Using ideas and methodologies from other authors without proper referencing is a form of plagiarism!

Rabozzi, Roberto; Oricco, Stefano; Meneghini, Caterina; Franci, Paolo

doi:10.1111/vru.12593

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Plagiarism and duplicate publication have increased since about 2005 [ 4 ], while compromised peer review has gained attention only more recently, since about 2015 [ 22 , 23 ]. There is evidence of awareness of publication misconduct within the veterinary research community, with published exchanges in veterinary journals that range from apologetic [ 24 , 25 ] to accusatory [ 26 ]. Such discussion also suggests a willingness to address and resolve issues of publication misconduct within the profession.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health

Christopher

2022

BMC Vet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Retractions are a key proxy for recognizing errors in research and publication and for reconciling misconduct in the scientific literature. The underlying factors associated with retractions can provide insight and guide policy for journal editors and authors within a discipline. The goal of this study was to systematically review and analyze retracted articles in veterinary medicine and animal health. A database search for retractions of articles with a veterinary/animal health topic, in a veterinary journal, or by veterinary institution-affiliated authors was conducted from first available records through February 2019 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Retraction Watch, and Google Scholar. Annual frequency of retractions, journal and article characteristics, author affiliation and country, reasons for retraction, and retraction outcomes were recorded. Results Two-hundred-forty-two articles retracted between 1993 and 2019 were included in the study. Over this period, the estimated rate of retraction increased from 0.03/1000 to 1.07/1000 veterinary articles. Median time from publication to retraction was 478 days (range 0-3653 days). Retracted articles were published in 30 (12.3%) veterinary journals and 132 (81.5%) nonveterinary journals. Veterinary journals had disproportionately more retractions than nonveterinary journals (P = .0155). Authors/groups with ≥2 retractions accounted for 37.2% of retractions. Authors from Iran and China published 19.4 and 18.2% of retracted articles respectively. Authors were affiliated with a faculty of veterinary medicine in 59.1% of retracted articles. Of 242 retractions, 204 (84.3%) were research articles, of which 6.4% were veterinary clinical research. Publication misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, compromised peer review) accounted for 75.6% of retractions, compared with errors (20.6%) and research misconduct (18.2%). Journals published by societies/institutions were less likely than those from commercial publishers to indicate a reason for retraction. Thirty-one percent of HTML articles and 14% of PDFs were available online but not marked as retracted. Conclusions The rate of retraction in the field of veterinary and animal health has increased by ~ 10-fold per 1000 articles since 1993, resulting primarily from increased publication misconduct, often by repeat offenders. Veterinary journals and society/institutional journals could benefit from improvement in the quality of retraction notices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health

Christopher

2022

BMC Vet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pleural irregularity results from mild peripheral loss of lung aeration, and the observed increase in thickness is not to be attributed to pleural tissue. For this reason, “irregular” is more suitable. Tissue‐like pattern (alveolar syndrome) 5 : complete loss of aeration in the affected area caused by consolidation or atelectasis. Consolidation occurs when inflamed or neoplastic tissue replaces aerated tissue, whereas atelectasis is a loss of aeration without any increase in tissue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tissue‐like pattern (alveolar syndrome) 5 : complete loss of aeration in the affected area caused by consolidation or atelectasis. Consolidation occurs when inflamed or neoplastic tissue replaces aerated tissue, whereas atelectasis is a loss of aeration without any increase in tissue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lung ultrasound score in dogs and cats: A reliability study

Oricco,

Medico,

Tommasi

et al. 2023

Veterinary Internal Medicne

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLung ultrasound (LUS) is a noninvasive tool for examining respiratory distress patients. The lung ultrasound score (LUSS) can be used to quantify and monitor lung aeration loss with good reliability.Hypothesis/ObjectivesAssess the reliability of a new LUSS among raters with different levels of experience and determine how well the same raters agree on identifying patterns of LUS abnormalities.AnimalsForty LUS examinations of dogs and cats and 320 videos were reviewed from a digital database.MethodsRetrospective reliability study with post hoc analysis. Protocolized LUS were randomly selected; intrarater and interrater reliability of the LUSS and pattern recognition agreement among 4 raters with different levels of experience in LUS were tested.ResultsThe intrarater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) single measurement, absolute agreement, and 2‐way mixed effects model was 0.967 for the high‐experience rater (H‐Exp), 0.963 and 0.952 for the medium‐experience raters (M‐Exp‐1; M‐Exp‐2), and 0.950 for the low‐experience rater (L‐Exp). The interrater ICC average measurement, absolute agreement, and 2‐way random effects model among the observers was 0.980. The Fleiss' kappa (k) values showed almost perfect agreement (k = 1) among raters in identifying pleural effusion and translobar tissue‐like pattern, strong agreement for A‐lines (k = 0.881) and B‐lines (k = 0.806), moderate agreement (k = 0.693) for subpleural loss of aeration, and weak agreement (k = 0.474) for irregularities of the pleural line.Conclusions and Clinical ImportanceOur results indicate excellent intra‐ and interrater reliability for LUS scoring and pattern identification, providing a foundation for the use of the LUSS in emergency medicine and intensive care.

show abstract

Using ideas and methodologies from other authors without proper referencing is a form of plagiarism!

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health

Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health

Lung ultrasound score in dogs and cats: A reliability study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About