Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students

Plagiarism is widely regarded as an issue of low- and middle-income countries because of several factors such as the lack of ethics policy and poor research training. In Morocco, plagiarism and its perception by academics has not been investigated on a large scale. In this study, we evaluated different aspects of plagiarism among scholars based on a 23-question cross-sectional survey. Factors associated with plagiarism were explored using contingency tables and logistic regression. The survey results covered all public universities (n=12) and included 1,220 recorded responses. The academic level was significantly associated with plagiarism (p<0.001). Having publication records was statistically associated with a reduced plagiarism (p=0.002). Notably, the ability of participants to correctly define plagiarism was also significantly associated with a reduced plagiarism misconduct (p<0.001). Unintentional plagiarism (p<0.001), time constraint to write an original text (p<0.001), and inability of participants to paraphrase (p<0.001) were associated factors with plagiarism. Moreover, participants that considered plagiarism as a serious issue in academic research had significantly committed less plagiarism (p<0.001). The current study showed that various actionable factors associated with plagiarism can be targeted by educational interventions, and therefore, it provided the rationale to build training programs on research integrity in Morocco.

Assessment of the knowledge and attitudes of the Iranian medical faculty toward plagiarism

This study is among the few investigations that assesses knowledge and attitudes of faculty members of medical sciences universities regarding plagiarism. This investigation focused on the relationship between personal factors and knowledge and attitudes toward plagiarism among Iranian faculty members of medical sciences affiliated with the Ministry of Health. This descriptive cross-sectional study was performed on 247 participants using demographic questionnaires that collected data on attitudes toward plagiarism and knowledge of plagiarism. The questionnaires were uploaded on Porsline. The subjects were provided with the purpose of the study, informed consent, and the link to the questionnaire through WhatsApp. The mean scores of knowledge variables and different domains of attitude were calculated, and then, the obtained averages were compared in terms of age, gender, and participation in ethics workshop using univariate tests. Finally, the MANCOVA was used considering five dimensions of the questionnaire to assess attitude, as multiple response variables, and independent variables, including gender and participation in the ethics workshop and control of knowledge and age. The mean age of the subjects in this study was 38.9 ± 8.4. 79.4% of the participants were women. Overall, 79.8% of people participated in ethics workshops, of whom 78% were women, and 86.5% were men. The mean score of knowledge in men and women was 1.35 ± 0.19 and 1.56. ± 0.24, respectively, which was higher in women than men (PV <0.001). The mean score of total attitudes was 3.19 ± 0.46. There was a high level of knowledge of plagiarism and positive attitudes toward plagiarism avoidance or prevention among participants in this study, which may spread to students, and help to promote integrity in the educational and clinical environment in Iran.

Intelligent Plagiarism as a Misconduct in Academic Integrity

N/a.

Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading

The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in research is the incorporation of principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for ethical standards and norms throughout all stages of the research endeavor, encompassing study design, data collecting, analysis, reporting, and publishing. The preservation of RI is of utmost importance to uphold the credibility and amplify the influence of scientific research while also preventing and dealing with instances of scientific misconduct. Researchers, institutions, journals, and readers share responsibilities for preserving RI. Researchers must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Institutions have a role in establishing an atmosphere that supports integrity ideals while also providing useful guidance, instruction, and assistance to researchers. Editors and reviewers act as protectors, upholding quality and ethical standards in the dissemination of research results through publishing. Readers play a key role in the detection and reporting of fraudulent activity by critically evaluating content. The struggle against scientific misconduct has multiple dimensions and is continuous. It requires a collaborative effort and adherence to the principles of honesty, transparency, and rigorous science. By supporting a culture of RI, the scientific community may preserve its core principles and continue to contribute appropriately to society's well-being. It not only aids present research but also lays the foundation for future scientific advancements.

Scientific misconduct: Plagiarism and non-compliance with disclosure of interest: Retrospective analysis of 1 year's submissions to Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research

INTRODUCTION

Authors submitting to Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) must fulfill the criteria of scientific integrity (SI), including issues of plagiarism and disclosure of interest. These data have not been assessed for OTSR and we therefore conducted a retrospective study of (1) potential plagiarism rates, (2) deficient disclosure of interest (for French authors), and (3) correlation between the two.

HYPOTHESIS

Suspected plagiarism rates exceed 20% and the non-disclosure rate exceeds 80%.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed 1 year's submissions to OTSR: January 24, 2022 to January 23, 2023. Articles were checked for plagiarism, using iThenticate software (Turnitin, Oakland, CA, USA), with a threshold of > 20% matching. Conflicts of interest, for French authors, investigated on the French Ministry of Health Transparence website (www.transparence.sante.gouv.fr), with non-disclosure defined by undeclared amounts exceeding €1000.

RESULTS

In total, 851 submissions were analyzed. iThenticate identified 152 (17.7%) with > 20% matching to an already published article. This likely plagiarism varied (p<0.01) between geographic origins of submissions. In the 289 submissions by French authors, there were 275 (95%) failures to report amounts exceeding €1000. Combined non-disclosure and plagiarism was found in only 3 articles submitted by French authors (3/289: 1.03%).

DISCUSSION

OTSR applies the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (www.icmje.org), adheres to the guidelines of the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) and the French Health Authority (HAS), and has an ethics committee. Plagiarism is a major SI breach, suspected in 20% of submissions. Also, 95% of French authors failed to properly disclose their interests on submitting an article, although this declaration is mandatory in France and is an integral aspect of SI. There are also other forms of misconduct, such as failure to comply with the French "Jardé" law on research involving human subjects, failure to obtain review board approval, unjustified claims to authorship or deficient archiving, that were not analyzed here.

CONCLUSIONS

Although overall plagiarism rates were under 20% for submissions to OTSR, some geographic areas were more concerned than others. Also, despite reminders by the editorial board, only 5% of French authors made full disclosures; this is a major breach of SI, requiring correction on the part of French authors.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective study.

What is the rate of text generated by artificial intelligence over a year of publication in Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research? Analysis of 425 articles before versus after the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022

BACKGROUND

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is soaring, and the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 has accelerated this trend. This "chatbot" can generate complete scientific articles, with risk of plagiarism by mining existing data or downright fraud by fabricating studies with no real data at all. There are tools that detect AI in publications, but to our knowledge they have not been systematically assessed for publication in scientific journals. We therefore conducted a retrospective study on articles published in Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR): firstly, to screen for AI-generated content before and after the publicized launch of ChatGPT; secondly, to assess whether AI was more often used in some countries than others to generate content; thirdly, to determine whether plagiarism rate correlated with AI-generation, and lastly, to determine whether elements other than text generation, and notably the translation procedure, could raise suspicion of AI use.

