of focus.5,21 Moreover, journal coverage may vary from ane database to the other as reported in a recent paper on inquiry dissemination in Southern asia.22 Therefore, both the prevalence of plagiarism and literature published on it equally reported past database search are most likely "understated as of today."5
Reasons for plagiarism: lack of agreement and poor citing practices
Although reasons for plagiarism are complex, previous papers have suggested possible causes for plagiarism by authors.xvi,23,24,25,26 One of the major but less known reason for this might exist that the students, naïve researchers, and fifty-fifty some faculty members either lack clarity about what constitutes plagiarism or are unable to differentiate similarity index versus plagiarism.24,26,27 For example, a recent online survey conducted on the participants in the AuthorAID MOOC on Research Writing found that 84.four% of the survey participants were unaware of the difference between similarity alphabetize and plagiarism, though almost all of them had reported having an understanding of plagiarism.24 The same paper reported that i in three participants admitted that they had plagiarized at some signal during their academic career.24 Therefore, it is important to have clarity almost what constitutes plagiarism and the difference betwixt similarity alphabetize and plagiarism and so that the increasing rates of plagiarism could be deterred.
The 'existing source' or 'original source' in the definition of plagiarism refers to the main (primary) source and not the source (secondary) from where the author extracts the data. For example, someone cites a paper for a passage on mechanism of how exercise affects sleep merely the cited paper aims to determine the prevalence of sleep disorders and exercise level rather than the mechanistic association. A thorough evaluation finds that the cited paper had used the text from some other review paper that talked about the mechanisms relating sleep with exercise behavior. This phenomenon of improper secondary (or indirect) citations may exist common amid students and novice researchers, particularly from developing countries, and should be discouraged.27
SIMILARITY INDEX
Plagiarism vs. similarity index and the part of similarity checking tools
Plagiarism as divers to a higher place refers to the intentional (covert) or unintentional (accidental) theft of published or unpublished intellectual property (i.e., words or ideas), whereas similarity alphabetize refers to "the extent of overlap or friction match between an author's work compared to other existing sources (books, websites, student thesis, and enquiry articles) in the databases of similarity checking tools."nine,24 The advancements in information technology has helped researchers get assistance from various freely bachelor (i.e., Viper, eTBLAST/HelioBLAST, PlagScan, PlagiarismDetect, Antiplagiat, Plagiarisma, DupliChecker) and subscription-based (i.due east., iThenticate, Turnitin, Similarity Check) similarity checking tools.8,24 Many journal editors utilize iThenticate and/or Similarity Check (Crossref) for screening submitted manuscripts for similarity detection whereas Turnitin is normally used by universities and kinesthesia to appraise text similarity in students' work; however, there is a fairness outcome that not every periodical or academy, particularly those from developing countries, can afford to pay for using these subscription-based services.28 For instance, an online survey found that only nigh 18% participants could use Turnitin through their university subscription.24 Some other trouble is the way these tools are usually referred to as i.e., plagiarism detection tools, plagiarism checking software, or plagiarism detection programs. Even so, based on the function they perform, it would be appropriate to phone call them differently, such as similarity checking tools, similarity checkers, text-matching tools, or merely text-duplicity detection tools.5,eight,23 This means that these tools help locate matching or overlapping text (similarity) in submitted work, without directly flagging upwards plagiarism.24
Taking Turnitin as an instance, these tools reverberate the text similarity through color codes, each linked to an online source of it; details for this accept been described elsewhere.23,28 Journal editors, universities and some organizations consider text higher up specific cutoff values for the percentage of similarity every bit problematic. According to a paper, 5% or less text similarity (overlap of the text in the manuscript with text in the online literature) is acceptable to some journal editors, while others might want to put the manuscript under scrutiny if the text similarity is over 20%.29,30 Another newspaper observed that periodical editors tend to pass up a manuscript if text similarity is above 10%.31 The study on participants completing the AuthorAID MOOC on Research Writing also found that some participants reported that their institutions consider text similarity of less than 20% as acceptable.24 Every bit an example, the guidelines of the University Grants Commission of Bharat permit for similarity up to 10% equally acceptable or pocket-sized (Level 0), only anything above is categorized into dissimilar levels (based on the percentages), each with separate listing of repercussions for students and researchers.32 This arroyo might miss the cases where the adequate similarity of 10% comes from a single source, peculiarly if the editors relied on the numbers only. In addition, this approach has the potential for punishing authors who accept not committed plagiarism at all. To illustrate this, the randomly written text presented in Fig. 1 would exist considered plagiarism based on the rule of cutoff values. Some authors opine that text with over four sequent words or a number of word strings should be treated every bit plagiarized.28,33 This again is non a good idea as the text "the International Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to measure …" would be same in several papers, but this is definitely not plagiarism because the methodology of dissimilar papers on the same topic could be similar; then, the decision should not exist based on the numbers reflected past similarity detection tools.28 Therefore, it would be prudent not to ready whatsoever cutoff values for text similarity every bit information technology volition lead to a slippery slope ("a grade of action that seems to lead inevitably from one action or result to some other with unintended consequences"–defined past Merriam-Webster Dictionary) and requite "a sense of impunity to the perpetrators."32
Turnitin report for text similarity based on a randomly written text (on April 2, 2020). The author of this newspaper has admission to Turnitin through the Academy and not to iThenticate. Therefore, Turnitin was used as an case in Fig. 1.
