Simultaneous submission, duplicate publication, self-plagiarism and the proper management

Wiwanitkit, Viroj

doi:10.4103/0972-9941.124487

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is important for the authors to know that editors use their own judgement regarding acceptability of articles for further view. The numerical results generated by plagiarism detection softwares are only an adjunct [21].…”

Section: Why Does Plagiarism Occur?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Plague of Plagiarism: Prevention and Cure!!!

Khadilkar

2018

J Obstet Gynecol India

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plagiarism is a serious form of scientific misconduct. Literal meaning of the Latin word ''to Plagiare'' is ''to steal or to kidnap''. The act of taking the writings of another person and passing them off as one's own is plagiarism. It implies intellectual theft in the world of medical writing. The ''copy and paste'' culture is becoming rampant all over the world after the advent of electronic publications, and Indian medical literature is no exception. This editorial will enlighten aspiring authors and readers about various forms of plagiarism and reasons for engaging in plagiarism. More so, it will also elaborate on how to prevent and cure this plague. Possible consequences that authors may face on detection of the plagiarism are also discussed. I am concluding my editorial series on medical writing with this last editorial of the year. I sincerely hope that these editorials helped authors and readers and this

show abstract

Section: Why Does Plagiarism Occur?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The journal may decide to publish errata, apology letter or a public notice of retraction of the published article. Apart from these, penalty may be levied on the authors based on the severity of the plagiarism [21,22].…”

Section: Plagiarism Detected: What Next?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Plague of Plagiarism: Prevention and Cure!!!

Khadilkar

2018

J Obstet Gynecol India

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Upon closer examination of the responses to editorials, we find that 100% of them were published in the twenty-first century. Joob & Wiwanitkit, 2013Keeble, 2016;Klosterman, 2013;Langdon-Neuner, 2008;Mohapatra & Samal, 2014;Teixeira da Silva, 2016;White, 2011;Wiwanitkit, 2012Wiwanitkit, , 2014Wiwanitkit, , 2015. Total 16 100.0 Teixeira da Silva (2016) addresses the differences between intentional and unintentional self-plagiarism, asserting that "when done mistakenly, it constitutes a serious error, and when done deliberately, it constitutes an act of misconduct because it misleads the editors, peers and ultimately, the public" (p. 943).…”

Section: Responses To Editorialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

Eaton

Crossman

2018

Interchange

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-plagiarism is a contentious issue in higher education, research and scholarly publishing contexts. The practice is problematic because it disrupts scientific publishing by overemphasizing results, increasing journal publication costs, and artificially inflating journal impact, among other consequences. We hypothesized that there was a dearth of empirical studies on the topic of self-plagiarism, with an over-abundance of editorial and commentary articles based on anecdotal evidence. The research question was: What typologies of evidence characterize the literature on self-plagiarism in scholarly and research journals? We conducted a scoping review, using the search terms "self-plagiarism" and "self-plagiarism" (hyphenated), consulting five social sciences research databases, supplemented by a manual search for articles, resulting in over 5900 results. After removing duplicates and excluding non-scholarly sources, we arrived at a data set of 133 sources, with publication dates ranging from 1968 to 2017. With an interrater reliability of over 93% between two researchers, our typological analysis revealed 47 sources (34.3%) were editorials; 41 (29.9%) were conceptual research (including teaching cases); 16 (11.7%) were editorial responses; 12 (8.6%) were secondary research; and only 8 sources (5.8%) were primary research. There is little guidance in the available literature to graduate students or their professors about how to disentangle the complexities of self-plagiarism. With primary and secondary research combined accounting for 14.4% of overall contributions to the data set, and primary research constituting only 6% of overall contributions, we conclude with a call for more empirical evidence on the topic to support contributions to the scholarly dialogue.

show abstract

“…Peer review cannot necessarily ensure that the paper is devoid of all mistakes; it can only claim that it is worth publishing (134). The publication of fraudulent research is damaging (116,119,120,(141)(142)(143)(144)(145)(146)(147)(148)(149)(150)(151)(152)(153)(154)(155)(156). A research worker was recently imprisoned for falsifying data in clinical trials (154).…”

Section: E9mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years, fraud, plagiarism, simultaneous submission, duplicate publication, and patterns of text reuse in the scientific corpus have become the focus of discussion. Of importance, in recent years, the anesthesiology community has learned of major fraud in clinical research committed by different authors (116,119,120,(141)(142)(143)(144)(145)(146)(147)(148)(149)(150)(151)(152)(153)(154)(155)(156). While the extent of malfeasance and fraud in clinical research is unknown, it is likely that data selection, incomplete blinding, undeserved authorship, and the post hoc designation of primary outcomes are relatively common (142).…”

Section: E9mentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias

Manchikanti

Kaye

Boswell³

et al. 2015

Pain Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific peer review is pivotal in health care research in that it facilitates the evaluation of findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. While the origins of peer review can be traced to the societies of the eighteenth century, it became an institutionalized part of the scholarly process in the latter half of the twentieth century. This was a response to the growth of research and greater subject specialization. With the current increase in the number of specialty journals, the peer review process continues to evolve to meet the needs of patients, clinicians, and policy makers. The peer review process itself faces challenges. Unblinded peer review might suffer from positive or negative bias towards certain authors, specialties, and institutions. Peer review can also suffer when editors and/or reviewers might be unable to understand the contents of the submitted manuscript. This can result in an inability to detect major flaws, or revelations of major flaws after acceptance of publication by the editors. Other concerns include potentially long delays in publication and challenges uncovering plagiarism, duplication, corruption and scientific misconduct. Conversely, a multitude of these challenges have led to claims of scientific misconduct and an erosion of faith. These challenges have invited criticism of the peer review process itself. However, despite its imperfections, the peer review process enjoys widespread support in the scientific community. Peer review bias is one of the major focuses of today’s scientific assessment of the literature. Various types of peer review bias include content-based bias, confirmation bias, bias due to conservatism, bias against interdisciplinary research, publication bias, and the bias of conflicts of interest. Consequently, peer review would benefit from various changes and improvements with appropriate training of reviewers to provide quality reviews to maintain the quality and integrity of research without bias. Thus, an appropriate, transparent peer review is not only ideal, but necessary for the future to facilitate scientific progress. Key words: Scientific research, peer review process, scientific publications, peer review bias, blinded peer review, scientific misconduct.

show abstract

Simultaneous submission, duplicate publication, self-plagiarism and the proper management

Cited by 4 publications

References 4 publications

The Plague of Plagiarism: Prevention and Cure!!!

The Plague of Plagiarism: Prevention and Cure!!!

Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About