ReviewMateria socio-medica2014
Plagiarism in scientific research and publications and how to prevent it.
Review in Materia socio-medica, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Article
- Copyright and creative commons licenses in scholarly publishing: A practical guide for researchers.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2025Article
- Building Credibility with Comprehensive Citation Practices.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Article
- Authors, beware of plagiarism in medical writing.Journal of postgraduate medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence, natural stupidity or artificial stupidity: who is today the winner in orthopaedics? What is true and what is fraud? What legal barriers exist for scientific writing?International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- NLP AI Models for Optimizing Medical Research: Demystifying the Concerns.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2023Review
- How Far Goes the Un-ethic of the Authors Who Submit the Articles to the Journals, Or, Better to Say, Their "Scientific Insolence"?Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2023Article
- Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: A Brief History of Scientific Journals.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2023Review
- Medical Archives/Medicinski Arhiv/Archives de Medicine is Finally Indexed in SCOPUS Database.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2022Article
- Operation of Medical Journal Citation Databases Without Control. Dilemma: Are They What They Want to Be in the Eyes of Scientific Community.Materia socio-medica · 2022Article
- Instead of the Letter to the Editor-Dilemma: Is a New Form of Blackmail Emerging in the World of Scientific Journals Publishing?Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2022Article
- Predatory Journals and Publishers - Dilemmas: How to Assess it and How to Avoid it?Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2021Article
- Mind the Gap: a Competency-Based Scoping Review of Aesthetic and Reconstructive Reported Simulation Training Models.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2021Article
- PLAGIARISM: THE CURSE OF INTERNET IN AFRICAN ACADEMIA?Annals of Ibadan postgraduate medicine · 2020Article
- The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Citation.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2020Review
- Self-citation in Iran in Comparison with Other Countries.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2019Article
- Turnitin: Is it a text matching or plagiarism detection tool?Saudi journal of anaesthesia · 2019Review
- Article
- What to Do When You Have Suspect Translational Plagiarism? - Editor's View.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2018Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quality is assessed on the basis of adequate evidence, while best results of the research are accomplished through scientific knowledge. Information contained in a scientific work must always be based on scientific evidence. Guidelines for genuine scientific research should be designed based on real results. Dynamic research and use correct methods of scientific work must originate from everyday practice and the fundamentals of the research. The original work should have the proper data sources with clearly defined research goals, methods of operation which are acceptable for questions included in the study. When selecting the methods it is necessary to obtain the consent of the patients/respondents to provide data for execution of the project or so called informed consent. Only by the own efforts can be reached true results, from which can be drawn conclusions and which finally can give a valid scholarly commentary. Text may be copied from other sources, either in whole or in part and marked as a result of the other studies. For high-quality scientific work necessary are expertise and relevant scientific literature, mostly taken from publications that are stored in biomedical databases. These are scientific, professional and review articles, case reports of disease in physician practices, but the knowledge can also be acquired on scientific and expert lectures by renowned scientists. Form of text publications must meet standards on writing a paper. If the article has already been published in a scientific journal, the same article cannot be published in any other journal with a few minor adjustments, or without specifying the parts of the first article which is used in another article. Copyright infringement occurs when the author of a new article, with or without mentioning the author, uses a substantial portion of previously published articles, including past contributions in the first article. With the permission of the publisher and the author, another journal can re-publish the article already published. In that case, that is not plagiarism, because the journal states that the article was re-published with the permission of the journal in which the article is primarily released. The original can be only one, and the copy is a copy, and plagiarism is stolen copy. The aim of combating plagiarism is to improve the quality, to achieve satisfactory results and to compare the results of their own research, rather than copying the data from the results of other people's research. Copy leads to incorrect results. Nowadays the problem of plagiarism has become huge, or widespread and present in almost all spheres of human activity, particularly in science. Scientific institutions and universities should have a center for surveillance, security, promotion and development of quality research. Establishment of rules and respect the rules of good practice are the obligations of each research institutions, universities and every individual researchers, regardless of which area of science is being investigated. There are misunderstandings and doubts about the criteria and standards for when and how to declare someone a plagiarist. European and World Association of Science Editors (EASE and WAME), and COPE - Committee on Publishing Ethics working on the precise definition of that institution or that the scientific committee may sanction when someone is proven plagiarism and familiarize the authors with the types of sanctions. The practice is to inform the editors about discovered plagiarism and articles are withdrawn from the database, while the authors are put on the so-called black list. So far this is the only way of preventing plagiarism, because there are no other sanctions.
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.