J Korean Med Sci.  2017 Jun;32(6):887-892. 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.6.887.

Similarity Analysis of Korean Medical Literature and Its Association with Efforts to Improve Research and Publication Ethics

• Park S
• Yang SH
• Jung E
• Kim YM
• Baek HS
• Koo YM

• KMID: 2377716
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.6.887

Abstract

In the present study, the frequency of research misconduct in Korean medical papers was analyzed using the similarity check software iThenticate®. All Korean papers written in English that were published in 2009 and 2014 in KoreaMed Synapse were identified. In total, 23,848 papers were extracted. 4,050 original articles of them were randomly selected for similarity analysis. The average Similarity Index of the 4,050 papers decreased over time, particularly in 2013: in 2009 and 2014, it was 10.15% and 5.62%, respectively. And 357 (8.8%) had a Similarity Index of ≥ 20%. Authors considered a Similarity Index of ≥ 20% as suspected research misconduct. It was found that iThenticate® cannot functionally process citations without double quotation marks. Papers with a Similarity Index of ≥ 20% were thus individually checked for detecting such text-matching errors to accurately identify papers with suspected research misconduct. After correcting text-matching errors, 142 (3.5% of the 4,050 papers) were suspected of research misconduct. The annual frequency of these papers decreased over time, particularly in 2013: in 2009 and 2014, it was 5.2% and 1.7%, respectively. The decrease was associated with the introduction of CrossCheck by KoreaMed and the frequent use of similarity check software. The majority (81%) had Similarity Indices between 20% and 40%. The fact suggested that low Similarity index does not necessarily mean low possibility of research misconduct. It should be noted that, although iThenticate® provides a fundamental basis for detecting research misconduct, the final judgment should be made by experts.

Keyword

Plagiarism; Duplicate Publication as Topic; Editorial Policies; Scientific Misconduct; Periodicals as Topic; Software

MeSH Terms

Duplicate Publication as Topic
Editorial Policies
Ethics*
Judgment
Periodicals as Topic
Plagiarism
Publications*
Scientific Misconduct
Synapses

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Flow chart showing paper extraction, random paper selection, exclusion of authors' own papers, and published papers after them, correction of text-matching errors, and identification of papers suspected of research misconduct.

• 

  Fig. 2 Distribution of Similarity Indices in 4,050 Korean medical papers in 2009–2014.

• 

  Fig. 3 Change over time (2009–2014) in the frequency of Korean medical papers that fell into specific Similarity Index categories.

• 

  Fig. 4 Average Similarity Index per year (2009–2014) of Korean medical papers.

• 

  Fig. 5 Frequency over time (2009–2014) of papers with suspected research misconduct.

• 

  Fig. 6 Distribution of the Similarity Indices of the 142 papers with suspected research misconduct.

Reference

1. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. Ten-year History of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. Seoul: Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors;2008.

2. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. Good Publication Practice Guidelines for Medical Journals. 2nd ed. Seoul: Korean Association of Medical Journal Ediotrs;2013.

3. Korean Association of Academic Societies. Guideline for Research Ethics. Seoul: Korean Association of Academic Societies;2010.

4. Hwang ES, Cho EH, Kim YM, Park GB, Son HC, Yoon TW, Lim JM. Manual for research and publication ethics in science and engineering [Internet]. accessed on 10 June 2015. Available at http://www.cre.or.kr/board/?board=textbook&no=1384677.

5. Seoul National University (KR). Seoul National University's guideline for research ethics [Internet]. accessed on 10 June 2015. Available athttp://www.snu.ac.kr/research/images/down/research_08.pdf.

6. Lee IJ. The understanding of research ethics for a desirable academic writing. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul). 2011; 26:12–24.

7. Kim SY, Bae CW, Hahm CK, Cho HM. Duplicate publication rate decline in Korean medical journals. J Korean Med Sci. 2014; 29:172–175.

8. Crossref (US). CrossCheck members [Internet]. accessed on 4 June 2015. Available at http://www.ithenticate.com/products/crosscheck.

9. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. CrossCheck journals [Internet]. accessed on 1 November 2014. Available at http://www.kamje.or.kr/intro.php?body=crosscheck.

10. Kwon OH. What is CrossCheck? [Internet]. accessed on 28 November 2014. Available at http://www.kamje.or.kr/workshop/2012/0216/11.pdf.

11. Lee JH. Analysis of CrossCheck data on two years' worth of papers submitted to archives of plastic surgery. Arch Plast Surg. 2014; 41:449–451.

12. Zhang Y. CrossCheck: an effective tool for detecting plagiarism. Learn Publ. 2010; 23:9–14.

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

14. Huh S. What happened when CrossCheck was not used for a month in Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility? J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014; 20:417–418.

15. Wager L. How should editors respond to plagiarism? COPE discussion paper [Internet]. accessed on 1 June 2015. Available at http://publicationethics.org/files/COPE_plagiarism_disc%20doc_26%20Apr%2011.pdf.

16. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (US). User's guide for the IEEE CrossCheck portal and prohibited authors list databases [Internet]. accessed on 1 June 2015. Available at https://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/crosscheck_portal_users_guide.pdf.

17. Bae CW, Kim SY, Huh S, Hahm CK. Sample Cases of Duplicate Publication. Seoul: Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors;2011.