Self-plagiarism and dual and redundant publications: what is the problem? Commentary on 'Seven ways to plagiarize: handling real allegations of research misconduct'

A large dataset of scientific text reuse in Open-Access publications

We present the Webis-STEREO-21 dataset, a massive collection of Scientific Text Reuse in Open-access publications. It contains 91 million cases of reused text passages found in 4.2 million unique open-access publications. Cases range from overlap of as few as eight words to near-duplicate publications and include a variety of reuse types, ranging from boilerplate text to verbatim copying to quotations and paraphrases. Featuring a high coverage of scientific disciplines and varieties of reuse, as well as comprehensive metadata to contextualize each case, our dataset addresses the most salient shortcomings of previous ones on scientific writing. The Webis-STEREO-21 does not indicate if a reuse case is legitimate or not, as its focus is on the general study of text reuse in science, which is legitimate in the vast majority of cases. It allows for tackling a wide range of research questions from different scientific backgrounds, facilitating both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the phenomenon as well as a first-time grounding on the base rate of text reuse in scientific publications.

Researchers’ awareness about plagiarism and impact of plagiarism detection tools – does awareness effect the actions towards preventing plagiarism?

Purpose

This paper aims to analyse researchers’ awareness about plagiarism and impact of plagiarism detection tools on the actions that they take to prevent plagiarism. It also employs a structural model that examines whether awareness of plagiarism and anti-plagiarism tools have any significant effect on the actions taken by the researchers to avoid plagiarism.

Design/methodology/approach

A survey questionnaire was distributed to researchers at a large public university in Bangladesh. The survey accumulated 184 valid responses. Descriptive statistics were obtained to assess researchers’ awareness about plagiarism and impact of plagiarism detection tools and the actions taken by them. The reasons that may cause plagiarism were also identified. The awareness of the availability of the anti-plagiarism software that was being used by the university and its actual use by the researchers was gathered through the survey. Non-parametric Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests were conducted to investigate the differences in awareness levels and actions in terms of gender, age, discipline and current level of research. The chi-square test was carried out to examine the relationship between awareness about the availability of the anti-plagiarism software and its use by the researchers. Finally, the survey data were analysed using structural equation modeling to examine the effects of awareness of plagiarism and anti-plagiarism software on the actions taken by the researchers.

Findings

The study revealed that the level of awareness regarding plagiarism and impact of plagiarism detection software is generally high among the researchers. There are some significant differences between researchers’ demographic and personal characteristics and their awareness levels and actions with regard to plagiarism. The findings indicate that almost three-quarters of the researchers were aware about the anti-plagiarism tool that is being used, whereas more than half of the researchers indicated that they used the software to assess their works. The results of the structural equation model do not show a good fit, although there is strong statistical evidence that awareness about plagiarism and anti-plagiarism software has significantly impacted researchers’ actions towards preventing plagiarism.

Originality/value

There is no reported study on researchers’ awareness of plagiarism and its affiliated issues in Bangladesh. The findings of this study will not only provide useful insights regarding awareness about plagiarism but also assist university authorities to formulate relevant policy and take necessary actions against plagiarism in higher education institutions.

Describing the Attributional Nature of Academic Dishonesty

There is strong evidence that dishonesty occurs amongst medical students, and other allied health students and growing evidence that it occurs amongst medical academics. We believe that accidental dishonesty (or not knowing about the rules of regulations governing academic integrity) is a common attribution describing engagement in dishonesty; however, we believe that dishonest action is more often influenced and determined according to circumstance. In this paper, we aim to work through the literature that frames dishonest action with a focus on medical education, research and publication. We argue that the implications for medical education are far reaching and the root causes of many instances of dishonesty need to be more fully understood so that comprehensive, case-by-case ameliorative strategies can be developed.

Text Recycling in Scientific Writing

Text recycling, often called "self-plagiarism", is the practice of reusing textual material from one's prior documents in a new work. The practice presents a complex set of ethical and practical challenges to the scientific community, many of which have not been addressed in prior discourse on the subject. This essay identifies and discusses these factors in a systematic fashion, concluding with a new definition of text recycling that takes these factors into account. Topics include terminology, what is not text recycling, factors affecting judgements about the appropriateness of text recycling, and visual materials.

Aberration of the Citation

Multiple inherent biases related to different citation practices (for e.g., self-citations, negative citations, wrong citations, multi-authorship-biased citations, honorary citations, circumstantial citations, discriminatory citations, selective and arbitrary citations, etc.) make citation-based bibliometrics strongly flawed and defective measures. A paper can be highly cited for a while (for e.g., under circumstantial or transitional knowledge), but years later it may appear that its findings, paradigms, or theories were untrue or invalid anymore. By contrast, a paper may remain shelved or overlooked for years or decades, but new studies or discoveries may actualize its subject at any moment. As citation-based metrics are transformed into "commercial activities," the "citation credit" should be considered on a commercial basis too, in the sense that "citation credit" should be shared out as a "citation dividend" by shareholders (coauthors) averagely or proportionally to their contributions but not fully appropriated by each of them. At equal numbers of citations, the greater number of authors, the lower "citation credit" should be and vice versa. Overlooking the presence of distorted and subjective citation practices makes many people and administrators "obsessed" with the number of citations to such an extent to run after "highly cited" authors and to create specialized citation databases for commercial purposes. Citation-based bibliometrics, however, are unreliable and unscientific measures; citation counts do not mean that a more cited work is of a higher quality or accuracy than a less cited work because citations do not measure the quality or accuracy. Citations do not mean that a highly cited author or journal is more commendable than a less cited author or journal. Citations are not more than countable numbers: no more, no less.

