ABSTRACT
Background: The objective of retracting flawed publications is to maintain the integrity of scientific literature. Retractions in the dental literature have been on the rise in recent years. Hence, we aimed to review retracted articles related to dentistry. Methods: A search was conducted of the MEDLINE database for retracted articles in the dental literature published between April 1, 1993 and March 31, 2020. The retracted articles and the notices of retraction were reviewed, and the findings are presented. Results: During the selected period, 143 articles were retracted. Redundant publication (n=50, 35%) was the most common reason for retraction, followed by plagiarism (n=43, 30.1%) and data manipulation (n=42, 29.4%). Around 70.6% (n=101) of retracted articles were original articles. Eight (5.6%) of the articles were single authored. The retracted articles have been cited by about 1300 publications, after the date of publication of the retraction notice. The gap between publication and retraction was longer for funded articles than for non-funded articles, and for articles retracted for data manipulation than for articles retracted for other types of misconduct. Twenty-one journals and nine authors retracted two or more papers. The majority of authors of retracted articles (224, 37%) were from India. Conclusion: Our study showed that the retraction of publications due to misconduct such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, data manipulation is a matter of concern and calls for strict measures to curb the menace of research misconduct.
ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Duplicate Publications as Topic , Editorial Policies , Ethics , Judgment , Periodicals as Topic , Plagiarism , Publications , Scientific Misconduct , SynapsesABSTRACT
Continuing "Spot the seven errors" game in the submission of scientific papers process begun in the previous issue, this editorial will discuss a second error: the 'salami science' phenomenon. For the trajectory of professionals working in the academic world is essential to undertake studies and subsequent publication of his findings. In this context, the 'salami science' is to publish results of a single study in several scientific articles, resulting in jobs with low relevance and little originality. It is observed that there is already a tendency to avoid the practice of this phenomenon. These actions will ensure the credibility of the journals, increasing the dissemination of appropriate conduct in the submission of scientific articles.
Em continuidade ao Jogo dos Sete Erros no processo de submissão de artigos científicos, iniciado na edição anterior, este editorial discorrerá sobre um segundo erro: o fenômeno 'salami science'. Para a trajetória do profissional que atua no mundo acadêmico é primordial a realização de estudos e consequente publicação de seus achados. Nesse contexto, o 'salami science' consiste em publicar resultados de um único estudo em diversos artigos científicos, dando origem a trabalhos de baixa relevância e pouca originalidade. Observa-se que já existe uma tendência para evitar a prática desse fenômeno. Essas ações irão assegurar a credibilidade dos periódicos, aumentando a disseminação de condutas adequadas no processo de submissão de artigos científicos.
Dando continuidad al Juego de los Siete Errores en el proceso de sumisión de artículos científicos, iniciado en la edición anterior, este editorial tratará sobre un segundo error: el fenómeno 'salami science'. Para la trayectoria del profesional que actúa en el mundo académico es primordial la realización de estudios y consecuente publicación de sus hallazgos. En este contexto, el 'salami science' consiste en publicar resultados de un único estudio en diversos artículos científicos, dando origen a trabajos de poca relevancia y originalidad. Se observa que ya existe una tendencia para evitar la práctica de este fenómeno. Estas acciones irán a asegurar a credibilidad de los periódicos, aumentando la diseminación de conductas adecuadas en el proceso de sumisión de artículos científicos.
Subject(s)
Periodicals as Topic , Duplicate Publications as Topic , Scientific Publication Ethics , Scholarly CommunicationABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Humans , Databases, Factual , Duplicate Publications as Topic , Journalism, Medical , Publishing/ethics , Republic of Korea , Research Personnel/ethicsABSTRACT
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...
Subject(s)
Academic Dissertations as Topic , Duplicate Publications as Topic , Scientific Publication EthicsABSTRACT
The ultimate purpose of research is ‘advancement of knowledge’. All other motives should be secondary. However, that does not seem to be the practice. There are various forms of ‘publication frauds’, one such form is duplicate/redundant publications. According to Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE), issues related to authorship and duplicate publication are the most common types of ethical problems. Duplicate publication occurs when there is partial or complete duplication of data from the same piece of work without proper declaration. The practice was always there, and is on the rise. This editorial is written with an intention to increase awareness regarding this important issue.
