ArticleNucleic acids research2009
Deja vu: a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys.Science and engineering ethics · 2015Pooled it
- Article
- Retracted articles in rehabilitation: just the tip of the iceberg? A bibliometric analysis.Archives of physiotherapy · 2020Review
- PubTerm: a web tool for organizing, annotating and curating genes, diseases, molecules and other concepts from PubMed records.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2019Article
- Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign.PLoS medicine · 2013Article
- Multiple systematic reviews: methods for assessing discordances of results.Internal and emergency medicine · 2012Review
- Duplicate publications: A sample of redundancy in the Journal of Urology.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2012Article
- Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian Medical Journal.Science and engineering ethics · 2012Article
- Article
- An empirical analysis of overlap publication in Chinese language and English research manuscripts.PloS one · 2011Article
- Revisiting Information Technology tools serving authorship and editorship: a case-guided tutorial to statistical analysis and plagiarism detection.Hippokratia · 2010Article
- Systematic characterizations of text similarity in full text biomedical publications.PloS one · 2010Article
- Identifying duplicate content using statistically improbable phrases.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2010Article
- Plagiarism and other Types of Publication Misconduct: A case for teaching publication ethics in medical schools.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2009Article
- Nucleic Acids Research annual Database Issue and the NAR online Molecular Biology Database Collection in 2009.Nucleic acids research · 2009Article
- Combating unethical publications with plagiarism detection services.Urologic oncologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the scientific research community, plagiarism and covert multiple publications of the same data are considered unacceptable because they undermine the public confidence in the scientific integrity. Yet, little has been done to help authors and editors to identify highly similar citations, which sometimes may represent cases of unethical duplication. For this reason, we have made available Déjà vu, a publicly available database of highly similar Medline citations identified by the text similarity search engine eTBLAST. Following manual verification, highly similar citation pairs are classified into various categories ranging from duplicates with different authors to sanctioned duplicates. Déjà vu records also contain user-provided commentary and supporting information to substantiate each document's categorization. Déjà vu and eTBLAST are available to authors, editors, reviewers, ethicists and sociologists to study, intercept, annotate and deter questionable publication practices. These tools are part of a sustained effort to enhance the quality of Medline as 'the' biomedical corpus. The Déjà vu database is freely accessible at http://spore.swmed.edu/dejavu. The tool eTBLAST is also freely available at http://etblast.org.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.