Drawbacks of similarity checking tools
There are a few drawbacks on completely relying on the similarity checking tools. First, these tools are not foolproof and might miss the incidents of translational plagiarism and effigy plagiarism.24 Translational plagiarism is the about invisible type of copying in non-Anglophone countries where an article published in languages other than English is copied (with or without minor modifications) and published in an English language journal or vice versa.10 This is indeed extremely difficult blazon of plagiarism to notice, and different approaches (e.1000., use of Google translator) to address information technology take been recently reported.34,35 Nevertheless, at that place might be some cases where this practice maybe adequate, such as publishing policy papers (run across "Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals" – this paper was published in International Journal of Occupational and Ecology Medicine, National Medical Journal of Republic of india, and Biochemia Medica in 2017 by authors affiliated with World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) – or "The revised guidelines of the Medical Quango of India for bookish promotions: Need for a rethink" – this paper was published in over 10 journals during 2016 by four journal editors and endorsed by members (not all) of the Indian Association of Medical Journal Editors, for example). 2nd, text similarity in some parts of manuscript (i.east., methods and results) should exist weighed differently from other sections (i.e., introduction and discussions) and its conclusions.31 In addition, based on the personal experience of the author of this paper, some individuals might use a sophisticated technique to avoid detection of high similarity through the utilise of inappropriate synonyms, jargon, and deliberate grammatical and structural errors in the text of the manuscript. Third, plagiarism of ideas may exist missed past these tools every bit they tin can only detect plagiarism of words.23,32 Therefore, similarity checking tools tend to underestimate plagiarized text or sometimes overestimate non-plagiarized material as problematic (Fig. 1).24,36 It should be noted that these tools serve equally merely an aid to determine suspected instances of plagiarism and the text of the manuscript should always be evaluated by experts, so "a conscientious human cannot be replaced."31,37 A few papers published in the Journal of Korean Medical Science take presented the examples where plagiarized content was missed by similarity checking tools and afterward noticed after a careful exam of the text.nine,ten Finally, plagiarism of unpublished work cannot be detected by these tools every bit they are limited to online sources only.23 This is particularly important in the context of developing countries where research theses/dissertations of students are not deposited in research repositories, and where commercial, predatory editing and brokering services exist.ten,38 For example, the research repository of the Higher Teaching Commission of Islamic republic of pakistan allows deposition of doctoral theses only, and less than v universities (out of over 150) across the state have a enquiry repository allowing for deposition of scholarly content.38 Recently some strange tendency of predatory editing and brokering services has emerged that offering clones of previously published papers or unpublished work to not-Anglophone or some lazy authors demanding quick and easy route to publications for promotion and career advancement.10 Although plagiarism of unpublished work would not be easy for experts to detect, this may be possible through their previous experience and scholarly networks.
TROJAN CITATION: PERSONAL Experience
A recent experience worth discussion in context to plagiarism comes in the shape of the Trojan citation where someone "makes reference to a source in one case to in lodge to evade detection (past editors and readers) of bad intentions and provide cover for a deeper, more pervasive plagiarism."39 This practice is specially common in those with an intent of deceiving the readers and playing with the system. A few months agone, the author of this newspaper was invited to review a manuscript on predatory publishing by a periodical. The content of the manuscript appeared suspicious but was not labelled "plagiarized" during the beginning circular of the review. However, during the second round, it was noticed that this was a case of Trojan commendation where the writer(s) cited the main source for a pocket-sized signal and copied the major part of the manuscript from a paper published in Biochemia Medica (a Croation journal) with slight modification in the content.xl The editor of the journal was informed most this and the manuscript was rejected further processing. This example suggests that careful homo intervention past experts is required to highlight the cases of plagiarism.
