ReviewUrologic oncology
Combating unethical publications with plagiarism detection services.
Review in Urologic oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Shade Matching in Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2023Review
- Estimating the prevalence of text overlap in biomedical conference abstracts.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- How do you know it is true? Integrity in research and publications: AOA critical issues.The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2015Article
- Knowing and avoiding plagiarism during scientific writing.Annals of medical and health sciences research · 2014Review
- A new example of unethical behaviour in the academic journal "medical archives".Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2014Article
- Detecting and (not) dealing with plagiarism in an engineering paper: beyond CrossCheck-a case study.Science and engineering ethics · 2014Article
- Factors associated with research wrongdoing in Nigeria.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2012Article
- Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian Medical Journal.Science and engineering ethics · 2012Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
About 3,000 new citations that are highly similar to citations in previously published manuscripts that appear each year in the biomedical literature (Medline) alone. This underscores the importance for the opportunity for editors and reviewers to have detection system to identify highly similar text in submitted manuscripts so that they can then review them for novelty. New software-based services, both commercial and free, provide this capability. The availability of such tools provides both a way to intercept suspect manuscripts and serve as a deterrent. Unfortunately, the capabilities of these services vary considerably, mainly as a consequence of the availability and completeness of the literature bases to which new queries are compared. Most of the commercial software has been designed for detection of plagiarism in high school and college papers; however, there is at least 1 fee-based service (CrossRef) and 1 free service (etblast.org), which are designed to target the needs of the biomedical publication industry. Information on these various services, examples of the type of operability and output, and things that need to be considered by publishers, editors, and reviewers before selecting and using these services is provided.
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.