ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective. To describe the editorial processing time of published COVID-19 research articles and compare this with a similar topic, human influenza, and analyze the number of publications, withdrawals, and retractions. Methods. A descriptive-analytical study using PubMed on research articles with the MeSH terms human influenza and COVID-19. Time to acceptance (from submission to acceptance) and time to publication (from acceptance to publication) were compared. Retractions and withdrawals were reviewed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Results. There were 31 319 research articles on COVID-19 and 4 287 on human influenza published during 2020. The median time to acceptance for COVID-19 was lower than that for human influenza (8 vs. 92 days). The median time to publication for COVID-19 articles was shorter than those on human influenza (12 vs. 16 days); 47.0% of COVID-19 research articles were accepted within the first week of submission, and 19.5% within one day. There were 82 retractions and withdrawals for COVID-19 articles, 1 for human influenza, and 5 for articles that contain both terms; these were mainly related to ethical misconduct, and 27 (31.0%) were published by the same group of authors in one highest-quartile journal. Conclusions. The conundrum between fast publishing and adequate standards is shown in this analysis of COVID-19 research articles. The speed of acceptance for COVID-19 manuscripts was 11.5 times faster than for human influenza. The high number of acceptances within a day or week of submission and the number of retractions and withdrawals of COVID-19 papers might be a warning sign about the possible lack of a quality control process in scientific publishing and the peer review process.
RESUMEN Objetivo. Describir el tiempo de procesamiento editorial de los artículos de investigación sobre la COVID-19 publicados, compararlo con un tema similar, la gripe humana, y analizar el número de publicaciones realizadas, el de artículos retirados y el de retractaciones. Métodos. Usando PubMed, se llevó a cabo un estudio descriptivo y analítico sobre artículos de investigación con los términos en inglés correspondientes a "gripe humana" y "COVID-19" en el MeSH. Se compararon el tiempo de aceptación (desde la presentación hasta la aceptación) y el tiempo de publicación (desde la aceptación hasta la publicación). Se examinaron las publicaciones retiradas y las retractaciones de manera cualitativa y cuantitativa. Resultados. Hubo 31 319 artículos de investigación sobre la COVID-19 y 4 287 sobre la gripe humana publicados en el año 2020. La mediana del tiempo de aceptación de los artículos sobre la COVID-19 fue inferior que la mediana de la gripe humana (8 días en contraste con 92 días). La mediana del tiempo de publicación de los artículos sobre la COVID-19 fue menor que la de los artículos sobre la gripe humana (12 días en contraste con 16 días). El 47,0 % de los artículos de investigación sobre la COVID-19 se aceptaron en la primera semana de presentación, y el 19,5 %, en un día. Hubo 82 retractaciones y retiradas de artículos sobre la COVID-19, una sobre la gripe humana y 5 de artículos que contenían ambos términos; estas retractaciones y retiradas estuvieron relacionadas principalmente con faltas de conducta ética. Además, hubo 27 artículos (31,0 %) publicados por el mismo grupo de autores en una revista de cuartil más alto. Conclusiones. El dilema entre la publicación rápida y unas normas adecuadas se muestra en este análisis de artículos de investigación sobre la COVID-19. La velocidad de aceptación de los manuscritos sobre la COVID-19 fue 11,5 veces mayor que la velocidad de aceptación de los artículos sobre la gripe humana. El alto número de aceptaciones en un día o una semana desde la presentación y el número de retractaciones y retiradas de artículos sobre la COVID-19 podría ser un signo de advertencia acerca de la posible falta de un proceso de control de calidad en las publicaciones científicas y especialmente en el proceso de arbitraje.
