Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers

Assessment of the knowledge and attitudes of the Iranian medical faculty toward plagiarism

This study is among the few investigations that assesses knowledge and attitudes of faculty members of medical sciences universities regarding plagiarism. This investigation focused on the relationship between personal factors and knowledge and attitudes toward plagiarism among Iranian faculty members of medical sciences affiliated with the Ministry of Health. This descriptive cross-sectional study was performed on 247 participants using demographic questionnaires that collected data on attitudes toward plagiarism and knowledge of plagiarism. The questionnaires were uploaded on Porsline. The subjects were provided with the purpose of the study, informed consent, and the link to the questionnaire through WhatsApp. The mean scores of knowledge variables and different domains of attitude were calculated, and then, the obtained averages were compared in terms of age, gender, and participation in ethics workshop using univariate tests. Finally, the MANCOVA was used considering five dimensions of the questionnaire to assess attitude, as multiple response variables, and independent variables, including gender and participation in the ethics workshop and control of knowledge and age. The mean age of the subjects in this study was 38.9 ± 8.4. 79.4% of the participants were women. Overall, 79.8% of people participated in ethics workshops, of whom 78% were women, and 86.5% were men. The mean score of knowledge in men and women was 1.35 ± 0.19 and 1.56. ± 0.24, respectively, which was higher in women than men (PV <0.001). The mean score of total attitudes was 3.19 ± 0.46. There was a high level of knowledge of plagiarism and positive attitudes toward plagiarism avoidance or prevention among participants in this study, which may spread to students, and help to promote integrity in the educational and clinical environment in Iran.

A global exploratory comparison of country self-citations 1996-2019

Self-citations are a key topic in evaluative bibliometrics because they can artificially inflate citation-related performance indicators. Recently, self-citations defined at the largest scale, i.e., country self-citations, have started to attract the attention of researchers and policymakers. According to a recent research, in fact, the anomalous trends in the country self-citation rates of some countries, such as Italy, have been induced by the distorting effect of citation metrics-centered science policies. In the present study, we investigate the trends of country self-citations in 50 countries over the world in the period 1996-2019 using Scopus data. Results show that for most countries country self-citations have decreased over time. 12 countries (Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and Ukraine), however, exhibit different behavior, with anomalous trends of self-citations. We argue that these anomalies should be attributed to the aggressive science policies adopted by these countries in recent years, which are all characterized by direct or indirect incentives for citations. Our analysis confirms that when bibliometric indicators are integrated into systems of incentives, they are capable of affecting rapidly and visibly the citation behavior of entire countries.

The landscape of the characteristics, citations, scientific, technological, and altmetrics impacts of retracted papers in hematology

Retraction is a mechanism for eliminating and correcting serious problems in the scientific literature and increasing awareness among members of the scientific community about unreliable literature. The objectives of this study were to identify the characteristics and reasons for retraction, analyze citations, and describe the scientific, altmetrics, and technological impacts of hematology retracted papers. Retracted papers were searched using the hematology category of the Web of Science database. The search yielded 101 retracted papers in WoS. Statistics methods such as frequency, mean, interquartile range (IQR), and Pearson's Correlation were used for data analysis. The findings showed the retracted papers were published in 28 different hematology journals. The majority of retracted documents were in Article type (n = 81). The mean time interval of the retracted papers from the first publication to retraction was 50.83 months. The largest number of retracted papers belonged to the United States (n = 46). The most frequently reported reason for retraction was misconduct (n = 55). The findings of this study provide a landscape into the characteristics and citations of retracted papers before and after retraction in addition to the scientific, technological, and altmetrics impacts of hematology retracted papers in the scientific community.

Characteristics of Retracted Publications From Kazakhstan: An Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database

BACKGROUND

Retraction is a correction process for the scientific literature that acts as a barrier to the dissemination of articles that have serious faults or misleading data. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of retracted papers from Kazakhstan.

