A survey on the use of CrossCheck for detecting plagiarism in journal articles

The purpose of this survey was to investigate journal editors' use of CrossCheck, powered by iThenticate, to detect plagiarism, and their attitude to potential plagiarism once discovered. A 22‐question survey was sent to 3,305 recipients, primarily scholarly journal editors from Anglophone countries, and a reduced 10‐question version to 607 editors from non‐Anglophone countries. The response rate was 5.6%. 42% of all respondents had used CrossCheck in their work. The main findings are as follows: (1) the plagiarism detection tool and its similarity report are extremely useful and effective and can assist editors in screening documents suspected of plagiarism; (2) responses show the journal editors' attitude and level of tolerance towards different kinds of plagiarism in different disciplines; (3) the survey results underscore a clear consensus on editorial standards on plagiarism, but there were small variations between different disciplines and countries, as well as between Anglophone and non‐Anglophone. The study also suggests that further work is needed to establish a universal principle and practical approaches to prevent plagiarism and duplicate publication.     

CrossCheck: an effective tool for detecting plagiarism

The plagiarism detection service CrossCheck has been used since October 2008 as part of the paper reviewing process for the Journal of Zhejiang University – Science (A & B). Between October 2008 and May 2009 662 papers were CrossChecked; 151 of these (around 22.8% of submitted papers) were found to contain apparently unreasonable levels of copying or self‐plagiarism, and 25.8% of these cases (39 papers) gave rise to serious suspicions of plagiarism and copyright infringement. Four types of copying or plagiarism were identified, in an attempt to reach a consensus on this type of academic misconduct.     

Republication of conference papers in journals?

Conference proceedings are one of the most important forms of communication for computer scientists. This study investigated the policies of a large number of computer science journals with regard to the republication of papers which had already appeared in conference proceedings. Nearly one‐quarter of journal editors would not republish such papers other than in special circumstances (such as a special conference issue), and almost all of the remainder would do so only after substantial updating and expansion of the original paper. Many specified the amount of content that should be new: 30% was the proportion most frequently mentioned. Thus, many sections of text may be identical to the original paper. However, some journal editors do not appear to consider this self‐plagiarism provided the original publication is properly cited. Nevertheless, such (re)publication is likely to lead to high similarity scores in CrossCheck; in this field, therefore, journal editors need to exercise particular discretion when evaluating CrossCheck results.     

彻查科技论文学术不端的编辑策略

针对不良学术道德行为在科技期刊中的表现,以天津大学期刊中心的实践提出了彻查科技论文学术不端的编辑策略。对于科技论文首先利用CNKI、CrossCheck剽窃检测器检测,然后寻找线索利用网络数据库查询。为弥补剽窃检测器和数据库查询的不足,还需进行网络深度排查。对检测结果,编辑需要进行深入分析,作出正确判断。     

CrossCheck检测平台及信息核实在学术不端防治中的作用

采用CrossCheck检测平台(http://www.ithenticate.com/)对英文科技论文进行比对,通过分析查重比对结果可初步判断该论文是否涉嫌学术不端,进而判断该论文的新颖性和研究热门程度.查重比对可为编辑处理稿件提供有力的支持,为审者审稿提供必要的参考,以便给出公正的审理意见.另外,讨论了审者信息及作者信息的核实对干预学术不端行为的作用.     

Credit where credit's due: plagiarism screening in scholarly publishing

Plagiarism is not a new problem in academic publishing, but in the age of the Internet and digital publishing it would appear that it may be a growing one. Not only is there more literature available, but it has never been easier to search online databases, publisher websites, and institutional repositories. And as the content and its availability grows, so the ability of the reviewer to have read everything in their field diminishes, and detecting unoriginal content becomes harder. In response to this problem, CrossRef has launched CrossCheck ( http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck.html ), a plagiarism detection service for scholarly publishers.     