RESUMO Objetivo. Descrever o tempo de processamento editorial dos artigos de pesquisa publicados sobre COVID-19, compará-lo com o de artigos sobre um tema semelhante (gripe humana) e analisar o número de publicações, suspensões e retratações. Métodos. Estudo descritivo-analítico. Foi realizada uma busca no PubMed usando os descritores MeSH "human influenza" e "COVID-19". O tempo até a aceitação (da submissão à aceitação) e o tempo até a publicação (da aceitação à publicação) foram comparados. Retratações e suspensões foram analisadas qualitativa e quantitativamente. Resultados. Foram publicados 31 319 artigos de pesquisa sobre a COVID-19 e 4 287 sobre a gripe humana em 2020. O tempo médio de aceitação de artigos sobre COVID-19 foi menor que o de artigos sobre gripe humana (8 versus 92 dias). O tempo médio até publicação dos artigos sobre COVID-19 foi menor que o de artigos sobre gripe humana (12 versus 16 dias); 47,0% dos artigos sobre COVID-19 foram aceitos na primeira semana após a submissão, e 19,5%, dentro de um dia. Houve 82 retratações e suspensões de artigos sobre COVID-19, 1 sobre gripe humana, e 5 de artigos que continham ambos os termos, principalmente relacionadas a má conduta ética; 27 (31,0%) desses artigos foram publicados pelo mesmo grupo de autores, em uma revista do mais alto quartil. Conclusões. O dilema entre publicar rapidamente e manter padrões adequados fica claro nesta análise de artigos sobre COVID-19. Manuscritos sobre COVID-19 foram aceitos 11,5 vezes mais rapidamente do que artigos sobre gripe humana. O alto número de aceitações em um dia ou semana após a submissão e o número de retratações e suspensões de artigos sobre COVID-19 alertam sobre uma possível falta de controle de qualidade na publicação científica e no processo de revisão por pares.
ABSTRACT
Plagiarism may take place in any scientific journals despite currently employed anti-plagiarism tools. The absence of widely acceptable definitions of research misconduct and reliance solely on similarity checks do not allow journal editors to prevent most complex cases of recycling of scientific information and wasteful, or ‘predatory,’ publishing. This article analyses Scopus-based publication activity and evidence on poor writing, lack of related training, emerging anti-plagiarism strategies, and new forms of massive wasting of resources by publishing largely recycled items, which evade the ‘red flags’ of similarity checks. In some non-Anglophone countries ‘copy-and-paste’ writing still plagues pre- and postgraduate education. Poor research management, absence of courses on publication ethics, and limited access to quality sources confound plagiarism as a cross-cultural and multidisciplinary phenomenon. Over the past decade, the advent of anti-plagiarism software checks has helped uncover elementary forms of textual recycling across journals. But such a tool alone proves inefficient for preventing complex forms of plagiarism. Recent mass retractions of plagiarized articles by reputable open-access journals point to critical deficiencies of current anti-plagiarism software that do not recognize manipulative paraphrasing and editing. Manipulative editing also finds its way to predatory journals, ignoring the adherence to publication ethics and accommodating nonsense plagiarized items. The evolving preventive strategies are increasingly relying on intelligent (semantic) digital technologies, comprehensively evaluating texts, keywords, graphics, and reference lists. It is the right time to enforce adherence to global editorial guidance and implement a comprehensive anti-plagiarism strategy by helping all stakeholders of scholarly communication.
Subject(s)
Education , Ethics , Information Storage and Retrieval , Plagiarism , Publications , Recycling , Retraction of Publication as Topic , Scientific Misconduct , WritingABSTRACT
The detection of plagiarism in scholarly articles is a complex process. It requires not just quantitative analysis with the similarity recording by anti-plagiarism software but also assessment of the readers' opinion, pointing to the theft of ideas, methodologies, and graphics. In this article we describe a blatant case of plagiarism by Chinese authors, who copied a Russian article from a non-indexed and not widely visible Russian journal, and published their own report in English in an open-access journal indexed by Scopus and Web of Science and archived in PubMed Central. The details of copying in the translated English article were presented by the Russian author to the chief editor of the index journal, consultants from Scopus, anti-plagiarism experts, and the administrator of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The correspondents from Scopus and COPE pointed to the decisive role of the editors' of the English journal who may consider further actions if plagiarism is confirmed. After all, the chief editor of the English journal retracted the article on grounds of plagiarism and published a retraction note, although no details of the complexity of the case were reported. The case points to the need for combining anti-plagiarism efforts and actively seeking opinion of non-native English-speaking authors and readers who may spot intellectual theft which is not always detected by software.