![]() Social-desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. Déjà vu-A study of duplicate citations in Medline. Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript. Suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript. How should editors respond to plagiarism? COPE Discussion Document. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(1), 25–30. Patterns of text reuse in a scientific corpus. Toronto, ON, Canada: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.Ĭitron, D. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. The Lowest form of flattery: Characterising text re-use and plagiarism patterns in a digital library corpus. Self-plagiarism or appropriate textual re-use? Journal of Academic Ethics, 7(3), 193–205. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 311–322. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors : Results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 415–426. Study of massive preprint archive hints at the geography of plagiarism. International Journal of Cultural Property, 19(3), 453–476. ![]() Recycling texts or stealing time?: Plagiarism, authorship, and credit in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 223–239. Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian medical journal. īaždarić, K., Bilić-Zulle, L., Brumini, G., & Petrovečki, M. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. Research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries. In conclusion, text-matching software is effective in providing evidence for plagiarism however, this includes only textually based cases of plagiarism, and the reliability of software results depends on additional human verification.Īna, J., Koehlmoos, T., Smith, R., & Yan, L. ![]() Plagiarism rates were higher across studies with a smaller sample size ( N < 500) or a larger number of plagiarism criteria used to identify plagiarism (4 or 5 criteria). Following factors were tested: the number of plagiarism criteria implemented during the human verification process, sample size, the country where the study was conducted, the scientific discipline of analyzed papers, and publication status of analyzed papers. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explain the large variance in the results. The result revealed that 18% (95% CI: 12–25%) of articles have instances of plagiarism. All articles assessed plagiarism in a two-step process, first identifying textual similarity based on text-matching software and second, additionally inspecting detected similarity in the human verification process. Ten articles met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis and they checked for plagiarism in 6459 already published articles or manuscripts submitted to journals or conferences. For this purpose, a literature search of 39 bibliographic databases has been conducted and a total of 10,005 articles have been identified. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the frequency of plagiarism in scientific papers estimated from publications that use text-matching software to identify plagiarism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |