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

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.

Duplicate Publication Rate Decline in Korean Medical Journals

The purpose of this study was to examine trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical articles indexed in the KoreaMed database from 2004 to 2009, before and after a campaign against scientific misconduct launched by the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors in 2006. The study covered period from 2007 to 2012; and 5% of the articles indexed in KoreaMed were retrieved by random sampling. Three authors reviewed full texts of the retrieved articles. The pattern of duplicate publication, such as copy, salami slicing (fragmentation), and aggregation (imalas), was also determined. Before the launching ethics campaign, the national duplication rate in medical journals was relatively high: 5.9% in 2004, 6.0% in 2005, and 7.2% in 2006. However, duplication rate steadily declined to 4.5% in 2007, 2.8% in 2008, and 1.2 % in 2009. Of all duplicated articles, 53.4% were classified as copies, 27.8% as salami slicing, and 18.8% as aggregation (imalas). The decline in duplicate publication rate took place as a result of nationwide campaigns and monitoring by KoreaMed and KoreaMed Synapse, starting from 2006.

O que compromete o ineditismo de um artigo?: [Editorial] / What compromises the ineditism of an article?: [Editorial]

A equipe editorial da Scientia Medica decidiu que continuará considerando para publicação artigos originais resultantes de teses, dissertações e trabalhos de conclusão de curso de nível superior (seja no seu todo ou em parte), assim como trabalhos apresentados em eventos e ainda não publicados sob a forma de artigo. Se ocorrer redundância por outras situações que não estas, o artigo será considerado como não inédito e impróprio para publicação neste periódico. A informação sobre a origem do trabalho deverá ser fornecida pelos autores e será repassada aos revisores quando iniciar o processo de revisão por pares. Se o artigo for aceito para publicação, a informação será disponibilizada aos leitores...

The editorial team of Scientia Medica decided that this journal will continue to consider, for publication, original articles based on theses and dissertations, as well as works presented at events and not yet published in the article form. If redundancy occur in other situations, the item will be considered as not inedit and therefore inappropriate for publication in this journal. Information on the origin of the work must be provided by the authors and will be passed to the reviewers when starting the process of peer review. If the article is accepted for publication, the information will be made available to readers...