Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys

Abstract

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.

Plagiarism in the XXI Century: Who Needs It?

“…На фоне вышесказанного интересны результаты недавнего исследования V. Pupovac и D. Fanelli, кото-рые провели систематический обзор и метаанализ ано-нимных опросов исследователей с целью выяснить, использовали ли они различные формы плагиата в сво-их работах [20]. Выяснилось, что результаты в отно-шении допустимой нормы плагиата были значительно выше ожидаемых.…”

Unfair Means: Use Cases Beyond Plagiarism

“…Several authors have attempted to categorize plagiarism into different forms or types [2,7,10,12]. For example, Martin [10] lists several distinct forms of plagiarism: word-for-word plagiarism, paraphrasing plagiarism, plagiarism of secondary sources, plagiarism of the form of a source, plagiarism of ideas and plagiarism of authorship.…”

“…Plagiarism 1 and its detection has been a popular area of research for the past 25 years, particularly within academia [1,2,4,12]. Factors, such as the increased availability of freely-accessible digital content, the emergence of online essay banks and writing services, and technological developments are resulting in a rise in plagiarism, particularly in education 2 .…”

Plagiarism, Cheating and Research Integrity: Case Studies from a Masters Program in Peru

“…Plagiarism, the misappropriation of other’s intellectual contribution, is a serious form of research misconduct, and probably one of the most frequently reported type of research misconduct (Smith 2000). Despite the challenges in ascertaining the true frequency of plagiarism, recent estimates (around 2 %) suggest that it is much more common than previously thought (Pupovac and Fanelli 2015). However, this high frequency compared to other forms of research misconduct may partially result from enhanced detection by electronic methods.…”