Including non-public data and studies in systematic reviews and systematic maps

Systematic reviews and maps should be based on the best available evidence, and reviewers should make all reasonable efforts to source and include potentially relevant studies. However, reviewers may not be able to consider all existing evidence, since some data and studies may not be publicly available. Including non-public studies in reviews provides a valuable opportunity to increase systematic review/map comprehensiveness, potentially mitigating negative impacts of publication bias. Studies may be non-public for many reasons: some may still be in the process of being published (publication can take a long time); some may not be published due to author/publisher restrictions; publication bias may make it difficult to publish non-significant or negative results. Here, we consider what forms these non-public studies may take and the implications of including them in systematic reviews and maps. Reviewers should carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of including non-public studies, weighing risks of bias against benefits of increased comprehensiveness. As with all systematic reviews and maps, reviewers must be transparent about methods used to obtain data and avoid risks of bias in their synthesis. We make tentative suggestions for reviewers in situations where non-public data may be present in an evidence base.

Prior Publication and Redundancy in Contemporary Science: Are Authors and Editors at the Crossroads?

We discuss prior publication and redundancy in contemporary science in the context of changing perceptions of originality in the communication of research results. These perceptions have been changing in the publication realm, particularly in the last 15 years. Presenting a brief overview of the literature, we address some of the conflicts that are likely to arise between authors and editors. We illustrate our approach with conference presentations that are later published as journal articles and focus on a recent retraction of an article that had been previously published as a conference proceedings. Although we do not make definitive pronouncements on the matter-as many concepts are evolving-we do argue that conference papers that contain sufficient details for others to attempt a replication and are indexed in scientific databases such as PubMed, challenge some currently held assumptions of prior publication and originality in the sciences. Our view is that these important issues are in need of further clarification and harmonization within the science publishing community. This need is more evident when we consider current notions of research integrity when it comes to communication to peers. Revisiting long-standing views about what constitutes prior publication and developing a clearer set of guidelines for authors and editors to follow should reduce conflicts in the research environment, which already exerts considerable pressure, especially on newcomers in academia. However, while clearer guidelines are timely, developing them is only part of the challenge. The present times seem to call for deeper changes in the research and publication systems.

Screening for self-plagiarism in a subspecialty-versus-general imaging journal using iThenticate

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Self-plagiarism is a form of research misconduct that can dilute the credibility and reputation of a scientific journal, as well as the represented specialty. Journal editors are aware of this problem when reviewing submissions and use on-line plagiarism-analysis programs to facilitate detection. The American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR) uses iThenticate to screen several submitted original research manuscripts selected for review per issue and retrospectively assesses 3 issues per year. The prevalence of self-plagiarism in AJNR was compared with that in Radiology; the necessity and cost of more extensive screening in AJNR were evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The self-duplication rate in AJNR original research articles was compared with that in Radiology, a general imaging journal that screens all submitted original research manuscripts selected for review by using iThenticate. The rate of self-duplication in original research articles from 2 randomly selected 2012 AJNR issues was compared with the rate in the prior year to gauge the need for more extensive screening. A cost analysis of screening all submitted original research manuscripts selected for review by using iThenticate was performed.

RESULTS

Using an empiric 15% single-source duplication threshold, we found that the rate of significant self-plagiarism in original research articles was low for both journals. While AJNR had more articles exceeding this threshold, most instances were insignificant. Analyzing 2 randomly chosen issues of AJNR for single-source duplication of >15% in original research articles yielded no significant differences compared with an entire year. The approximate annual cost of screening all submitted original research manuscripts selected for review was US $6800.00.

CONCLUSIONS

While the rate of self-plagiarism was low in AJNR and similar to that in Radiology, its potential cost in negative impact on AJNR and the subspecialty of neuroradiology justifies the costs of broader screening.

Critical issues in the teaching of responsible writing

In this paper I identify some of the more common, problematic writing practices (e.g., plagiarism, selective reporting of literature, and/or results, 'spin') found in traditional journal articles, along with associated variables, and suggest ways to correct them. The primary aim of the discussion is to emphasize the cultivation of transparency, excellence in scholarship, and a 'best practices' approach to disseminating the results of our research.

Retracted science and the retraction index

Articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered trustworthy due to scientific misconduct or error, they plagiarize previously published work, or they are found to violate ethical guidelines. Using a novel measure that we call the "retraction index," we found that the frequency of retraction varies among journals and shows a strong correlation with the journal impact factor. Although retractions are relatively rare, the retraction process is essential for correcting the literature and maintaining trust in the scientific process.

Re-using text from one's own previously published papers: an exploratory study of potential self-plagiarism

A preliminary, two-part study explored the extent to which authors reuse portions of their own text from previously published papers. All 9 articles from a recent issue of a psychology journal were selected as target papers. Up to 3 of the most recent references cited in each of the target articles and written by the same authors were also obtained. All target articles and their corresponding references were stored digitally. Then, using specialized software, each reference was compared to its target article to assess the number of strings of text identical to both papers. Only one of the nine target articles reused significant amounts of text from one of its references. To explore further the possibility of additional text reuse, the references in each of the 9 sets of papers were compared against each other. The new comparison identified 5 pairs of papers with a substantial number of identical strings of text of 6 consecutive words in length or longer, but most of the reused text was confined to the Method section. The results suggest that some of these authors reuse their own text with some frequency, but this was largely confined to complex methodological descriptions of a research design and procedure.