ABSTRACT
Objective Using second duplication checking to prevent academic misconduct of accepted papers ,and to improve the academic quality of journals for the consolidating credibility of academic journal and brand establishing .Methods Academic Mis-conduct Literature Check(AMLC)system developed by CNKI was applied to check possible academic misconduct of 90 accepted pa-pers for Chongqing Medical Journal ,then the contribution time ,duplication checking time ,words repetition percentage of the accept-ed papers with academic misconduct and similarity literature were analyzed compared with the source papers .Results After chec-king 90 accepted papers ,9 of them were suspected with academic misconduct ,including 5 papers with 30 .1% -40 .0% of coinci-dence rate ,1 paper with 40 .1% -50 .0% of coincidence rate ,and 3 papers with more than 50 .1% of coincidence rate .Most of the academic misconduct were multiple contribution of same manuscript or duplicate publication .Conclusion To avoid the multiple con-tribution of the same manuscript or duplicate publication ,we should shorten peer review and publishing period ,carry on multi-dupli-cation checking ,punish academic misconduct ,and work together with other sci-tech periodicals to eliminate academic misconduct .
ABSTRACT
Plagiarism, the use of text and ideas from published works without proper permission or citation, is difficult to detect since the whole text should be searched and compared to literature databases. Nevertheless, this process has become simpler with the advent of web-based technologies and more powerful search tools. Recently, a case of plagiarism was detected in an invited manuscript submitted to the Journal of the Korean Medical Association. In the withdrawn manuscript, there were figures and figure legends copied from other papers with neither permission nor citation. Only the citation is enough to use content, figures, or tables from other papers when the original journal is open access with Creative Commons License. Otherwise, to use such data, it is essential to obtain permission from that paper's journal publisher. If plagiarism is detected after publication, the author will face harsh disciplinary action before the office of research integrity in his or her institute. Also, the paper may be retracted by the editor. This is the first time that Editorial Board has detected plagiarism before publication. Screening for plagiarism and other ethical violations will continue so that we can pursue the status of the representative journal of Korean physicians and develop a positive reputation for Korean science internationally by maintaining the utmost quality and integrity in our publications.
Subject(s)
Coat Protein Complex I , Licensure , Mass Screening , Plagiarism , Publications , United States Office of Research IntegrityABSTRACT
Duplicate publication is considered unethical. It has several negative impacts. To estimate the frequency and characteristics of duplicate publications in Korean medical journals, we reviewed some portion of Korean journal articles. Among 9,030 articles that are original articles indexed in KoreaMed from January to December 2004, 455 articles (5%) were chosen by random sampling. PubMed, Google scholar, KMbase, and KoreaMed were searched by two librarians. Three authors reviewed titles, abstracts, and full text of index articles and suspected articles independently. Point of disagreement were reconciled by discussion. Criteria for a duplicate publication defined by editors of cardiothoracic journals and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors were used. A total of 455 articles were evaluated, of which 27 (5.93%) index articles were identified with 29 duplicate articles. Among 27 index articles, 1 was quadruple publication and 26 were double publications. Of 29 duplicated articles, 19 were classified as copy, 4 as fragmentation, and 6 as disaggregation. The proportion of duplicate publications in Korean medical journals appears to be higher than expected. Education on publication ethics to researchers is needed.
Subject(s)
Duplicate Publications as Topic , Periodicals as TopicABSTRACT
La ocurrencia de algunas manifestaciones impropias en la producción y comunicación de resultados científicos ocurridas en el período 2004-2006, motivó la realización de esta revisión con la intención de profundizar en el conocimiento de las distintas formas en que pueden presentarse estas conductas. Se definen y comentan las formas severas como la fabricación y falsificación de datos, el plagio y otras menores o menos severas que las anteriores, como la publicación duplicada o redundante, autoría injustificada, sesgos de publicación, inexactitud en las citas bibliográfícas, entre las más importantes. Se comentan los aspectos éticos de estos problemas y se ofrecen algunos ejemplos de fraudes científicos ocurridos entre 1974 y 2006 que parecieron interesantes exponer.
Some inappropriate signs found in the production and communication of scientific results in the 2004-2006 period prompted to make this literature review, with the objective of delving into the different ways in which these misconducts may appear. The most important inappropriate signs such as data fabrication and falsification, and plagiarism as well as other minor or less severe expressions like duplicate or redundant publication, unjustified autorship, publication biases, and inaccurate bibliographic quotations were defined and discussed. Also, comments were made on the ethical aspects of these problems and some interesting examples of scientific frauds that have occured from 1974 to 2006 were provided.