《中国图书馆学报》作者研究

《中国图书馆学报》作者研究徐苇，韩秀兰，张志平，丘峰Ａｂｓｔｒａｃｔ：３２ｉｓｓｕｅｓｏｆｔｈｅＪｏｕｒｎａｌｗｅｒｅｐｕｂｌｉｓｈｅｄｄｕｒｉｎｇ１９８９－１９９５ｗｉｔｈ６００ｐａｐｅｒｓｗｒｉｔｔｅｎｂｙ６２６ａｕｔｈｏｒｓ，ａｍｏｎｇｔｈｅｍ...     

Authorship in library acquisitions: Practice & theory

Authorship in Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, volume 1, number 1 (January 1977) through volume 19, number 4 (Winter 1995) is analyzed. A literature review identifies numerous other studies of authorship patterns in library and information science (LIS) journals. This study's major findings are: 80.6% of LAPT authors contributed a single article, while 3.9% wrote four or more; 15.6% of the articles were collaboratively written by two or more authors; 65.4% of LAPT authors were academic librarians and 10.6% were vendors; a majority (53.9%) were male, but longitudinal analysis shows an increasing portion of female authors; and 15.3% of LAPT authors were from outside the U.S. Comparisons are made with other LIS journals and explanations for the findings are briefly speculated upon.     

科技论文审稿方式的问卷调查

采用问卷调查的形式,对审稿专家和作者如何看待审稿方式进行了调查.结果表明:有86.8%的审稿人和85.4%的作者都赞同双盲审稿,有88.2%的审稿人和96%的作者都认为,实行双盲审稿,有利于审稿人对稿件进行客观、公正的评审;48.4%的作者和31.6%的审稿人认为,如果审者与作者从事的研究工作类似,编辑在选择审稿人时应采取回避政策.本文建议某些专业面相对较窄的期刊可实行双盲审稿,而大多数高校自然科学学报可以实行单盲审稿.     

The Modified <Emphasis Type="Italic">h</Emphasis>-<Emphasis Type="Italic">Index</Emphasis> of Scopus: A New Way in Fair Scientometrics

The h-index of Scopus is used as an important and practical instrument in analyzing the scientific level of researchers. In this research, 6 effective items (including author’s order, quality of publication source, quality of citation source, type of citation, research scopes of the authors and the regular scope of citation source) were considered in order to increase the accuracy and equity of research and also the optimization of scientometrics. In order to find the actual impact of each item, a relation with a default coefficient was considered, and all effective items were presented after evaluating the influence of them on the desired coefficients. Here, the introduced effective factors were separately investigated for 20 Iranian authors who are randomly selected. The analysis of the results showed that by applying the effective factors, the h-index of authors was obtained on the basis of real and scientific criteria; thus, the mean of all effective factors is introduced as modified h-index. Among considered authors, the lowest reduction in h-index was 10.67% and the highest reduction was 37.25% (SD was 6.5). This reduction was obtained in comparison with their h-index of Scopus, and it demonstrates that the authors, who have less reduction in their h-index value, have more scientific and honest approach to research.     

高影响力作者的机构分布模式研究

高影响力作者是一个科研机构科研产出的主要力量,因此对作者的机构分布规律的研究是进行科研机构评价的主要内容之一。以ESI(Essential Science Indicators)的学科分类和机构与作者排名算法为参考,以Web of Science的基础数据作为数据源,通过对作者和科研机构之间关系的深入分析发现,在研究所涉及的4个学科中,总体上80%左右的高影响力作者就职于总被引排名前1%的机构。基于机构分层的作者分布分析结果显示,三个层次的高被引机构所拥有的高影响力作者的比例均维持在比较稳定的水平。在此基础上,提出以机构拥有的高影响力作者的比例为指标的新的机构评价方法。     

科技论文作者选取关键词行为分析——以《计算机系统应用》为例

This paper aims to analyze the behavior and attitude of authors from scientific papers towards keyword selection, investigate the habit of authors in keyword retrieval, and explore the method of keyword optimization. We design a questionnaire about the keyword selection, including keyword retrieval habit, selection method, processing attitude, expectation, etc. Two hundred questionnaires are sent to the authors of Computer Systems and Applications and 152 valid ones are retrieved. In comparison with other modes, authors are inclined to retrieve papers in the subject or keyword mode.71.62% authors pay much attention to keyword selection. 76.97% authors select Keywords only from titles and abstracts. 73.65% authors believe that Keywords are set to reflect the article content and technical points. 79.73% authors have investigated hot Keywords. 89.19% authors think that valid Keywords can increase article display. 93.10% authors hope editorial boards to recommend Keywords. Since authors are lack of effective method, they are powerless in keyword selection. Editors of scientific and technological journals should make in-depth studies in keyword optimization and make efforts together with authors to select more standard and valid Keywords.     

