1.Plagiarism in the Context of Education and Evolving Detection Strategies.
Armen Yuri GASPARYAN ; Bekaidar NURMASHEV ; Bakhytzhan SEKSENBAYEV ; Vladimir I TRUKHACHEV ; Elena I KOSTYUKOVA ; George D KITAS
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2017;32(8):1220-1227
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
2.How to Act When Research Misconduct Is Not Detected by Software but Revealed by the Author of the Plagiarized Article.
Olga D BAYDIK ; Armen Yuri GASPARYAN
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2016;31(10):1508-1510
The detection of plagiarism in scholarly articles is a complex process. It requires not just quantitative analysis with the similarity recording by anti-plagiarism software but also assessment of the readers' opinion, pointing to the theft of ideas, methodologies, and graphics. In this article we describe a blatant case of plagiarism by Chinese authors, who copied a Russian article from a non-indexed and not widely visible Russian journal, and published their own report in English in an open-access journal indexed by Scopus and Web of Science and archived in PubMed Central. The details of copying in the translated English article were presented by the Russian author to the chief editor of the index journal, consultants from Scopus, anti-plagiarism experts, and the administrator of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The correspondents from Scopus and COPE pointed to the decisive role of the editors' of the English journal who may consider further actions if plagiarism is confirmed. After all, the chief editor of the English journal retracted the article on grounds of plagiarism and published a retraction note, although no details of the complexity of the case were reported. The case points to the need for combining anti-plagiarism efforts and actively seeking opinion of non-native English-speaking authors and readers who may spot intellectual theft which is not always detected by software.
Administrative Personnel
;
Asian Continental Ancestry Group
;
Consultants
;
Editorial Policies
;
Ethics
;
Humans
;
Periodicals as Topic
;
Plagiarism
;
Publications
;
Retraction of Publication as Topic
;
Scientific Misconduct*
;
Theft