METHODS

Utilizing data from Retraction Watch, this cross-sectional descriptive analysis documented all retracted papers from Kazakhstan without regard to publication dates. The following data were recorded: publication title, DOI number, number of authors, publication date, retraction date, source, publication type, subject category of publication, collaborating country, and retraction reason. Source index status, Scopus citation value, and Altmetric Attention Score were obtained.

RESULTS

Following the search, a total of 92 retracted papers were discovered. One duplicate article was excluded, leaving 91 publications for analysis. Most articles were retracted in 2022 (n = 22) and 2018 (n = 19). Among the identified publications, 49 (53.9%) were research articles, 39 (42.9%) were conference papers, 2 (2.2%) were review articles, and 1 (1.1%) was a book chapter. Russia (n = 24) and China (n = 5) were the most collaborative countries in the retracted publications. Fake-biased peer review (n = 38), plagiarism (n = 25), and duplication (n = 14) were the leading causes of retraction.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of the publications were research articles and conference papers. Russia was the leading collaborative country. The most prominent retraction reasons were fake-biased peer review, plagiarism, and duplication. Efforts to raise researchers' understanding of the grounds for retraction and ethical research techniques are required in Kazakhstan.

PLAGIARISM AND ITS REPERCUSSIONS: A PRIMER ON RESPONSIBLE SCIENTIFIC WRITING

Background: Plagiarism, in simple words meaning theft of ideas or text, is a grave scientific misconduct that is talked about frequently, however is notable in its conspicuous absence from the formal educational curriculum. Students and young researchers tend to engage in this malpractice, intentionally or unintentionally, due to various reasons. Aim: In this review, we aim to discuss a clear concept about plagiarism from its origin to its consequences, with special considerations about its status in the COVID-19 pandemic. This lucid conceptualization will help young authors invest in original research in terms of both the idea and the script, avoiding unnecessary rejections and breach in medical ethics. Search Strategy: An electronic search strategy was performed on MEDLINE using the following keywords: “Plagiarism” OR “Plagiarism AND reasons” OR “Plagiarism AND consequences OR retractions” OR “Plagiarism AND detection”. Results: Of 2112 articles obtained, 36 were selected for the review. The main reasons for this malpractice were pressure for publication under a limited time frame along with a lack of training for scientific writing. The forms of plagiarism observed include intentional and unintentional, theft of ideas, copying verbatim, graphics, self-plagiarism and translational plagiarism. Use of various software are available for detection of plagiarism like iThenticate, Turnitin Feedback Studio, Grammarly etc along with careful reviewing by authors, reviewers and editors can detect this menace and help maintain originality in science. The consequences can be severe, ranging from defamation to monetary to legal action against the authors. Conducting interactive workshops on scientific writing along with promoting creativity in thought at the level of grass-root education is the key to preventing the scientific misconduct of plagiarism amongst students and young researchers. Conclusion: Plagiarism is a serious scientific misconduct that must be discussed with students and young researchers, and its prevention is the key to fostering growth in medical science and academics.

Plagiarism detection and prevention: a primer for researchers

Plagiarism is an ethical misconduct affecting the quality, readability, and trustworthiness of scholarly publications. Improving researcher awareness of plagiarism of words, ideas, and graphics is essential for avoiding unacceptable writing practices. Global editorial associations have publicized their statements on strategies to clean literature from redundant, stolen, and misleading information. Consulting related documents is advisable for upgrading author instructions and warning plagiarists of academic and other consequences of the unethical conduct. A lack of creative thinking and poor academic English skills are believed to compound most instances of redundant and "copy-and-paste" writing. Plagiarism detection software largely relies on reporting text similarities. However, manual checks are required to reveal inappropriate referencing, copyright violations, and substandard English writing. Medical researchers and authors may improve their writing skills and avoid the same errors by consulting the list of retractions due to plagiarism which are tracked on the PubMed platform and discussed on the Retraction Watch blog.