HYPOTHESIS

The rate of AI use increased after the publicized launch of ChatGPT v3.5 in November 2022.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In all, 425 articles published between February 2022 and September 2023 (221 before and 204 after November 1, 2022) underwent ZeroGPT assessment of the level of AI generation in the final English-language version (abstract and body of the article). Two scores were obtained: probability of AI generation, in six grades from Human to AI; and percentage AI generation. Plagiarism was assessed on the Ithenticate application at submission. Articles in French were assessed in their English-language version as translated by a human translator, with comparison to automatic translation by Google Translate and DeepL.

RESULTS

AI-generated text was detected mainly in Abstracts, with a 10.1% rate of AI or considerable AI generation, compared to only 1.9% for the body of the article and 5.6% for the total body+abstract. Analysis for before and after November 2022 found an increase in AI generation in body+abstract, from 10.30±15.95% (range, 0-100%) to 15.64±19.8% (range, 0-99.93) (p < 0.04; NS for abstracts alone). AI scores differed between types of article: 14.9% for original articles and 9.8% for reviews (p<0.01). The highest rates of probable AI generation were in articles from Japan, China, South America and English-speaking countries (p<0.0001). Plagiarism rates did not increase between the two study periods, and were unrelated to AI rates. On the other hand, when articles were classified as "suspected" of AI generation (plagiarism rate ≥ 20%) or "non-suspected" (rate<20%), the "similarity" score was higher in suspect articles: 25.7±13.23% (range, 10-69%) versus 16.28±10% (range, 0-79%) (p < 0.001). In the body of the article, use of translation software was associated with higher AI rates than with a human translator: 3.5±5% for human translators, versus 18±10% and 21.9±11% respectively for Google Translate and DeepL (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

The present study revealed an increasing rate of AI use in articles published in OTSR. AI grades differed according to type of article and country of origin. Use of translation software increased the AI grade. In the long run, use of ChatGPT incurs a risk of plagiarism and scientific misconduct, and needs to be detected and signaled by a digital tag on any robot-generated text.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; case-control study.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding plagiarism of postgraduate students in Myanmar

Information regarding the prevalence of plagiarism and its contributing factors are limited in Myanmar. We aimed to explore the knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported plagiarism practices of postgraduate students in Myanmar's universities and determine the factors associated with plagiarism. We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study during 2019-2020. The questionnaire contained: 1) demographics, 2) knowledge on plagiarism, 3) attitudes toward plagiarism, and 4) self-reported plagiarism practices. We calculated attitudes and plagiarism severity scores (PSS). We conducted multiple linear regression analyses and binary logistic regression analyses. A p-value <0.05 denoted statistical significance. We enrolled 217 participants. Of our participants, 37.6% self-reported at least one plagiarism act. The mean attitude score (S.D.) was 62.24 (10.44), (maximum score was 92, higher scores represent disapproval of plagiarism). This attitude score reflects only a moderate attitude toward disapproval of plagiarism. The attitude score was significantly higher for doctoral students (9.2%) than master students (90.8%); p = 0.003; and for participants with publications (13.4%) compared with those without publications (86.6%); p = 0.005. The attitude score was a significant predictor of the PSS. We conclude that there is evidence to suggest that plagiarism represents a significant ethical issue in Myanmar and recommend that Myanmar universities provide training in responsible conduct of research.

Characteristics of Retracted Publications From Kazakhstan: An Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database

BACKGROUND

Retraction is a correction process for the scientific literature that acts as a barrier to the dissemination of articles that have serious faults or misleading data. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of retracted papers from Kazakhstan.

METHODS

Utilizing data from Retraction Watch, this cross-sectional descriptive analysis documented all retracted papers from Kazakhstan without regard to publication dates. The following data were recorded: publication title, DOI number, number of authors, publication date, retraction date, source, publication type, subject category of publication, collaborating country, and retraction reason. Source index status, Scopus citation value, and Altmetric Attention Score were obtained.

RESULTS

Following the search, a total of 92 retracted papers were discovered. One duplicate article was excluded, leaving 91 publications for analysis. Most articles were retracted in 2022 (n = 22) and 2018 (n = 19). Among the identified publications, 49 (53.9%) were research articles, 39 (42.9%) were conference papers, 2 (2.2%) were review articles, and 1 (1.1%) was a book chapter. Russia (n = 24) and China (n = 5) were the most collaborative countries in the retracted publications. Fake-biased peer review (n = 38), plagiarism (n = 25), and duplication (n = 14) were the leading causes of retraction.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of the publications were research articles and conference papers. Russia was the leading collaborative country. The most prominent retraction reasons were fake-biased peer review, plagiarism, and duplication. Efforts to raise researchers' understanding of the grounds for retraction and ethical research techniques are required in Kazakhstan.

Plagiarism: A Bird's Eye View

Plagiarism is among the prevalent misconducts reported in scientific writing and common causes of article retraction in scholarly journals. Plagiarism of idea is not acceptable by any means. However, plagiarism of text is a matter of debate from culture to culture. Herein, I wish to reflect on a bird's eye view of plagiarism, particularly plagiarism of text, in scientific writing. Text similarity score as a signal of text plagiarism is not an appropriate index and an expert should examine the similarity with enough scrutiny. Text recycling in certain instances might be acceptable in scientific writing provided that the authors could correctly construe the text piece they borrowed. With introduction of artificial intelligence-based units, which help authors to write their manuscripts, the incidence of text plagiarism might increase. However, after a while, when a universal artificial unit takes over, no one will need to worry about text plagiarism as the incentive to commit plagiarism will be abolished, I believe.

[Scientific integrity faces plagiarism fabricated with the ChatGPT]

Among the malpractices that undermine research integrity, plagiarism is a major threat given its frequency and evolving presentations. Plagiarism implies the intentional grabbing of texts, ideas, images, or data belonging to others and without crediting them. However, the different and even masked forms of plagiarism often difficult a clear identification. Currently, the many kinds of fraud and plagiarism account for most retractions in traditional and open access journals. Further, the rate of retracted articles is higher in the Latin American databases LILACS and Scielo than in PubMed and Web of Science. This difference has been related to the typical laxity of our culture and the lack of English writing skills of non-Anglophone researchers. These features explain the conflict experienced by Latin American students in USA where they face a stricter culture regarding academic and scientific plagiarism. In the internet era, the ease of accessing scientific literature has increased the temptation to plagiarize but this ethical breach has been countered by antiplagiarism software. Now, the so-called "paraphragiarism" prompted by paraphrasing tools exceeds the infamous "copy-paste". For instance, the innovative ChatGPT can be used for plagiarizing and paraphragiarizing. Moreover, its inclusion as coauthor in scientific papers has been banned by prestigious journals and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors because such chatbot cannot meet the required public responsibility criterium. To avoid plagiarism, it is enough to always give due credit in the proper way. Lastly, I question the ill-fated and now prevailing conjunction of blind faith in progress and zero skepticism that prevents us from foreseeing the negative consequences of technological advances.