A survey of medical ghostwriting in China

Ghostwriting has been reported as a particular problem in China, and this article aimed to discover the extent of ghostwriting activity and attitudes by surveying Chinese authors and editors. Three questionnaires were created and distributed via WeChat: an author questionnaire for healthcare professionals, an editor questionnaire for medical journal editors, and a questionnaire for ghostwriters. A total of 1,073 healthcare professionals, 78 medical editors, and 23 ghostwriters responded; 33 (3.075%, 95% confidence interval: 2.041–4.110%) authors reported hiring ghostwriters, most of whom were clinicians (5.06%) or nurses (7.86%) and were in the 31–50 years old group. There was a negative correlation with the level of education. Editors reported few papers identified as ghostwritten, and most of them would immediately reject such articles. The majority of ghostwriters reported working part time as a ghostwriter for less than 1 year and earning little money from the work. The majority of respondents recognized ghostwriting as unethical, but only on the edge of law and ethics, and with few repercussions for the authors.     

Learned society members and open access

The individual members of 35 UK learned societies were surveyed on their attitudes to open access (OA); 1,368 responses were received. Most respondents said they knew what OA was, and supported the idea of OA journals. However, although 60% said that they read OA journals and 25% that they published in them, in both cases around one‐third of the journals named were not OA. While many were in favour of increased access through OA journals, concerns were expressed about the cost to authors, possible reduction in quality, and negative impact on existing journals, publishers, and societies. By contrast, less than half knew what self‐archiving was; 36% thought it was a good idea and 50% were unsure. Just under half said they used repositories of self‐archived articles, but 13% of references were not in fact to self‐archiving repositories. 29% said they self‐archived their own articles, but 10% of references were not to publicly accessible sites of any kind. The access and convenience of self‐archiving repositories were seen as positive, but there were concerns about quality control, workload for authors and institutions, chaotic proliferation of versions, and potential damage to existing journals, publishers, and societies.     

Content strategy in LibGuides: An exploratory study

Since its inception in 2007, Springshare's LibGuides has become a popular content management system (CMS) with academic libraries. The challenges of managing LibGuides content through a cohesive content strategy have not been well documented. The researchers conducted a survey of academic libraries that were using the LibGuides platform in Fall 2019 to determine how institutions are managing content challenges. Of 120 respondents, only 53% of the respondents indicated that their institutions had content guidelines that LibGuides authors were expected to follow. The top three most observed elements of these content guidelines were page design (80%), content reuse policies (77%), naming conventions (73%), and navigation (3%). 15% of respondents' institutions did not review guides once they were published. Of those that reviewed guides post-publication, authors (84%) most frequently reviewed their own guides. These findings imply that LibGuides are largely cared for on an honour system. Guidelines tend towards quantifiable elements and omit more abstract concepts.     

10种中华医学会系列杂志处理医学伦理问题的调查及分析

为了解我国医学期刊论文中处理医学伦理问题的现状,查阅了10种中华医学会系列杂志2009年发表的涉及人体的研究论文,以及这10种期刊稿约中关于医学伦理方面的要求,结果不是很满意。认为作者、审稿人和编辑应认识到科研要符合医学伦理,医学论文中对此要有所说明。这些要求是符合国际规范和要求的,是人类文明的体现。     

用综合指数法测评《编辑学报》的核心著者

依据发文量和被引量2个计量指标,利用综合指数法测评<编辑学报>2001-2006年的核心著者.通过计算,确定出30位核心著者,70%的核心著者分布在北京、湖南、湖北和陕西4个地区,杂志社是<编辑学报>最重要的核心著者来源机构.