Dataset Information

The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations.

ABSTRACT: This study explored national differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication in retracted biomedical literature. The national affiliations of authors and reasons for retraction of papers accessible through PubMed that were published from 2008 to 2012 and subsequently retracted were determined in order to identify countries with the largest numbers and highest rates of retraction due to plagiarism and duplicate publication. Authors from more than fifty countries retracted papers. While the United States retracted the most papers, China retracted the most papers for plagiarism and duplicate publication. Rates of plagiarism and duplicate publication were highest in Italy and Finland, respectively. Unethical publishing practices cut across nations.

SUBMITTER: Amos KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3988779 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations.

Amos Kathleen A KA

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20140401 2

This study explored national differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication in retracted biomedical literature. The national affiliations of authors and reasons for retraction of papers accessible through PubMed that were published from 2008 to 2012 and subsequently retracted were determined in order to identify countries with the largest numbers and highest rates of retraction due to plagiarism and duplicate publication. Authors from more than fifty countries retracted papers. While the Un ...[more]

PMID: 24860263

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDuplicate publications of randomized clinical trials are prevalent in the health-related literature. To date, few studies have assessed the interaction between duplicate publication and the language of the original publication.ObjectiveTo assess the existence of duplicate publication and the extent to which duplicate publication is associated with the language of the original publication.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective cohort study, eligible randomized clinical trials were retrieved from trial registries, and bibliographic databases were searched to determine their publication status. Eligible randomized clinical trials were for drug interventions from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2014. The search and analysis were conducted from March 1 to August 31, 2019. The trial registries were either primary registries recognized by the World Health Organization or the Drug Clinical Trial Registry Platform sponsored by the China Food and Drug Administration.ExposuresIndividual randomized clinical trials with positive vs negative results.Main outcomes and measuresJournal articles were classified as main articles (determined by largest sample size and longest follow-up among all journal articles derived from that randomized clinical trial) and duplicates. The duplicates were classified into 4 types: (1) unreferenced subgroup analysis (article did not disclose itself as a subgroup analysis or reference its main article); (2) unreferenced republication (article did not disclose itself as a replicate of the main article or reference it); (3) unreferenced interim analysis (article did not disclose itself as an interim analysis or reference its main article); and (4) partial duplicate (article did not disclose its sharing a subset of participants with other articles or reference them).ResultsAmong 470 randomized clinical trials published by August 2019 as journal articles, 55 (11.7%) had 75 duplicates, of which 53 (70.7%) were cross-language duplicates. Of the 75 duplicates, 33 (44.0%) were unreferenced republications, 25 (33.3%) unreferenced subgroup analyses, 15 (20.0%) unreferenced interim analyses, and 2 (2.7%) partial duplicates. When the main article of a randomized clinical trial was published in Chinese, those with positive findings were 2.48 (95% CI, 1.08-5.71) times more likely to have subsequent duplicate publication than those with negative findings.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, most duplicates were cross-language duplicates and the most common type was unreferenced republication of the main article. Duplicate publication bias exists when the main articles of randomized clinical trials were published in Chinese, potentially misleading readers and compromising journals and evidence synthesis.

Project description:ObjectiveThe extent to which biomedical authors have received training in publication ethics, and their attitudes and opinions about the ethical aspects of specific behaviours, have been understudied. We sought to characterise the knowledge and attitudes of biomedical authors about common issues in publication ethics.DesignCross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research submissions to 20 journals.Main outcome measuresPerceived level of unethical behaviour (rated 0 to 10) presented in five vignettes containing key variables that were experimentally manipulated on entry to the survey and perceived level of knowledge of seven ethical topics related to publishing (prior publication, author omission, self-plagiarism, honorary authorship, conflicts of interest, image manipulation and plagiarism).Results4043/10 582 (38%) researchers responded. Respondents worked in 100 countries and reported varying levels of publishing experience. 67% (n=2700) had received some publication ethics training from a mentor, 41% (n=1677) a partial course, 28% (n=1130) a full course and 55% (n=2206) an online course; only a small proportion rated training received as excellent. There was a full range (0 to 10 points) in ratings of the extent of unethical behaviour within each vignette, illustrating a broad range of opinion about the ethical acceptability of the behaviours evaluated, but these opinions were little altered by the context in which it occurred. Participants reported substantial variability in their perceived knowledge of seven publication ethics topics; one-third perceived their knowledge to be less than 'some knowledge' for the sum of the seven ethical topics and only 9% perceived 'substantial knowledge' of all topics.ConclusionsWe found a large degree of variability in espoused training and perceived knowledge, and variability in views about how ethical or unethical scenarios were. Ethical standards need to be better articulated and taught to improve consistency of training across institutions and countries.

Dataset Information

The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations.

Publications

The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets