CrossCheck usage in a journal publication

Choi, Jaeseok; Park, Sohee; Oh, Ungjin

doi:10.6087/kcse.59

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, not only the appropriate writing of retraction articles but also the effort to prevent retractions should be included in editor training programs. To prevent duplicate publication, checking each submitted manuscript with CrossCheck, a similarity checking program for scholarly journal editors, should be a mandatory task of the editorial office or editorial board members [ 11 , 12 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of Retractions from Korean Medical Journals in the KoreaMed Database: A Bibliometric Analysis

Huh

Kim

Cho³

2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFlawed or misleading articles may be retracted because of either honest scientific errors or scientific misconduct. This study explored the characteristics of retractions in medical journals published in Korea through the KoreaMed database.MethodsWe retrieved retraction articles indexed in the KoreaMed database from January 1990 to January 2016. Three authors each reviewed the details of the retractions including the reason for retraction, adherence to retraction guidelines, and appropriateness of retraction. Points of disagreement were reconciled by discussion among the three.ResultsOut of 217,839 articles in KoreaMed published from 1990 to January 2016, the publication type of 111 articles was retraction (0.051%). Of the 111 articles (addressing the retraction of 114 papers), 58.8% were issued by the authors, 17.5% were jointly issued (author, editor, and publisher), 15.8% came from editors, and 4.4% were dispatched by institutions; in 5.3% of the instances, the issuer was unstated. The reasons for retraction included duplicate publication (57.0%), plagiarism (8.8%), scientific error (4.4%), author dispute (3.5%), and other (5.3%); the reasons were unstated or unclear in 20.2%. The degree of adherence to COPE’s retraction guidelines varied (79.8%–100%), and some retractions were inappropriate by COPE standards. These were categorized as follows: retraction of the first published article in the case of duplicate publication (69.2%), authorship dispute (15.4%), errata (7.7%), and other (7.7%).ConclusionThe major reason for retraction in Korean medical journals is duplicate publication. Some retractions resulted from overreaction by the editors. Therefore, editors of Korean medical journals should take careful note of the COPE retraction guidelines and should undergo training on appropriate retraction practices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of Retractions from Korean Medical Journals in the KoreaMed Database: A Bibliometric Analysis

Huh

Kim

Cho³

2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various ways exist to describe supplemental data 24 . If data are deposited in a repository site such as Harvard Dataverse, a digital object identifier is provided for the dataset itself, so that continuous linking and citing are possible 25 . It is recommended that Annals of Dermatology present a statement of clinical trial data sharing as has been suggested for other scientific journals, as in the following examples 24 : "Example 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Annals of Dermatology Has Improved the Scientific Quality and Ethical Standards of its Articles in the Two-Year Period since October 2018

Huh

2020

Ann Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Annals of Dermatology has not been deposited in PubMed Central (PMC) since October 2018 due to inadequate scientific quality, including the absence of informed consent in three case reports with patients' photos. This study examined the readiness of Annals of Dermatology to be deposited in PMC again by analyzing the 13 issues published from October 2018 to August 2020. The journal's scientific quality and ethical standards were assessed, and adherence to these standards was documented. In total, 259 articles were analyzed for ethical standards, including institutional review board (IRB) approval, an informed consent statement, and disclosure of conflicts of interest. Scientific quality was also checked for each article. Of the 129 original articles or brief reports presenting research on human subjects or human-derived materials, 111 studies received IRB approval and/or obtained informed consent. The other seven studies were data analyses or studies of purchased cultured cells. One study that used a post-circumcision foreskin sample contained no statement describing permission from the patient's family, but the researchers were found to have obtained informed consent. In all 152 case presentations, the authors obtained informed consent. All seven animal experiments received Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approval. One review article did not disclose conflicts of interest, but this was an editorial error. Two systematic reviews adopted the PRISMA guidelines. In conclusion, the present publication policies, scientific quality, and ethical standards of the journal are top-tier internationally. Annals of Dermatology may be ready to apply to PMC again. (Ann Dermatol 32(5) 353∼359, 2020

show abstract

“…This result may be associated with the recent publication awareness campaign in Korea to prevent duplicate publication [9]. In recent years, editors have been recommended to use a similarity check system when they receive a paper submission to help detect possible plagiarism and duplicate publication [10]. Altogether, duplicate publication is an important issue in publication ethics and should be prevented.…”

Section: Duplicate Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of consultations by the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors

Kim¹,

Han²

2020

Sci Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to analyze the inquiries on research and publication ethics submitted to the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. A total of 80 inquiries were initiated over the course of 3 years, from April 2017 to March 2020. Based on a categorization of these inquiries, four common topics are discussed in detail. We present specific cases derived from actual situations, and the steps taken in processing these inquiries. The number of inquiries by topic was as follows: duplicate publications (12), secondary publications (11), authorship disputes (11), informed consent (6), proceedings (5), copyright (5), institutional review board approval (5), plagiarism (4), corrections (4), and others (17). Cases of duplicate publication and authorship disputes can be treated according to the flow chart of the Committee on Publication Ethics of the United Kingdom. Secondary publications may be permitted if the readers or audiences are different and both journals’ editors grant permission. Editors should be cautious about publishing cases without informed consent, even in the absence of identifiable photos, because patients or their families may be able to identify the cases. An adequate awareness of ethical considerations relevant to publication can help reduce the number of instances of research and publication ethics misconduct.

show abstract

CrossCheck usage in a journal publication

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

Characteristics of Retractions from Korean Medical Journals in the KoreaMed Database: A Bibliometric Analysis

Characteristics of Retractions from Korean Medical Journals in the KoreaMed Database: A Bibliometric Analysis

How Annals of Dermatology Has Improved the Scientific Quality and Ethical Standards of its Articles in the Two-Year Period since October 2018

Analysis of consultations by the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About