Publication retraction in spine surgery: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The number of articles retracted by peer-reviewed journals has increased in recent years. This study systematically reviews retracted publications in the spine surgery literature.

METHODS

A search of PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Retraction Watch, and the independent websites of 15 spine surgery-related journals from inception to September of 2022 was performed without language restrictions. PRISMA guidelines were followed with title/abstract screening, and full-text screening was conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study characteristics and bibliometric information for each publication was extracted.

RESULTS

Of 250 studies collected from the search, 65 met the inclusion criteria. The most common reason for retraction was data error (n = 15, 21.13%), followed by plagiarism (n = 14, 19.72%) and submission to another journal (n = 14, 19.72%). Most studies pertained to degenerative pathologies of the spine (n = 32, 80.00%). Most articles had no indication of retraction in their manuscript (n = 24, 36.92%), while others had a watermark or notice at the beginning of the article. The median number of citations per retracted publication was 10.0 (IQR 3-29), and the median 4-year impact factor of the journals was 5.05 (IQR 3.20-6.50). On multivariable linear regression, the difference in years from publication to retraction (p = 0.0343, β = 6.56, 95% CI 0.50-12.62) and the journal 4-year impact factor (p = 0.0029, β = 7.47, 95% CI 2.66-12.28) were positively associated with the total number of citations per retracted publication. Most articles originated from China (n = 30, 46.15%) followed by the United States (n = 12, 18.46%) and Germany (n = 3, 4.62%). The most common study design was retrospective cohort studies (n = 14, 21.54%).

CONCLUSIONS

The retraction of publications has increased in recent years in spine surgery. Researchers consulting this body of literature should remain vigilant. Institutions and journals should collaborate to increase publication transparency and scientific integrity.

Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations

BACKGROUND

Retraction is an essential procedure for correcting scientific literature and informing readers about articles containing significant errors or omissions. Ethical violations are one of the significant triggers of the retraction process. The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of retracted articles in the medical literature due to ethical violations.

METHODS

The Retraction Watch Database was utilized for this descriptive study. The 'ethical violations' and 'medicine' options were chosen. The date range was 2010 to 2023. The collected data included the number of authors, the date of publication and retraction, the journal of publication, the indexing status of the journal, the country of the corresponding author, the subject area of the article, and the particular retraction reasons.

RESULTS

A total of 177 articles were analyzed. The most retractions were detected in 2019 (n = 29) and 2012 (n = 28). The median time period between the articles' first publication date and the date of retraction was 647 (0-4,295) days. The leading countries were China (n = 47), USA (n = 25), South Korea (n = 23), Iran (n = 14), and India (n = 12). The main causes of retraction were ethical approval issues (n = 65), data-related concerns (n = 51), informed consent issues (n = 45), and fake-biased peer review (n = 30).

CONCLUSION

Unethical behavior is one of the most significant obstacles to scientific advancement. Obtaining appropriate ethics committee approvals and informed consent forms is crucial in ensuring the ethical conduct of medical research. It is the responsibility of journal editors to ensure that raw data is controlled and peer review processes are conducted effectively. It is essential to educate young researchers on unethical practices and the negative outcomes that may result from them.

Are paid tools worth the cost? A prospective cross-over study to find the right tool for plagiarism detection

Background

The increasing pressure to publish research has led to a rise in plagiarism incidents, creating a need for effective plagiarism detection software. The importance of this study lies in the high cost variation amongst the available options for plagiarism detection. By uncovering the advantages of these low-cost or free alternatives, researchers could access the appropriate tools for plagiarism detection. This is the first study to compare four plagiarism detection tools and assess factors impacting their effectiveness in identifying plagiarism in AI-generated articles.

Methodology

A prospective cross-over study was conducted with the primary objective to compare Overall Similarity Index(OSI) of four plagiarism detection software(iThenticate, Grammarly, Small SEO Tools, and DupliChecker) on AI-generated articles. ChatGPT was used to generate 100 articles, ten from each of ten general domains affecting various aspects of life. These were run through four software, recording the OSI. Flesch Reading Ease Score(FRES), Gunning Fog Index(GFI), and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level(FKGL) were used to assess how factors, such as article length and language complexity, impact plagiarism detection.

Results

The study found significant variation in OSI(p < 0.001) among the four software, with Grammarly having the highest mean rank(3.56) and Small SEO Tools having the lowest(1.67). Pairwise analyses revealed significant differences(p < 0.001) between all pairs except for Small SEO Tools-DupliChecker. Number of words showed a significant correlation with OSI for iThenticate(p < 0.05) but not for the other three. FRES had a positive correlation, and GFI had a negative correlation with OSI by DupliChecker. FKGL negatively correlated with OSI by Small SEO Tools and DupliChecker.

Conclusion

Grammarly is unexpectedly most effective in detecting plagiarism in AI-generated articles compared to the other tools. This could be due to different softwares using diverse data sources. This highlights the potential for lower-cost plagiarism detection tools to be utilized by researchers.

The Acceptable Text Similarity Level in Manuscripts Submitted to Scientific Journals

Plagiarism is among commonly identified scientific misconducts in submitted manuscripts. Some journals routinely check the level of text similarity in the submitted manuscripts at the time of submission and reject the submission on the fly if the text similarity score exceeds a set cut-off value (e.g., 20%). Herein, I present a manuscript with 32% text similarity, yet without any instances of text plagiarism. This underlines the fact that text similarity is not necessarily tantamount to text plagiarism. Every instance of text similarity should be examined with scrutiny by a trained person in the editorial office. A high text similarity score does not always imply plagiarism; a low score, on the other hand, does not guarantee absence of plagiarism. There is no cut-off for text similarity to imply text plagiarism.

Utilizing ChatGPT in clinical research related to anesthesiology: a comprehensive review of opportunities and limitations

Chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) is a chatbot developed by OpenAI that answers questions in a human-like manner. ChatGPT is a GPT language model that understands and responds to natural language created using a transformer, which is a new artificial neural network algorithm first introduced by Google in 2017. ChatGPT can be used to identify research topics and proofread English writing and R scripts to improve work efficiency and optimize time. Attempts to actively utilize generative artificial intelligence (AI) are expected to continue in clinical settings. However, ChatGPT still has many limitations for widespread use in clinical research, owing to AI hallucination symptoms and its training data constraints. Researchers recommend avoiding scientific writing using ChatGPT in many traditional journals because of the current lack of originality guidelines and plagiarism of content generated by ChatGPT. Further regulations and discussions on these topics are expected in the future.

Editorial: Generative artificial intelligence as a plagiarism problem

There is increasing concern and consternation about generative artificial intelligence (AI) programs and its potential impact on academia. This editorial addresses the potential impact of such programs on scientific publishing as it relates to the journal Biological Psychology. Using chatGPT as an example, it makes the case that a prime concern is its implications for facilitating plagiarism. It briefly outlines what is known about the algorithm of the GPT text model, and also the implications of its chatGPT front end, on being able to establish appropriate credit for ideas in text that it outputs. It is concluded that, at least for Biological Psychology, the expectation is that authors will be transparent about AI usage, will declare when AI is the source of an idea, and will redouble efforts to seek out and cite prior claims to ideas in the published literature when AI is involved.

