In ancient times, even the idea of an intellectual property did not exist. This latter finding underscores a need for monitoring scientific meeting submissions – as is now done when submitting manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals – to improve the integrity of scientific communications. This analysis indicates that textual overlap in abstracts of papers presented at scientific meetings is one-tenth that of peer-reviewed publications, yet the plagiarism rate is approximately the same as previously measured in peer-reviewed publications. Our main findings indicate that the vast majority of textual overlap occurred within the same meeting (2%) and between meetings of the same conference (3%), both of which were significantly higher than instances of plagiarism, which occurred in less than. A domain expert then reviewed random samples of highly similar abstracts (1500 total) to estimate the extent of text overlap and possible plagiarism. Pairwise comparisons were made using eTBLAST: a text similarity engine. We downloaded 144,149 abstracts from 207 national and international meetings of 63 biomedical conferences. In the present study, we applied the same analysis to a large sample of conference abstracts. We previously showed that text similarity analysis applied to Medline can identify and quantify plagiarism and duplicate publications in peer-reviewed biomedical journals. Scientists communicate progress and exchange information via publication and presentation at scientific meetings. Conclusions are presented concerning shortcomings in editorial processes that allow duplication of publications along with the factual impossibility of detecting duplication in cases of simultaneous submission of the manuscript to different journals, the insufficient use by journal editors of means for detecting inappropriate borrowings and the need to retract a significant number of articles in connection with the identified violations. A significant increase in the number and proportion of duplicated publications was identified in the period from 2014 to 2017. An analysis of the most significant cases by number of publications is presented along with a detailed discussion of examples of the identified violations. In each of the detected cases, the same – or significantly similar – texts were published two or more (up to 73) times. The study identified 70 406 cases of duplication of publications. Out of the almost 12 million full-text publications on the eLIBRARY.RU platform, more than 3.8 million scientific articles were selected for analysis. For the purposes of the study, we used the tools of the “Antiplagiat” plagiarism detection system.
#DEJA VU SYNONYM FULL#
The aim of the study is to assess the frequency of the above-noted violations in the data of eLIBRARY.RU, the largest aggregator of full texts of Russian-language scientific publications. The article presents a study of publication ethics violations in Russian-language scientific publications related to the duplicated publication. With primary and secondary research combined accounting for 14.4% of overall contributions to the data set, and primary research constituting only 6% of overall contributions, we conclude with a call for more empirical evidence on the topic to support contributions to the scholarly dialogue.
#DEJA VU SYNONYM HOW TO#
There is little guidance in the available literature to graduate students or their professors about how to disentangle the complexities of self-plagiarism. With an interrater reliability of over 93% between two researchers, our typological analysis revealed 47 sources (34.3%) were editorials 41 (29.9%) were conceptual research (including teaching cases) 16 (11.7%) were editorial responses 12 (8.6%) were secondary research and only 8 sources (5.8%) were primary research. After removing duplicates and excluding non-scholarly sources, we arrived at a data set of 133 sources, with publication dates ranging from 1968 to 2017.
#DEJA VU SYNONYM MANUAL#
The research question was: What typologies of evidence characterize the literature on self-plagiarism in scholarly and research journals? We conducted a scoping review, using the search terms “self-plagiarism” and “self-plagiarism” (hyphenated), consulting five social sciences research databases, supplemented by a manual search for articles, resulting in over 5900 results.
We hypothesized that there was a dearth of empirical studies on the topic of self-plagiarism, with an over-abundance of editorial and commentary articles based on anecdotal evidence. The practice is problematic because it disrupts scientific publishing by over-emphasizing results, increasing journal publication costs, and artificially inflating journal impact, among other consequences. Self-plagiarism is a contentious issue in higher education, research and scholarly publishing contexts.
0 kommentar(er)