Determination
In conclusion, what we know about the growth in the prevalence of plagiarism may be 'simply the tip of the iceberg'. Therefore, collective contribution from authors, reviewers, and editors, particularly from Asia-Pacific region, is required. Authors from the Asia-Pacific region and developing countries, with an expertise on this topic, should play their function by supporting journal editors and through their mentorship skills. Furthermore, senior researchers should encourage and help their honors and chief students to publish their unpublished work before it gets stolen past commercial, brokering agencies. They should also work in close collaboration with universities and organizations related with higher education in countries where this result is not properly addressed, and should facilitate educational activity and training sessions on plagiarism equally previous evidence suggests that workshops and online training sessions may exist helpful.five On the other manus, journal editors from Asia-Pacific region and developing countries should not judge the manuscripts solely on the basis of percentage of similarity as reflected by similarity checking services. They should have a database of their ain where manuscripts about plagiarism in scientific writing, for example, should exist sent for review to the experts on this subject. As journal editors may not be experts in all fields, networking and seeking help from experts would be helpful in avoiding the cases of plagiarism in the future. It would be appropriate that the journal editors and the trainee editors, especially from the resources-limited countries, are educated nigh the concept of scientific misconduct and the advocacy in knowledge effectually this area. Moreover, journal editors should publish and publically talk over the cases of plagiarism as a learning experience for others. The Periodical of Korean Medical Science has used this approach regarding cases of plagiarism, which other journals from the region are encouraged to adopt.nine,10 Likewise, a paper discussing case scenarios of salami publication (i.e., "a singled-out course of redundant publication which is usually characterized by similarity of hypothesis, methodology or results but non text similarity") serves every bit a expert example of how journal editors may facilitate authors to utilize their mentorship skills and support journals in educating researchers.41 There should be strict penalties on cases of plagiarism, and safety measures for security of whistleblowers should be in place and be ensured. By doing so, evil and lazy authors who bypass the system would exist punished and honest authors would be served. Thus, the have-home message for editors from Asia-Pacific region is that a collective endeavour and commitment from authors, reviewers, editors and policy-makers is required to accost the problem of plagiarism, especially in the developing and non-English speaking countries.
Footnotes
Disclosure: The author has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
1. Brainard J, You J. What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about scientific discipline publishing'southward 'death sentence' Science. 2018;25(i):ane–v. [Google Scholar]
2. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(42):17028–17033. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Stretton S, Bramich NJ, Keys JR, Monk JA, Ely JA, Haley C, et al. Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: a systematic, retrospective study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2012;28(ten):1575–1583. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Amos KA. The ideals of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and indistinguishable publication across nations. J Med Libr Assoc. 2014;102(ii):87–91. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Misra DP, Ravindran V, Wakhlu A, Sharma A, Agarwal Five, Negi VS. Plagiarism: a viewpoint from India. J Korean Med Sci. 2017;32(11):1734–1735. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Jawad F. Plagiarism and integrity in research. J Pak Med Assoc. 2013;63(11):1446–1447. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vii. Rathore FA, Farooq F. Plagiarism detection softwares: useful tools for medical writers and editors. J Pak Med Assoc. 2014;64(eleven):1329–1330. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eight. Smart P, Gaston T. How prevalent are plagiarized submissions? Global survey of editors. Learn Publ. 2019;32(1):47–56. [Google Scholar]
9. Baydik OD, Gasparyan AY. How to act when research misconduct is not detected by software only revealed by the writer of the plagiarized commodity. J Korean Med Sci. 2016;31(ten):1508–1510. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Hong ST. Plagiarism continues to affect scholarly journals. J Korean Med Sci. 2017;32(two):183–185. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Park S, Yang SH, Jung East, Kim YM, Baek HS, Koo YM. Similarity analysis of Korean medical literature and its association with efforts to improve research and publication ethics. J Korean Med Sci. 2017;32(six):887–892. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Yessirkepov M, Nurmashev B, Anartayeva M. A scopus-based assay of publication activity in Republic of kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: positive trends, concerns, and possible solutions. J Korean Med Sci. 2015;30(12):1915–1919. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Roig M. Encouraging editorial flexibility in cases of textual reuse. J Korean Med Sci. 2017;32(four):557–560. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Das Northward, Panjabi G. Plagiarism: why is it such a big upshot for medical writers? Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(2):67–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