Attitudes Toward Plagiarism Among PhD Medical Students in Serbia

In this cross-sectional survey the Attitude Towards Plagiarism (ATP) questionnaire was administered to 100 PhD students to measure their attitudes towards plagiarism. The results showed that the students had low scores for positive attitudes and subjective norms, but moderate scores for negative attitudes towards plagiarism. Additional courses on plagiarism should be introduced in PhD studies to promote responsible research practices in Serbia.

Student Perceptions of Academic Integrity: A Qualitative Study of Understanding, Consequences, and Impact

Background

Academic integrity (AI) is of increasing importance in higher education. At the same time, students are becoming more consumer-oriented and more inclined to appeal against, or complain about, a penalty imposed for a breach of AI. This combination of factors places pressure on institutions of higher education to handle alleged breaches of AI in a way acceptable to students that motivates them to continue to engage with their studies.

Method

Students (n = 8) were interviewed to discover their perceptions of the process for dealing with breaches of AI. All students were based in one university in a very diverse area of London which has many first-generation students from non-traditional academic backgrounds.

Results

Students reported strong emotional reactions featuring high levels of anxiety and stress. Some found the process to be threatening and demotivating and questioned continuation on their course of study, while others used more adaptive coping strategies. Students also went to great pains to make it clear that their own, and their friends', breaches of AI were unintentional, while expressing the view that other people were deliberately cheating and should be penalised.Key recommendations include: support for students to re-engage after the intervention; support for students to develop effective self-regulatory learning strategies and time management; provision of specific examples to clarify what is, and is not, acceptable academic practice; recognition of the strong emotions likely to be invoked, especially if accompanied by declarations of unintentionality.

Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen

BACKGROUND

Today, scientists and academic researchers experience an enormous pressure to publish innovative and ground-breaking results in prestigious journals. This pressure may blight the general view concept of how scientific research needs to be done in terms of the general rules of transparency; duplication of data, and co-authorship rights might be compromised. As such, misconduct acts may occur more frequently than foreseen, as frequently these experiences are not openly shared or discussed among researchers.

MAIN BODY

While there are some concerns about the health and the transparency implications of such normalised pressure practices imposed on researchers in scientific research, there is a general acceptance that researchers must take and accept it in order to survive in the competitive world of science. This is even more the case for junior and mid-senior researchers who have recently started their adventure into the universe of independent researchers. Only the slightest fraction manages to endure, after many years of furious and cruel rivalry, to obtain a long-term, and even less probable, permanent position. There is an evil circle; excellent records of good publications are needed in order to obtain research funding, but how to produce pioneering research during these first years without funding? Many may argue this is a necessary process to ensure good quality scientific investigation, possibly, but perseverance and resilience may not be the only values needed when rejection is received consecutively for years.

CONCLUSION

There is a general culture that scientists rarely share previous bad experiences, in particular if they were associated to misconduct, as they may not be seen or considered as a relevant or hot topic to the scientific community readers. On next, a recent misconduct experience is shared, and a few additional reflections and suggestions on this topic were drafted in the hope other researchers might be spared unnecessary and unpleasant times.

Retracted Publications in Medical Imaging Literature: an Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

It is currently unknown how many publications in the medical imaging literature are retracted and for which reasons. The purpose of this study was to perform an updated analysis on retracted medical imaging publications using the Retraction Watch Database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Retraction Watch Database was searched for all retracted publications in the subject category "Radiology/Imaging" (no beginning date limit, search update until April 27, 2022). Reasons for retraction were extracted using standardized coding taxonomy. The number of citations per retracted publication was determined. Spearman's rho was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

192 retractions, originally published between 1984 and 2021, were included. Most retractions originated from China (31.3%), the United States (12.5%), Japan (7.3%), and South Korea (6.3%). The number of retractions increased over the years, especially since 2000 (Spearman's rho=0.764, p <0.001). Delay between original publication and retraction ranged from 0 days to 14 years and 3 months (median of 11 months). Most common reasons for retraction were duplication of article (7.1%), plagiarism of article (6.8%), concerns/issues about data (5.4%), investigation by company/institution (4.5%), and forged authorship (4.0%). Scientific misconduct was deemed present in 107 of 192 retracted articles (55.7%). Retracted articles (of which 138 were listed in Web of Science) received a median of 2 citations (range 0-148, IQR 5).

CONCLUSION

The number of retracted medical imaging publications continues to increase over time, which could indicate that more compromised research has either been published or discovered. Scientific misconduct was the main cause for retraction.

Do biomedical researchers differ in their perceptions of plagiarism across Europe? Findings from an online survey among leading universities

BACKGROUND

Existing research on perceptions of plagiarism and cultural influences mainly focuses on comparisons between the Western World and the Eastern World. However, possible differences within the Western World have hardly been assessed, especially among biomedical academics. The authors compared perceptions of plagiarism among European biomedical researchers who participated in an online survey.

METHODS

The present work is based on the data collected in a previous online survey done in 2018 among biomedical researchers working in leading European and Chinese universities. Respondents based in Europe were grouped into three geographical regions (northern Europe, southern Europe and northwestern Europe) and their responses were analyzed using logistic regression analysis with adjustments for demographic factors.

RESULTS

Data were available from 810 respondents (265 northern Europe, 101 southern Europe, 444 northwestern Europe). In addition to their generally similar responses, different perceptions of plagiarism were observed among respondents in the three European regions. In summary, among the three European regions, Nordic respondents identified the most types of practices as plagiarism. Compared to the southern respondents, Nordic and northwestern respondents were more likely to consider less evident practices as plagiarism, such as Rephrasing another person's work without crediting the source [aOR_N|S 1.99 (95%CI 1.08;3.67), aOR_S|NW 0.50 (95%CI 0.28;0.91)] and With permission from the original author, using another's text without crediting the source [aOR_N|S 3.16 (95%CI 1.90;5.25), aOR_S|NW 0.26 (95%CI 0.16;0.42)]. In contrast, the southern respondents were the most inclined to recognize recycling of one's previously rejected research proposal as plagiarism.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of a generally similar response pattern, the present study indicates different perceptions of plagiarism among European biomedical researchers. These intra-European differences should be considered when addressing plagiarism.

