No abstract available.
Plagiarism

Inappropriate authorship and other fraudulent publication strategies are pervasive. Here, I deal with contribution disclosures, authorship disputes versus plagiarism among collaborators, kin co-authorship, gender bias, authorship trade, and fake peer review (FPR). In contrast to underserved authorship and other ubiquitous malpractices, authorship trade and FPR appear to concentrate in some Asian countries that exhibit a mixed academic pattern of rapid growth and poor ethics. It seems that strong pressures to publish coupled with the incessantly growing number of publications entail a lower quality of published science in part attributable to a poor, compromised or even absent (in predatory journals) peer review. In this regard, the commitment of Publons to strengthen this fundamental process and ultimately ensure the quality and integrity of the published articles is laudable. Because the many recommendations for adherence to authorship guidelines and rules of honest and transparent research reporting have been rather ineffective, strong deterrents should be established to end manipulated peer review, undeserved authorship, and related fakeries.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Authorship* ; Dissent and Disputes ; Ethics ; Humans ; Peer Review* ; Plagiarism ; Publications ; Research Report ; Sexism

I have encountered 3 cases of plagiarism as editor of the Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS). The first one was copying figures from a JKMS article without citation, the second was submission of a copied manuscript of a published article to JKMS, and the third was publishing a copied JKMS article in another journal. The first and third cases violated copyrights of JKMS, but the violating journals made no action on the misconduct. The second and third cases were slightly modified copies of the source articles but similarity check by the Crosscheck could not identify the text overlap initially and after one year reported 96% overlap for the second case. The similarity of the third case was reported 3%. The Crosscheck must upgrade its system for better reliable screening of text plagiarism. The copy of the second case was committed by a corrupt Chinese editing company and also by some unethical researchers. In conclusion, plagiarism still threatens the trustworthiness of the publishing enterprises and is a cumbersome burden for editors of scholarly journals. We require a better system to increase the vigilance and to prevent the misconduct.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Copyright ; Humans ; Mass Screening ; Plagiarism*

In the present study, the frequency of research misconduct in Korean medical papers was analyzed using the similarity check software iThenticate®. All Korean papers written in English that were published in 2009 and 2014 in KoreaMed Synapse were identified. In total, 23,848 papers were extracted. 4,050 original articles of them were randomly selected for similarity analysis. The average Similarity Index of the 4,050 papers decreased over time, particularly in 2013: in 2009 and 2014, it was 10.15% and 5.62%, respectively. And 357 (8.8%) had a Similarity Index of ≥ 20%. Authors considered a Similarity Index of ≥ 20% as suspected research misconduct. It was found that iThenticate® cannot functionally process citations without double quotation marks. Papers with a Similarity Index of ≥ 20% were thus individually checked for detecting such text-matching errors to accurately identify papers with suspected research misconduct. After correcting text-matching errors, 142 (3.5% of the 4,050 papers) were suspected of research misconduct. The annual frequency of these papers decreased over time, particularly in 2013: in 2009 and 2014, it was 5.2% and 1.7%, respectively. The decrease was associated with the introduction of CrossCheck by KoreaMed and the frequent use of similarity check software. The majority (81%) had Similarity Indices between 20% and 40%. The fact suggested that low Similarity index does not necessarily mean low possibility of research misconduct. It should be noted that, although iThenticate® provides a fundamental basis for detecting research misconduct, the final judgment should be made by experts.
Duplicate Publication as Topic ; Editorial Policies ; Ethics* ; Judgment ; Periodicals as Topic ; Plagiarism ; Publications* ; Scientific Misconduct ; Synapses

No abstract available.
Plagiarism*

No abstract available.
Plagiarism*

No abstract available.
Plagiarism*

BACKGROUND: Journal editors have exercised their control over submitted papers having a high similarity index. Despite widespread suspicion of possible plagiarism on a high similarity index, our study focused on the real effect of the similarity index on the value of a scientific paper. METHODS: This research examined the percent values of the similarity index from 978 submitted (420 published) papers in the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology since 2012. Thus, this study aimed to identify the correlation between the similarity index and the value of a paper. The value of a paper was evaluated in two distinct phases (during a peer-review process vs. after publication), and the value of a published paper was evaluated in two aspects (academic citation vs. social media appearance). RESULTS: Yearly mean values of the similarity index ranged from 16% to 19%. There were 254 papers cited at least once and 179 papers appearing at least once in social media. The similarity index affected the acceptance/rejection of a paper in various ways; although the influence was not linear and the cutoff measures were distinctive among the types of papers, both extremes were related to a high rate of rejection. After publication, the similarity index had no effect on academic citation or social media appearance according to the paper. CONCLUSIONS: The finding suggested that the similarity index no longer had an influence on academic citation or social media appearance according to the paper after publication, while the similarity index affected the acceptance/rejection of a submitted paper. Proofreading and intervention for finalizing the draft by the editors might play a role in achieving uniform quality of the publication.
Anesthesiology ; Bibliometrics ; Literature Based Discovery ; Peer Review ; Plagiarism ; Publications ; Social Media

No abstract available.
Plagiarism*

Plagiarism may take place in any scientific journals despite currently employed anti-plagiarism tools. The absence of widely acceptable definitions of research misconduct and reliance solely on similarity checks do not allow journal editors to prevent most complex cases of recycling of scientific information and wasteful, or ‘predatory,’ publishing. This article analyses Scopus-based publication activity and evidence on poor writing, lack of related training, emerging anti-plagiarism strategies, and new forms of massive wasting of resources by publishing largely recycled items, which evade the ‘red flags’ of similarity checks. In some non-Anglophone countries ‘copy-and-paste’ writing still plagues pre- and postgraduate education. Poor research management, absence of courses on publication ethics, and limited access to quality sources confound plagiarism as a cross-cultural and multidisciplinary phenomenon. Over the past decade, the advent of anti-plagiarism software checks has helped uncover elementary forms of textual recycling across journals. But such a tool alone proves inefficient for preventing complex forms of plagiarism. Recent mass retractions of plagiarized articles by reputable open-access journals point to critical deficiencies of current anti-plagiarism software that do not recognize manipulative paraphrasing and editing. Manipulative editing also finds its way to predatory journals, ignoring the adherence to publication ethics and accommodating nonsense plagiarized items. The evolving preventive strategies are increasingly relying on intelligent (semantic) digital technologies, comprehensively evaluating texts, keywords, graphics, and reference lists. It is the right time to enforce adherence to global editorial guidance and implement a comprehensive anti-plagiarism strategy by helping all stakeholders of scholarly communication.
Education* ; Ethics ; Information Storage and Retrieval ; Plagiarism* ; Publications ; Recycling ; Retraction of Publication as Topic ; Scientific Misconduct ; Writing