ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2015
Plagiarism in research.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cheating and plagiarism in higher education institutions (HEIs): A literature review.F1000Research · 2024Pooled it
- Plagiarism - How to Use and Read it.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Assessing the Suitability of ChatGPT and DeepSeekAI for Parent's Education on Common Pediatric Respiratory Diseases.Cureus · 2025Article
- Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence Use for In-House Ethics Checks of Journal Submissions.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- The Ability of ChatGPT in Paraphrasing Texts and Reducing Plagiarism: A Descriptive Analysis.JMIR medical education · 2024Article
- Editorial bullying: an exploration of acts impacting publication ethics and related environment.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2024Review
- The Cultural Context of Plagiarism and Research Misconduct in the Asian Region.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- The underappreciated wrong of AIgiarism - bypass plagiarism that risks propagation of erroneous and bias content.EXCLI journal · 2023Article
- "There must be Someone's Name Under Every Bit of Text, Even if it is Unimportant or Incorrect": Plagiarism as a Learning Strategy.Journal of academic ethics · 2022Article
- Publication Ethics.Indian pediatrics · 2021Article
- Criminalization of scientific misconduct.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
- Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Mentorship and Ethics in Global Health: Fostering Scientific Integrity and Responsible Conduct of Research.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2019Article
- Article
- Plagiarism in the Context of Education and Evolving Detection Strategies.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Review
- The Pursuit of Originality Makes Us All the Same!Contemporary clinical dentistryArticle
- Insight into modern-day plagiarism: The science of pseudo research.Tzu chi medical journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plagiarism is a major problem for research. There are, however, divergent views on how to define plagiarism and on what makes plagiarism reprehensible. In this paper we explicate the concept of "plagiarism" and discuss plagiarism normatively in relation to research. We suggest that plagiarism should be understood as "someone using someone else's intellectual product (such as texts, ideas, or results), thereby implying that it is their own" and argue that this is an adequate and fruitful definition. We discuss a number of circumstances that make plagiarism more or less grave and the plagiariser more or less blameworthy. As a result of our normative analysis, we suggest that what makes plagiarism reprehensible as such is that it distorts scientific credit. In addition, intentional plagiarism involves dishonesty. There are, furthermore, a number of potentially negative consequences of plagiarism.
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.