Literature DB >> 23990409

Detecting and (not) dealing with plagiarism in an engineering paper: beyond CrossCheck-a case study.

Xin-xin Zhang1, Zhao-lin Huo, Yue-hong Zhang.   

Abstract

In papers in areas such as engineering and the physical sciences, figures, tables and formulae are the basic elements to communicate the authors' core ideas, workings and results. As a computational text-matching tool, CrossCheck cannot work on these non-textual elements to detect plagiarism. Consequently, when comparing engineering or physical sciences papers, CrossCheck may return a low similarity index even when plagiarism has in fact taken place. A case of demonstrated plagiarism involving engineering papers with a low similarity index is discussed, and editor's experiences and suggestions are given on how to tackle this problem. The case shows a lack of understanding of plagiarism by some authors or editors, and illustrates the difficulty of getting some editors and publishers to take appropriate action. Consequently, authors, journal editors, and reviewers, as well as research institutions all are duty-bound not only to recognize the differences between ethical and unethical behavior in order to protect a healthy research environment, and also to maintain consistent ethical publishing standards.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23990409     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-013-9460-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  10 in total

1.  Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized.

Authors:  Yuehong Zhang
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-09-09       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Journals step up plagiarism policing.

Authors:  Declan Butler
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-07-08       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case.

Authors:  Harold C Sox; Drummond Rennie
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-03-06       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  An analysis of student privacy rights in the use of plagiarism detection systems.

Authors:  Bo Brinkman
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian Medical Journal.

Authors:  Ksenija Baždarić; Lidija Bilić-Zulle; Gordana Brumini; Mladen Petrovečki
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  Plagiarism: words and ideas.

Authors:  Mathieu Bouville
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008.

Authors:  Elizabeth Wager; Peter Williams
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  Be careful! Avoiding duplication: a case study.

Authors:  Yue-hong Helen Zhang; Xiao-yan Jia; Han-feng Lin; Xu-fei Tan
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 3.066

Review 9.  Combating unethical publications with plagiarism detection services.

Authors:  H R Garner
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2011 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.498

10.  Text-based plagiarism in scientific writing: what Chinese supervisors think about copying and how to reduce it in students' writing.

Authors:  Yongyan Li
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 3.525

  10 in total
  3 in total

1.  Plagiarism, beyond CrossCheck, figure and conceptual theft.

Authors:  Viroj Wiwanitkit
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  'Standing on the Shoulders of Giants': Recontextualization in Writing from Sources.

Authors:  Yongyan Li
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: an online survey in Europe and China.

Authors:  Nannan Yi; Benoit Nemery; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 2.652

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.