J Korean Med Sci.  2017 Apr;32(4):557-560. 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.4.557.

Encouraging Editorial Flexibility in Cases of Textual Reuse

• Roig M

• KMID: 2371437
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.4.557

Abstract

Because many technical descriptions of scientific processes and phenomena are difficult to paraphrase and because an increasing proportion of contributors to the scientific literature are not sufficiently proficient at writing in English, it is proposed that journal editors re-examine their approaches toward instances of textual reuse (similarity). The plagiarism definition by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is more suitable than other definitions for dealing with cases of ostensible plagiarism. Editors are strongly encouraged to examine cases of textual reuse in the context of both, the ORI guidance and the offending authors' proficiency in English. Editors should also reconsider making plagiarism determinations based exclusively on text similarity scores reported by plagiarism detection software.

Keyword

Plagiarism; Publication Ethics; Periodicals as Topic

Reference

1. Wager E, Fiack S, Graf C, Robinson A, Rowlands I. Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey. J Med Ethics. 2009; 35:348–353.

2. Hausmann L, Murphy SP; Publication Committee of the International Society for Neurochemistry (ISN). The challenges for scientific publishing, 60 years on. J Neurochem. 2016; 139:Suppl 2. 280–287.

3. Shafer SL. You will be caught. Anesth Analg. 2011; 112:491–493.

4. Zhang Y. Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized. Nature. 2010; 467:153.

5. Almeida RM, de Albuquerque Rocha K, Catelani F, Fontes-Pereira AJ, Vasconcelos SM. Plagiarism allegations account for most retractions in major Latin American/Caribbean databases. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016; 22:1447–1456.

6. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012; 109:17028–17033.

7. Resnik DB, Rasmussen LM, Kissling GE. An international study of research misconduct policies. Account Res. 2015; 22:249–266.

8. Roig M. Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics Behav. 2001; 11:307–323.

9. Sun YC, Yang FY. Uncovering published authors’ text-borrowing practices: paraphrasing strategies, sources, and self-plagiarism. J Engl Acad Purposes. 2015; 20:224–236.

10. The insider’s guide to plagiarism. Nat Med. 2009; 15:707.

11. Jacobs H. From and to a very grey area. EMBO Rep. 2011; 12:479.

12. Foster RL. Avoiding unintentional plagiarism. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2007; 12:1–2.

13. Habibzadeh F, Marcovitch H. Plagiarism: the emperor’s new clothes. Eur Sci Ed. 2011; 37:67–69.

14. Weems M. Plagiarism in Review. Pediatr Rev. 2017; 38:3–5.

15. Roig M. Journal editorials on plagiarism: what is the message? Eur Sci Ed. 2014; 40:58–59.

16. Peh WC, Arokiasamy J. Plagiarism: a joint statement from the Singapore Medical Journal and the Medical Journal of Malaysia. Med J Malaysia. 2008; 63:354–355.

17. Swaan PW. Publication ethics--a guide for submitting manuscripts to pharmaceutical research. Pharm Res. 2010; 27:1757–1758.

18. Zhang Y, Jia X. A survey on the use of CrossCheck for detecting plagiarism in journal articles. Learn Publ. 2012; 25:292–307.

19. Kravitz RL, Feldman MD. From the editors’ desk: self-plagiarism and other editorial crimes and misdemeanors. J Gen Intern Med. 2010; 26:1.

20. Drummond GB. Reporting ethical matters in The Journal of Physiology: standards and advice. J Physiol. 2009; 587:713–719.

21. Kohler CS; American Diabetes Association. Updates to policies and procedures related to potential scientific and academic misconduct in the Journals of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35:189–190.

22. Bonnell DA, Hafner JH, Hersam MC, Kotov NA, Buriak JM, Hammond PT, Javey A, Nordlander P, Parak WJ, Schaak RE, et al. Recycling is not always good: the dangers of self-plagiarism. ACS Nano. 2012; 6:1–4.

23. Bohannon J. Study of massive preprint archive hints at the geography of plagiarism [Internet]. accessed on 9 January 2017. Available at http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2014/12/study-massive-preprint-archive-hints-geography-plagiarism.

24. Citron DT, Ginsparg P. Patterns of text reuse in a scientific corpus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015; 112:25–30.

25. Vessal K, Habibzadeh F. Rules of the game of scientific writing: fair play and plagiarism. Lancet. 2007; 369:641.

26. Flowerdew J, Li Y. Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists writing for publication. Appl Linguist. 2007; 28:440–465.

27. Habibzadeh F, Shashok K. Plagiarism in scientific writing: words or ideas? Croat Med J. 2011; 52:576–577.

28. Roig M. When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychol Rep. 1999; 84:973–982.

29. Sun YC. Does text readability matter? A study of paraphrasing and plagiarism in English as a foreign language writing context. Asia-Pac Educ Res. 2012; 21:296–306.

30. Lunyak VV, Burgess R, Prefontaine GG, Nelson C, Sze SH, Chenoweth J, Schwartz P, Pevzner PA, Glass C, Mandel G, et al. Corepressor-dependent silencing of chromosomal regions encoding neuronal genes. Science. 2002; 298:1747–1752.

31. Roig M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: a guide to ethical writing [Internet]. accessed on 9 January 2017. Available at https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/plagiarism.pdf.

32. Office of Research Integrity Newsletter (US). ORI provides working definition of plagiarism [Internet]. accessed on 9 January 2017. Available at https://ori.hhs.gov/images/ddblock/vol3_no1.pdf.

33. Lykkesfeldt J. Strategies for using plagiarism software in the screening of incoming journal manuscripts: recommendations based on a recent literature survey. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2016; 119:161–164.