Academic dishonesty when doing homework: How digital technologies are put to bad use in secondary schools

The growth in digital technologies in recent decades has offered many opportunities to support students' learning and homework completion. However, it has also contributed to expanding the field of possibilities concerning homework avoidance. Although studies have investigated the factors of academic dishonesty, the focus has often been on college students and formal assessments. The present study aimed to determine what predicts homework avoidance using digital resources and whether engaging in these practices is another predictor of test performance. To address these questions, we analyzed data from the Program for International Student Assessment 2018 survey, which contained additional questionnaires addressing this issue, for the Swiss students. The results showed that about half of the students engaged in one kind or another of digitally-supported practices for homework avoidance at least once or twice a week. Students who were more likely to use digital resources to engage in dishonest practices were males who did not put much effort into their homework and were enrolled in non-higher education-oriented school programs. Further, we found that digitally-supported homework avoidance was a significant negative predictor of test performance when considering information and communication technology predictors. Thus, the present study not only expands the knowledge regarding the predictors of academic dishonesty with digital resources, but also confirms the negative impact of such practices on learning.

Denying the accusation of plagiarism: power relations at play in dictating plagiarism as academic misconduct

In academia, plagiarism is considered detrimental to the advancement of sciences, and the plagiarists can be charged with sanctions. However, the plagiarism cases involving three rectors of universities in Indonesia stand out, as they could defend their stand for not committing academic misconduct despite evidence found. By analyzing the three rectors' cases, the present study aims to answer how power relations take a role in plagiarism discourse in Indonesia, particularly in determining what is considered academic misconduct and what is not. By employing critical discourse analysis, we found that when the accusation of plagiarism appears during rectorial elections, the accused could equivocate that the accusation was meant to undermine them as a political opponent. When the accused plagiarists win the election, they have more power to deny and tackle the accusations of plagiarism. The findings indicate that plagiarism issues can be politicized, in which by those in power it can be used as a tool to undermine their political opponents, whereas the accused plagiarists can claim that the actual problem is personal and not about plagiarism. It is also shown that in the real context, whether something is called plagiarism or not is subject to interpretation by those in power.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10734-022-00875-z.

Extent of knowledge and attitudes on plagiarism among undergraduate medical students in South India - a multicentre, cross-sectional study to determine the need for incorporating research ethics in medical undergraduate curriculum

BACKGROUND

Undergraduate medical students in India participate in various research activities However, plagiarism is rampant, and we hypothesize that it is the lack of knowledge on how to avoid plagiarism. This study's objective was to measure the extent of knowledge and attitudes towards plagiarism among undergraduate medical students in India.

METHODS

It was a multicentre, cross-sectional study conducted over a two-year period (January 2018 - December 2019). Undergraduate medical students were given a pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire which contained: (a) Demographic details; (b) A quiz developed by Indiana University, USA to assess knowledge; and (c) Attitudes towards Plagiarism (ATP) questionnaire.

RESULTS

Eleven medical colleges (n = 4 government medical colleges [GMCs] and n = 7 private medical colleges [PMCs]) participated. A total of N = 4183 students consented. The mean (SD) knowledge score was 4.54 (1.78) out of 10. The factors (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]; 95% Confidence interval [CI]; p value) that emerged as significant predictors of poor knowledge score were early years of medical education (0.110; 0.063, 0.156; < 0.001) and being enrolled in a GMC (0.348; 0.233, 0.463; < 0.001).The overall mean (SD) scores of the three attitude components namely permissive, critical and submissive norms were 37.56 (5.25), 20.35 (4.20) and 31.20 (4.28) respectively, corresponding to the moderate category.

CONCLUSION

The overall knowledge score was poor. A vast majority of study participants fell in the moderate category of attitude score. These findings warrant the need for incorporating formal training in the medical education curriculum.

Analysis of Retracted Publications in The Biomedical Literature from Turkey

BACKGROUND

Retraction is a process for correcting the literature and provides a barrier to the dissemination of publications that include major faults or false-misleading data. The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics of retracted articles in the biomedical field sourced from Turkey.

METHODS

In this descriptive cross-sectional study, all retracted publications from Turkey on PubMed were listed without date restriction. Data covering the article title, authors, publication date, retraction date, time between publication and retraction dates (in months), journal, article type, country of the corresponding author, peer review timeline (in days), reason for retraction, and subject area of the retracted item were recorded. Citation data were obtained using the Scopus database. The altmetric attention scores of the articles were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 102 articles were listed and after the implementation of exclusion criteria, 86 articles were included for analysis. The first retracted article was published in 2000 (n = 1), while the most retracted articles were published in 2020 (n = 11). The median time lag between publication and retraction was 10.33 (0.73-144.06) months. The main factors causing retraction were plagiarism (n = 23), duplication (n = 22) and error (n = 17). The total number of citations was 695. A total of 224 citations were in the pre-retraction period and 471 citations were in the post-retraction period.

CONCLUSION

The retracted article counts showed a rising trend over the years. The leading causes of retraction for articles from Turkey were plagiarism, duplication, and error. It was found that the articles continued to be cited after the retraction. Researchers in Turkey should be educated on retraction, particularly plagiarism and duplication. Strategies should be developed to prevent articles from being cited after retraction.

Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: a rapid scoping review

"Paper mills" are unethical outsourcing agencies proficient in fabricating fraudulent manuscripts submitted to scholarly journals. In earlier years, the activity of such companies involved plagiarism, but their processes have gained complexity, involving the fabrication of images and fake results. The objective of this study is to examine the main features of retracted paper mills' articles registered in the Retraction Watch database, from inception to the present, analyzing the number of articles per year, their number of citations, and their authorship network. Eligibility criteria for inclusion: retracted articles in any language due to paper mill activity. Retraction letters, notes, and notices, for exclusion. We collected the associated citations and the journals' impact factors of the retracted papers from Web of Science (Clarivate) and performed a data network analysis using VOSviewer software. This scoping review complies with PRISMA 2020 statement and main extensions. After a thorough analysis of the data, we identified 325 retracted articles due to suspected operations published in 31 journals (with a mean impact factor of 3.1). These retractions have produced 3708 citations. Nearly all retracted papers have come from China. Journal's impact factor lower than 7, life sciences journals, cancer, and molecular biology topics were common among retracted studies. The rapid increase of retractions is highly challenging. Paper mills damage scientific research integrity, exacerbating fraud, plagiarism, fake images, and simulated results. Rheumatologists should be fully aware of this growing phenomenon.

Assessing knowledge of and attitudes towards plagiarism and ability to recognize plagiaristic writing among university students in Rwanda

Plagiarism is a serious type of scholastic misconduct. In Rwanda, no research has been conducted to assess university students' attitudes and knowledge of plagiarism and if they have the skills to avoid plagiarizing. This study was conducted to assess knowledge of and attitudes towards plagiarism, as well as ability to recognize plagiaristic writing, among university students in Rwanda. An online questionnaire containing 10 knowledge questions, 10 attitude statements, and 5 writing cases with excerpts to test identification of plagiarism was administered between February and April 2021. Out of the 330 university students from 40 universities who completed the survey, 75.8% had a high knowledge level (score ≥ 80%), but only 11.6% had a high score in recognizing plagiaristic writing (score ≥ 80%). There was no statistically significant association between knowledge level and ability to recognize plagiaristic writing (P = 0.109). Lower odds were found in both diploma/certificate and bachelor students of having high knowledge as well as of having high ability to recognize plagiaristic writing than in master's students. Although respondents generally disapproved of plagiarism, approximately half of the respondents indicated that sometimes plagiarism is unavoidable, and self-plagiarism should not be punished in the same way as plagiarism of others' work. Inter-collegial collaboration on effective plagiarism policies and training programs is needed.

