Science Editing

Case Study

Plagiarism detection in manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Surgical Sciences between 2020 and 2021: a case study: Florentina Mu?at, Dan Nicolae P?duraru, Alexandra Bolocan, Daniel Ion, Alexandru Constantinescu, Octavian Andronic; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):149-153. Published online August 17, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.313

1,919 View
249 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: The aim of this study was to share our experience with plagiarism detection in manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Surgical Sciences, a Romania-based medical journal, between 2020 and 2021. We analyzed similarity score reports from 200 articles submitted consecutively for publication between 2020 and 2021 generated by PlagScan, a software tool for plagiarism detection. The similarity score ranged from 0% to 92.4%, and 45 articles presented scores over 25.0%. According to PlagScan’s results, more than half of the submitted articles had a similarity score of more than 10% and one-third of them had a similarity score above 20%. Among submitted manuscripts with a similarity score of less than 20%, a larger proportion of the original research and review manuscripts than case reports used more than 10 sources. All articles with a similarity score below 20% were evaluated qualitatively before the final decision of rejection.

Original Article

Impact and perceived value of the revolutionary advent of artificial intelligence in research and publishing among researchers: a survey-based descriptive study: Riya Thomas, Uttkarsha Bhosale, Kriti Shukla, Anupama Kapadia; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):27-34. Published online February 16, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.294

3,364 View
336 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Purpose: This study was conducted to understand the perceptions and awareness of artificial intelligence (AI) in the academic publishing landscape.
Methods
We conducted a global survey entitled “Role and impact of AI on the future of academic publishing” to understand the impact of the AI wave in the scholarly publishing domain. This English-language survey was open to all researchers, authors, editors, publishers, and other stakeholders in the scholarly community. Conducted between August and October 2021, the survey received responses from around 212 universities across 54 countries.
Results
Out of 365 respondents, about 93% belonged to the age groups of 18–34 and 35–54 years. While 50% of the respondents selected plagiarism detection as the most widely known AI-based application, image recognition (42%), data analytics (40%), and language enhancement (39%) were some other known applications of AI. The respondents also expressed the opinion that the academic publishing landscape will significantly benefit from AI. However, the major challenges restraining the large-scale adoption of AI, as expressed by 93% of the respondents, were limited knowledge and expertise, as well as difficulties in integrating AI-based solutions into existing IT infrastructure.
Conclusion
The survey responses reflected the necessity of AI in research and publishing. This study suggests possible ways to support a smooth transition. This can be best achieved by educating and creating awareness to ease possible fears and hesitation, and to actualize the promising benefits of AI.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The impact of generative AI tools on researchers and research: Implications for academia in higher education
Abdulrahman M. Al-Zahrani
Innovations in Education and Teaching International.2023; : 1. CrossRef

Case Studys

Consultation questions on publication ethics from 2016 to 2020 addressed by the Committee on Publication Ethics of the Korean Council of Science Editors: Woo Jin Son, Cheol-Heui Yun; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):112-116. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.238

4,108 View
86 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

With the goal of improving the publishing ecosystem and promoting transparency in journal publishing, we describe some recent cases in scientific publishing in Korea. The current article summarizes ethical inquiries from domestic journals and publishers, most of whom are members of the Korean Council of Science Editors. We selected 15 representative questions asked during the last 4 years. Those inquiries were classified into hot topics such as plagiarism, duplicate publications, multiple submission, and others (informed consent, copyright, compliance with journal regulations, authors’ responsibilities, and voluntary retraction requests). When plagiarism is suspected, editors and reviewers should assess the situation following the relevant rules and procedures, and if necessary, the manuscript should be rejected. Cases of duplicate publication should be clearly stated in both papers based on the explicit agreement of the editor-in-chief of both journals. As a general rule, the entire content of an article should be published in one issue, but if the article is too long, it may need to be published in two issues. Permission from both journals is required. The abstract and references should be separated accordingly. In cases of copyright conflict, voluntary withdrawal of a paper, or non-compliance with publishing regulations, the manuscript must be withdrawn according to specific procedures (referring to the COPE flow chart). All correspondence regarding a manuscript should be with the corresponding author, who communicates directly with the journal. We hope that these recommendations will help readers in the field of scientific publishing to address issues related to publication ethics.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance
Sun Huh
Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef

Korean court cases regarding research and publication ethics from 2009 to 2020: Ju Yoen Lee; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):98-103. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.236

4,595 View
137 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Research and publication misconduct may occur in various forms, including author misrepresentation, plagiarism, and data fabrication. Research and publication ethics are essentially not legal duties, but ethical obligations. In reality, however, legal disputes arise over whether research and publication ethics have been violated. Thus, in many cases, misconduct in research and publication is determined in the courts. This article presents noteworthy legal cases in Korea regarding research and publication ethics to help editors and authors prevent ethical misconduct. Legal cases from 2009 to 2020 were collected from the database of the Supreme Court of Korea in December 2020. These court cases represent three case types: 1) civil cases, such as affirmation of nullity of dismissal and damages; 2) criminal cases, such as fraud, interference with business, and violations of copyright law; and 3) administrative cases related to disciplinary measures against professors affiliated with a university. These cases show that although research and publication ethics are ethical norms that are autonomously established by the relevant academic societies, they become a criterion for case resolution in legal disputes where research and publication misconduct is at issue.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance
Sun Huh
Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef

