ArticleHippokratia2010
Revisiting Information Technology tools serving authorship and editorship: a case-guided tutorial to statistical analysis and plagiarism detection.
Article in Hippokratia, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the number of scientific papers published in journals, conference proceedings, and international literature ever increasing, authors and reviewers are not only facilitated with an abundance of information, but unfortunately continuously confronted with risks associated with the erroneous copy of another's material. In parallel, Information Communication Technology (ICT) tools provide to researchers novel and continuously more effective ways to analyze and present their work. Software tools regarding statistical analysis offer scientists the chance to validate their work and enhance the quality of published papers. Moreover, from the reviewers and the editor's perspective, it is now possible to ensure the (text-content) originality of a scientific article with automated software tools for plagiarism detection. In this paper, we provide a step-bystep demonstration of two categories of tools, namely, statistical analysis and plagiarism detection. The aim is not to come up with a specific tool recommendation, but rather to provide useful guidelines on the proper use and efficiency of either category of tools. In the context of this special issue, this paper offers a useful tutorial to specific problems concerned with scientific writing and review discourse. A specific neuroscience experimental case example is utilized to illustrate the young researcher's statistical analysis burden, while a test scenario is purpose-built using open access journal articles to exemplify the use and comparative outputs of seven plagiarism detection software pieces.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21487489PMC3049420W241617084What 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.