On the Occasion of the Symposium "Scientometry, Citation, Plagiarism and Predatory in Scientific Publishing", Sarajevo, 2021

12th Days of the Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina (AMNuBiH) this year were organized together with the International Academy of Sciences and Arts in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo on December 4, 2021. The title of the symposium was "Scientometry, Citation, Plagiarism and Predatory in Scientific Publishing". Experiences in the scientific area covered by title of this conference were presented by some of the most influential scientists from Bosnia and Herzegovina, who are included between 2% of authors in the Stanford scientometric list, which was published in October 2021 in the journal Biology Plos. Some of the authors are former or current Editors-in-Chiefs of indexed biomedical journals in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, North Macedonia (Izet Masic, Asim Kurjak, Doncho Donev, Osman Sinanovic). Also, Sylwia Ufnalska and Izet Masic are or were members of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) and they have great experiences about the topic of this conference. Science that analyzes scientific papers and their citation in the scientific journals - called scientometrics - day by day has become important for measuring scientific validity and quality of all kinds of publications deposited in the most important on-line scientific databases, like WoS, Scopus, Medline, PubMed Central, Embase, Hinari, etc., but also in academic platforms ResearchGate and Academia.edu. Scientometrics use the Impact and Echo factor for measuring the quality of publications in WoS journals, Scopus uses the h-Index, and the most common one used in the last 10 years is Google Scholar index. All of them have advantages and disadvantages, and also positive and negative influences in the academic praxis. One of the greatest, and sadly too common, problems which participants in the academic process encountered are plagiarism and predatory publishing. In order to prevent this severest form of academic fraud, authors must give credit to someone whose work has helped him/her by citing references correctly. This presentations of the symposium "SWEP 2021") analyzed the major components of scientometrics, the basic mechanisms of citations in medical publications and plagiarism, as an opposition to the primary goal of scientific enterprise: search for truth.

The use of text-matching software's similarity scores

Popular text-matching software generates a percentage of similarity - called a "similarity score" or "Similarity Index" - that quantifies the matching text between a particular manuscript and content in the software's archives, on the Internet and in electronic databases. Many evaluators rely on these simple figures as a proxy for plagiarism and thus avoid the burdensome task of inspecting the longer, detailed Similarity Reports. Yet similarity scores, though alluringly straightforward, are never enough to judge the presence (or absence) of plagiarism. Ideally, evaluators should always examine the Similarity Reports. Given the persistent use of simplistic similarity score thresholds at some academic journals and educational institutions, however, and the time that can be saved by relying on the scores, a method is arguably needed that encourages examining the Similarity Reports but still also allows evaluators to rely on the scores in some instances. This article proposes a four-band method to accomplish this. Used together, the bands oblige evaluators to acknowledge the risk of relying on the similarity scores yet still allow them to ultimately determine whether they wish to accept that risk. The bands - for most rigor, high rigor, moderate rigor and less rigor - should be tailored to an evaluator's particular needs.

Plagiarism in Non-Anglophone Countries: a Cross-sectional Survey of Researchers and Journal Editors

BACKGROUND

Plagiarism is one of the most common violation of publication ethics, and it still remains an area with several misconceptions and uncertainties.

METHODS

This online cross-sectional survey was conducted to analyze plagiarism perceptions among researchers and journal editors, particularly from non-Anglophone countries.

RESULTS

Among 211 respondents (mean age 40 years; M:F, 0.85:1), 26 were scholarly journal editors and 70 were reviewers with a large representation from India (50, 24%), Turkey (28, 13%), Kazakhstan (25, 12%) and Ukraine (24, 11%). Rigid and outdated pre- and post-graduate education was considered as the origin of plagiarism by 63% of respondents. Paraphragiarism was the most commonly encountered type of plagiarism (145, 69%). Students (150, 71%), non-Anglophone researchers with poor English writing skills (117, 55%), and agents of commercial editing agencies (126, 60%) were thought to be prone to plagiarize. There was a significant disagreement on the legitimacy of text copying in scholarly articles, permitted plagiarism limit, and plagiarized text in methods section. More than half (165, 78%) recommended specifically designed courses for plagiarism detection and prevention, and 94.7% (200) thought that social media platforms may be deployed to educate and notify about plagiarism.

CONCLUSION

Great variation exists in the understanding of plagiarism, potentially contributing to unethical publications and even retractions. Bridging the knowledge gap by arranging topical education and widely employing advanced anti-plagiarism software address this unmet need.

The ethics of publishing in medical journals

Ethics has been defined as the way we ought to behave. Medical publishing essentially exists to broadcast current and new medical knowledge to aid in the practice of medicine. In this review article we consider many of the aspects of medical publishing with regard to 'what we ought to do' and, equally, 'what we ought not to do' from the perspective of various ethical frameworks. Although ethics is not the law or a set of rules, nor a code of conduct, an ethical lens can be useful when developing good general guidelines for medical publishing.

"There must be Someone's Name Under Every Bit of Text, Even if it is Unimportant or Incorrect": Plagiarism as a Learning Strategy

The article offers analyses of the phenomenon of copying (plagiarism) in higher education. The analyses were based on a quantitative survey using questionnaires, conducted in 2019 at one of the Polish universities. Plagiarism is discussed here both as an element of the learning process and a subject of public practices. The article presents students’ definitions of plagiarism, their strategies for unclear or difficult situations, their experiences with plagiarism and their opinions on how serious and widespread this phenomenon is. Focusing on the non-plagiarism norm, that is the rule that students are not allowed to plagiarize, and in order to redefine it we have determined two strategies adopted by students. The first is withdrawing in fear of making a mistake (omitting the norm), which means not using referencing in unclear situations, e.g. when the data about the source of information are absent. The second is reducing the scope of the norm applicability (limiting the norm), characterized by the fact that there are areas where the non-plagiarism norm must be observed more closely and those where it is not so important, e.g. respondents classify works as credit-level and diploma-level texts, as in the credit-level work they “can” sometimes plagiarize since the detection rate is poor and consequences are not severe. The presented results are particularly significant for interpreting plagiarism in an international context (no uniform definition of plagiarism) and for policies aimed at limiting the scale of the phenomenon (plagiarism detection systems¹).

Is reusing text from a protocol in the completed systematic review acceptable?