Original Articles

Internal affairs: the fate of authors from the University of the Philippines accused of plagiarism, 1990s to 2010s: Miguel Paolo P. Reyes, Joel F. Ariate; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):128-136. Published online August 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.173

19,820 View
323 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose: This study centers on 25 cases of plagiarism in scientific publications committed by faculty members and students of the University of the Philippines and dealt with by eight of the university’s academic publishers.
Methods
We focus on the publishers’ responses to these cases, details of which we obtained from various sources, vis-à-vis the University of the Philippines’ policies on plagiarism.
Results
The responses to plagiarism were found to vary, at times seemingly arbitrarily, but tended toward protecting the identities or details of the accused, unless the case became publicized.
Conclusion
Such maintenance of confidentiality is inimical to the fulfillment of academic publishers’ duties to the rest of the academic community. We herein suggest policies to address the identified deficits.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Fragmented or centralized?: Comparative case study of ethical frameworks for social research in Philippines and Taiwan
Jayson Troy F. Bajar
International Journal of Ethics Education.2022; 7(2): 235. CrossRef

Korean medical students’ knowledge about and attitudes towards plagiarism according to their commission of plagiarism: Man Sup Lim, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):106-111. Published online August 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.170

5,740 View
153 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose: This study investigated Korean medical students’ knowledge about and attitudes towards plagiarism according to their commission of plagiarism. Furthermore, the institutional environment regarding plagiarism was assessed.
Methods
A questionnaire provided by Turnitin was distributed to 67 first-year medical students of Hallym University, Korea in December 17, 2015 through SurveyMonkey, a web survey platform. Of the 67 subjects, responses from 60 students (89.6%) were analyzed with descriptive statistics and a comparative analysis.
Results
The respondents’ average knowledge level about plagiarism, measured as the item difficulty index for the relevant 8 items, was 0.658 (maximum 1). More than half did not know where they could find guidance about how to reference others’ work. They were only a little confident (41.7%) or not confident (11.7%) in referencing others’ work. They felt that plagiarism was not dealt with seriously at the university (53.3%). Eighty percent of students wanted their instructors to use text-matching software to check students’ work, and many of them thought that text-matching software helps them to spend more time making sure that references are correct (48.3%). Forty-six (75.4%) students reported having copied and pasted from the internet for their work without citing the original work. There were no significant differences in knowledge about plagiarism, attitudes towards classmates who plagiarize, or recommended actions against classmates who plagiarize according to whether students had committed plagiarism.
Conclusion
The medical students’ knowledge about plagiarism was insufficient. This medical school should introduce more intensive training on how to correctly reference others’ work and on the concept of plagiarism.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology
Durga Prasanna Misra, Vikas Agarwal
Clinical Rheumatology.2020; 39(4): 1049. CrossRef

CrossCheck usage in a journal publication: Jaeseok Choi, Sohee Park, Ungjin Oh; Sci Ed. 2016;3(1):26-32. Published online February 19, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.59

12,650 View
157 Download
14 Web of Science
6 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Since the inclusion of the Journal of Electrical Engineering and Technology (JEET) published by the Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers in the Science Citation Index Expanded on the Web of Science by Thomson Reuters, the journal has recorded a considerable increase in the number of submitted articles (i.e., from 400 articles in 2009 to 2,000 articles in 2015). This work explores the use of CrossCheck as a tool to prevent and provide protection against plagiarism in the JEET. Since 2011, the JEET has been using CrossCheck and has adopted implicit and latent review guidelines internally. In this study, we investigate the function of CrossCheck by considering two types of similarity levels for published and rejected articles, namely, integrated similarity index (ISI) and maximum similarity index (MSI). The Minitab tool is used for statistical analysis. The JEET employs a blind CrossCheck system, in which ISI and MSI information is supplied only to the associate editor and not to the reviewers. Positive results are obtained even under the blind CrossCheck system. An exception is the group of “red” articles with ISI and MSI scores of above 50%. The ISI and MSI information of such red articles is supplied to the editors and reviewers of the JEET. The results of this work could serve as a reference for establishing a guideline or criterion for rejecting suspicious plagiarized articles during the review process.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The use of text-matching software’s similarity scores
Stewart Manley
Accountability in Research.2023; 30(4): 219. CrossRef
Analysis of consultations by the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors
You Sun Kim, Dong Soo Han
Science Editing.2020; 7(2): 184. CrossRef
Two international public platforms for the exposure of Archives of Plastic Surgery to worldwide researchers and surgeons: PubMed Central and Crossref
Sun Huh
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2020; 47(5): 377. CrossRef
How Annals of Dermatology Has Improved the Scientific Quality and Ethical Standards of its Articles in the Two-Year Period since October 2018
Sun Huh
Annals of Dermatology.2020; 32(5): 353. CrossRef
How to successfully list a journal in the Social Science Citation Index or Science Citation Index Expanded
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Medical Education.2017; 29(4): 221. CrossRef
Characteristics of Retractions from Korean Medical Journals in the KoreaMed Database: A Bibliometric Analysis
Sun Huh, Soo Young Kim, Hye-Min Cho, Xu-jie Zhou
PLOS ONE.2016; 11(10): e0163588. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search