Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21731858›Full record

ArticlePerspectives in clinical research2011

Plagiarism: Why is it such a big issue for medical writers?

Natasha Das, Monica Panjabi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives in clinical research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Plagiarism - How to Use and Read it.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Plagiarism in Publications: All about Being Fair!The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025
    Article
  4. Authors, beware of plagiarism in medical writing.Journal of postgraduate medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Publication ethics: Role and responsibility of authors.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The Trojan Citation and the "Accidental" Plagiarist.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2016
    Article
  18. Rising from Plagiarising.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2015
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Plagiarism: an egregious form of misconduct.North American journal of medical sciences · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Natasha DasFreelance Medical Writer, Delhi, India.
Monica Panjabi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plagiarism is the wrongful presentation of somebody else's work or idea as one's own without adequately attributing it to the source. Most authors know that plagiarism is an unethical publication practice. Yet, it is a serious problem in the medical writing arena. Plagiarism is perhaps the commonest ethical issue plaguing medical writing. In this article, we highlight the different types of plagiarism and address the issues of plagiarism of text, plagiarism of ideas, mosaic plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and duplicate publication. An act of plagiarism can have several repercussions for the author, the journal in question and the publication house as a whole. Sometimes, strict disciplinary action is also taken against the plagiarist. The article cites examples of retraction of articles, suspension of authors, apology letters from journal editors, and other such actions against plagiarism.

Indexed as

Action against plagiarismduplicate publicationmedical writingplagiarismunethical publication practice

Identifiers

PMID21731858
PMCPMC3121267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.