Published protocols have the potential to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews (SR). When reporting the results of a completed SR, the question might arise whether text used in the protocol can also be used in the completed SR? Does this constitute text recycling, plagiarism, or even copyright infringement? In theory, no major changes to the protocol will be expected for the introduction and methods sections if the SR is completed in time. The benefits of maintaining the introduction and methods section of a protocol in the published SR are straightforward. Authors will require less time for writing up the completed SR. Potential benefits can also be expected for peer reviewers and editors. However, reusing text can be described as self-plagiarism. The question to be answered is whether this type of self-plagiarism is acceptable when copying text used previously (as would be the case when copying text from the protocol and pasting it into the subsequent completed SR)? The "traditional answer" to this question is "yes" because authors should not get credit for one piece of work for more than one time unless the work is cited appropriately. In contrast, we propose that in this context, it seems to be fully acceptable from a scientific and ethical perspective. As such, authors should not be accused of plagiarism in this case, but rather be encouraged to be efficient. However, legal issues need to be taken into consideration (e.g., copyright). We hope to stimulate a discussion on this topic among authors, readers, editors, and publishers.

Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice

BACKGROUND

Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic.

METHODS

These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication.

RESULTS

The main recommendations are that research institutions should: 1) develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; 2) release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; 3) take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; 4) work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: 1) respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; 2) have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; 3) pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; 4) retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers.

CONCLUSIONS

Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.

Publication ethics: Role and responsibility of authors

Publication of scientific paper is critical for modern science evolution, and professional advancement. However, it comes with many responsibilities. An author must be aware of good publication practices. While refraining from scientific misconduct or research frauds, authors should adhere to Good Publication Practices (GPP). Publications which draw conclusions from manipulated or fabricated data could prove detrimental to society and health care research. Good science can blossom only when research is conducted and documented with complete honesty and ethics. Unfortunately, publish or perish attitude has led to unethical practices in scientific research and publications. There is need to identify, acknowledge, and generate awareness among junior researchers or postgraduate students to curb scientific misconduct and adopt GPP. This article discusses various unethical publication practices in research. Also, the role and responsibilities of authors have been discussed with the purpose of maintaining the credibility and objectivity of publication.

Estimating the prevalence of text overlap in biomedical conference abstracts

BACKGROUND

Scientists communicate progress and exchange information via publication and presentation at scientific meetings. We previously showed that text similarity analysis applied to Medline can identify and quantify plagiarism and duplicate publications in peer-reviewed biomedical journals. In the present study, we applied the same analysis to a large sample of conference abstracts.

METHODS

We downloaded 144,149 abstracts from 207 national and international meetings of 63 biomedical conferences. Pairwise comparisons were made using eTBLAST: a text similarity engine. A domain expert then reviewed random samples of highly similar abstracts (1500 total) to estimate the extent of text overlap and possible plagiarism.

RESULTS

Our main findings indicate that the vast majority of textual overlap occurred within the same meeting (2%) and between meetings of the same conference (3%), both of which were significantly higher than instances of plagiarism, which occurred in less than .5% of abstracts.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis indicates that textual overlap in abstracts of papers presented at scientific meetings is one-tenth that of peer-reviewed publications, yet the plagiarism rate is approximately the same as previously measured in peer-reviewed publications. This latter finding underscores a need for monitoring scientific meeting submissions - as is now done when submitting manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals - to improve the integrity of scientific communications.

A Survey of Iranian Retracted Publications Indexed in PubMed

Background:

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and a warning for readers in relation to publications that contain serious flaws or erroneous data. As a result of growth and development of Iranian publications in the last two decades, that brings unethical behavior of researchers led to retraction of their publications. We aimed to investigate Iranian retracted publications indexed in PubMed database.

Methods:

All Iranian retracted publications published in PubMed up to Dec 2017 have been retrieved. Bibliographic information of retracted publications, retraction notice, time lag between article publication date and the date of retraction notice, reasons of retraction, Issuer of retraction and acknowledge information of retracted publication were recorded. Additionally, citation data of retracted publications before 2013 were analyzed.

Results:

Overall, 164 Iranian retracted publications were identified. Meantime lag was 20.8 months. “Islamic Azad University” and “Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS)” were two affiliations that have received highest number of retracted publications. The most issuer of retraction publications was editor-in-chief and the most mentioned reasons for retractions were authorship issues, plagiarism, and redundant publication. Thirty-three (20.12%) publications have received funds from various agencies. Citation study of retracted publications indicates that these publications have received 789 citations (Citation per publication=11.6).

Conclusion:

Although Iranian retracted publications represent small portion of all Iranian publications, but the number of retracted publications has increased. More than half of retracted publications have had authorship issues and plagiarism that requires more attention to research ethics authorities.

An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties

Background

As the volume of scientific publications increases, the rate of retraction of published papers is also likely to increase. In the present study, we report the characteristics of retracted papers from clinical neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties.

Methods

Retracted papers were identified using two separate search strategies on PubMed. Attributes of the retracted papers were collected from PubMed and the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were analyzed. The factors that correlated with time to retraction were identified. Detailed citation analysis for the retracted papers was performed. The retraction rates for neurosurgery journals were computed.

Results

A total of 191 retractions were identified; 55% pertained to clinical neurosurgery. The most common reasons for retraction were plagiarism, duplication, and compromised peer review. The countries associated with the highest number of retractions were China, USA, and Japan. The full text of the retraction notice was not available for 11% of the papers. A median of 50% of all citations received by the papers occurred after retraction. The factors that correlated with a longer time to retraction included basic science category, the number of collaborating departments, and the H-index of the journal. The overall rate of retractions in neurosurgery journals was 0.037%.

Conclusions

The retraction notice needs to be freely available on all search engines. Plagiarism checks and reference checks prior to publication of papers (to ensure no retracted papers have been cited) must be mandatory. Mandatory data deposition would help overcome issues with data and results.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00701-020-04615-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Want a better h-index? - All you need to know about copyright and open access

INTRODUCTION

Physicians, whether in the public or private sector, are increasingly bound to "publish or perish". Although researchers have become aware of certain ethical concerns relating to the concept of authorship, clinicians still tend to neglect issues of copyright. The present study aims: 1) to explain to orthopedic surgeons what exactly is protected by copyright in a scientific article; 2) to assess the legal implications of publishing contracts; and 3) to specify the means of publication that best boost the author's h-index.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was based on intellectual property legislation and jurisprudence and the underlying principles. The European and American medical and legal literature was analyzed.

RESULTS

It is vital to understand the basic principles of copyright and the legal implications of publishing contracts. A scientific article is protected by copyright as soon as it has been written. This confers both moral and property rights. "Moral" rights protect the person of the author and are inalienable; unlike property rights, they cannot be transferred. Publishing contracts can only concern property and other derivative rights. Most scientific articles are published in open access via Creative Commons (CC) licenses. The greater the freedom of use provided for in the CC license, the more easily other authors can use the article, adding to it or altering it. As all CC licenses include an attribution clause, authors publishing under a relatively unrestrictive CC license increase the chances of boosting their h-index.

