J Korean Med Sci.  2016 Oct;31(10):1508-1510. 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1508.

How to Act When Research Misconduct Is Not Detected by Software but Revealed by the Author of the Plagiarized Article

• Baydik OD
• Gasparyan

• KMID: 2468237
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1508

Abstract

The detection of plagiarism in scholarly articles is a complex process. It requires not just quantitative analysis with the similarity recording by anti-plagiarism software but also assessment of the readers' opinion, pointing to the theft of ideas, methodologies, and graphics. In this article we describe a blatant case of plagiarism by Chinese authors, who copied a Russian article from a non-indexed and not widely visible Russian journal, and published their own report in English in an open-access journal indexed by Scopus and Web of Science and archived in PubMed Central. The details of copying in the translated English article were presented by the Russian author to the chief editor of the index journal, consultants from Scopus, anti-plagiarism experts, and the administrator of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The correspondents from Scopus and COPE pointed to the decisive role of the editors' of the English journal who may consider further actions if plagiarism is confirmed. After all, the chief editor of the English journal retracted the article on grounds of plagiarism and published a retraction note, although no details of the complexity of the case were reported. The case points to the need for combining anti-plagiarism efforts and actively seeking opinion of non-native English-speaking authors and readers who may spot intellectual theft which is not always detected by software.

Keyword

Plagiarism; Scientific Misconduct; Editorial Policies; Retraction of Publication as Topic; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing

MeSH Terms

Authorship
Databases, Factual
Editorial Policies
Humans
Periodicals as Topic
*Plagiarism
Publishing/*ethics
Scientific Misconduct/*ethics
Software

Reference

1. Roig M. Avoiding unethical writing practices. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012; 50:3385–3387.

2. Luksanapruksa P, Millhouse PW. Guidelines on what constitutes plagiarism and electronic tools to detect it. Clin Spine Surg. 2016; 29:119–120.

3. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Gorin SV, Kitas GD. Upgrading instructions for authors of scholarly journals. Croat Med J. 2014; 55:271–280.

4. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Diyanova SN, Kitas GD. Publishing ethics and predatory practices: a dilemma for all stakeholders of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30:1010–1016.

5. Looi LM, Wong LX, Koh CC. Scientific misconduct encountered by APAME journals: an online survey. Malays J Pathol. 2015; 37:213–218.

6. Lee W. CrossCheck data of manuscripts submitted to Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 41:117–118.

7. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact. Croat Med J. 2014; 55:61–72.