fifteen. Das Northward. Intentional or unintentional, it is never alright to plagiarize: a note on how Indian universities are brash to handle plagiarism. Perspect Clin Res. 2018;9(ane):56–57. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Mohammed RA, Shaaban OM, Mahran DG, Attellawy HN, Makhlof A, Albasri A. Plagiarism in medical scientific research. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2015;x(1):vi–xi. [Google Scholar]
17. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One. 2013;eight(7):e68397. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xviii. Halupa C, Bolliger DU. Kinesthesia perceptions of student self plagiarism: an exploratory multi-university study. J Acad Ethics. 2013;xi(4):297–310. [Google Scholar]
nineteen. Higgins JR, Lin FC, Evans JP. Plagiarism in submitted manuscripts: incidence, characteristics and optimization of screening-instance study in a major specialty medical periodical. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;ane(ane):xiii. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Almeida RM, de Albuquerque Rocha G, Catelani F, Fontes-Pereira AJ, Vasconcelos SM. Plagiarism allegations account for nigh retractions in major Latin American/Caribbean databases. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(5):1447–1456. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Memon AR. Revisiting the term predatory open up admission publishing. J Korean Med Sci. 2019;34(thirteen):e99. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Memon AR. Scholarly publishing and research dissemination in South Asia: some exemplary initiatives and the way forward. J Pak Med Assoc. 2019;69(9):1349–1354. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Meo SA, Talha K. Turnitin: is information technology a text matching or plagiarism detection tool? Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;xiii(v) Suppl 1:S48–S51. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Memon AR, Mavrinac 1000. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of plagiarism as reported past participants completing the AuthorAID MOOC on research writing. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020;26(2):1067–1088. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Shashok Yard. Authors, editors, and the signs, symptoms and causes of plagiarism. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011;five(iii):303–307. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Heitman E, Litewka South. International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for educational activity international trainees. Urol Oncol. 2011;29(i):104–108. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Mogull SA. Accurateness of cited "facts" in medical research articles: a review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate. PLoS Ane. 2017;12(ix):e0184727. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Pastor JC. Plagiarism in publications. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2018;93(12):571–572. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Peh WC, Arokiasamy J. Plagiarism: a joint statement from the Singapore medical periodical and the medical journal of Malaysia. Singapore Med J. 2008;49(12):965–966. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
thirty. Swaan PW. Publication ideals--a guide for submitting manuscripts to pharmaceutical inquiry. Pharm Res. 2010;27(9):1757–1758. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Mahian O, Treutwein One thousand, Estellé P, Wongwises S, Wen D, Lorenzini G, et al. Measurement of similarity in bookish contexts. Publications. 2017;5(3):18. [Google Scholar]
32. Kadam D. Bookish integrity and plagiarism: the new regulations in India. Indian J Plast Surg. 2018;51(2):109–110. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Bouville M. Plagiarism: words and ideas. Sci Eng Ideals. 2008;xiv(iii):311–322. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Spiroski M. How to verify plagiarism of the paper written in Macedonian and translated in foreign language? Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2016;four(i):1–4. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Masic I. What to do when you take suspect translational plagiarism?-editor'southward view. Med Arch. 2018;72(vi):466–467. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Foltýnek T, Dlabolová D, Anohina-Naumeca A, Razı S, Kravjar J, Kamzola L, et al. Testing of back up tools for plagiarism detection. [Updated 2020]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.04279.
37. Glänzel Westward, Braun T, Schubert A, Zosimo-Landolfo M. Coping with copying. Scientometrics. 2015;102(ane):i–iii. [Google Scholar]
38. Memon AR, Rathore FA. Moodle and online learning in Pakistani Medical Universities: An opportunity worth exploring in higher teaching and research. J Pak Med Assoc. 2018;68(7):1076–1078. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Shaw D. The Trojan commendation and the "accidental" plagiarist. J Bioeth Inq. 2016;13(ane):7–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xl. Ferris LE, Winker MA. Ethical problems in publishing in predatory journals. Biochem Med. 2017;27(2):279–284. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from Journal of Korean Medical Science are provided here courtesy of Korean Academy of Medical Sciences
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7358069/
0 Response to "How to Check From Plagiarism Agains Refereed Journals"
Post a Comment