CONCLUSION

Forewarned is forearmed. Mastering the means of publication enables authors to make the most of their publications in boosting their h-index, and also to contribute to the new Open Science paradigm: abandoning some intellectual property in favor of innovation and knowledge sharing rather than clinging to data protection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Comprehensive Survey of Plagiarism in Iran

Background and Objective:

We conducted this study to assess the prevalence of plagiarism and to shed light on some dark aspects of this issue. The main objectives included to find out the etiology, prevalence, and detection of various forms plagiarism.

Methods:

In this Cross-sectional study we used a questionnaire, face-to-face interview, analyzing the present notifications and codes, websites, and literature review. The current study was conducted throughout Iran from 2017-2018. Those associated with scientific journalism, academic staffs, and authors were interviewed or asked to fill out a prepared questionnaire.

Results:

Nine hundred seventy nine questionnaires were circulated. Out of this 706 (72.1%) were completed and returned. Those with a master degree were most cooperative in filling out the questionnaires (36.4%); followed by Assistant Professors (29.6%). About 74.1% of respondents, had not participated in any educational workshops on plagiarism (P<0.001) while 10.8% had not heard anything about plagiarism (P<0.001). As regards correct reply as for definition and detecting plagiarism; 91.1%, 40.8%, 48.4% and 57.9% could reply correctly (P<0.001). Forty-one-point one percent of the participants believed that reprimand would be the best punishment. The percentage of plagiarism as per people associated in journal administration, was 22.9%; based on experts’ opinions, it was 30.0%; and based on analysis of some journals published in Iran, it was 25.5%.

Conclusion:

We found a noticeable prevalence of plagiarism in Iran. Many factors are involved in this misconduct; most important being the need for academic staff and students to publish e more papers regardless of their quality to meet some of the academic requirements. Considering the high rank of Iran in terms of scientific growth worldwide, it is expected from the regulatory authorities to monitor all aspects of scientific misconducts in medical journalism.

Insight into modern-day plagiarism: The science of pseudo research

In today's world, when there is a rapid surge of biomedical publications, maintaining research integrity of articles is of prime importance. It is expected that the submitted work is genuine of submitting authors’. Ease in the availability of these digitally published biomedical papers and pressure to publish for academic and professional advancement had resulted in numerous novice scientists and students falling into unethical practice of plagiarizing others’ work to get the job done quickly. Plagiarists are continuously in search of finding new and easy ways to plagiarize someone else's work, currently seen as different forms of plagiarism. Hence, this narrative review intends to help young and upcoming researchers to understand plagiarism, its type, the reason for plagiarists getting involved in that, and possible ways to detect and prevent it.

A proposed research misconduct policy for universities and postgraduate colleges in developing countries

Research misconduct policy (RMP) is a legal document that shows the definitions of the various types of misconduct, describes the inquiry and investigation of allegations, and the appropriate penalties that should be imposed. The presence of the adopted RMP on the website of a university or postgraduate college is an indication of the level of commitment to promote the proper handling of misconduct cases. Perusal of the websites of top universities in developing countries revealed that many do not have RMP on their websites. The probable starting point for combating research misconduct at the national or institutional level is by acquisition of RMP. The purpose of this article is to propose a modern, structured and cost-effective RMP for universities and postgraduate colleges in developing countries. The bibliographic database, PubMed, was searched using the terms 'research misconduct' and 'research misconduct policy'. All relevant articles from the search and some RMPs of universities, national agencies and global health organisations available on the Internet were carefully studied. A formulated RMP, based on the Final Rule of the United States, Public Health Services Policies on Research Misconduct of 2005 and the Regulations of the University Grants Commission of India of 2018, is hereby presented. In the proposed RMP, plagiarism was stratified into four levels in ascending order of severity so that imposed penalties are commensurate with the seriousness of misconduct. The zero tolerance for plagiarism in the core work areas was adopted. The proposed RMP was designed to act as a template. It should be modified as required based on the prevailing local circumstances and made fit for purpose. Universities, postgraduate colleges and journals should have RMP on the homepage of their websites.

Attitudes towards plagiarism among academics of the faculty of Medicine of Tunis

Assessing the extent of plagiarism within academics remains the first step in the fight against this behavior. The current study aimed to explore the attitudes of the Faculty of Medicine of Tunis (FMT)'s academics toward plagiarism. A cross-sectional study was conducted within the FMT during the 2018-2019 academic year. Data were collected using a questionnaire including the English version of the attitudes toward plagiarism questionnaire (ATPQ) which is composed of 29 statements divided into three attitudinal factors: positive, negative attitudes and subjective norms toward plagiarism. A total of 340 faculty members responded to the survey. The mean scores for both positive attitudes (28.8 ± 6.9) and subjective norms (24.6 ± 4.9) were between low to moderate and that of negative attitudes was moderate (22.4 ± 2.6). In multivariate analysis, participants with higher academic rank, those who had a good level of English or who attended English courses and those who attended workshops in scientific writing were less tolerant toward plagiarism. The implementation of courses on research practices as well as the introduction of medical English courses in the FMT's post graduate program could constitute relevant approaches to limit the extent of plagiarism.

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

BACKGROUND

Plagiarism is considered as serious research misconduct, together with data fabrication and falsification. However, little is known about biomedical researchers' views on plagiarism. Moreover, it has been argued - based on limited empirical evidence - that perceptions of plagiarism depend on cultural and other determinants. The authors explored, by means of an online survey among 46 reputable universities in Europe and China, how plagiarism is perceived by biomedical researchers in both regions.

METHODS

We collected work e-mail addresses of biomedical researchers identified through the websites of 13 reputable universities in Europe and 33 reputable universities in China and invited them to participate in an online anonymous survey. Our questionnaire was designed to assess respondents' views about plagiarism by asking whether they considered specific practices as plagiarism. We analyzed if respondents in China and Europe responded differently, using logistic regression analysis with adjustments for demographic and other relevant factors.

RESULTS

The authors obtained valid responses from 204 researchers based in China (response rate 2.1%) and 826 researchers based in Europe (response rate 5.6%). Copying text from someone else's publication without crediting the source, using idea(s) from someone else's publication without crediting the source and republishing one's own work in another language without crediting the source were considered as plagiarism by 98, 67 and 64%, respectively. About one-third of the respondents reported to have been unsure whether they had been plagiarizing. Overall, the pattern of responses was similar among respondents based in Europe and China. Nevertheless, for some items significant differences did occur in disadvantage of Chinese respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that nearly all biomedical researchers understand (and disapprove of) the most obvious forms of plagiarism, but uncertainties and doubts were apparent for many aspects. And the minority of researchers who did not recognize some types of plagiarism as plagiarism was larger among China-based respondents than among Europe-based respondents. The authors conclude that biomedical researchers need clearer working definitions of plagiarism in order to deal with grey zones.