ReviewMedical journal, Armed Forces India2016
Plagiarism: A silent epidemic in scientific writing - Reasons, recognition and remedies.
Review in Medical journal, Armed Forces India, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reviewing Academic Integrity: Assessing the Influence of Corrective Measures on Adverse Attitudes and Plagiaristic Behavior.Journal of academic ethics · 2022Article
- Authors and Editors of Scholarly Journals Should be Aware of Plagiarism and Its Consequences.Balkan medical journal · 2021Article
- Motivators and barriers to research among doctors in the Indian medical scenario: A cross-sectional study from Karnataka, India.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Plagiarism as Reported by Participants Completing the AuthorAID MOOC on Research Writing.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Article
- The Plague of Plagiarism: Prevention and Cure!!!Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2018Article
- Rejected but not dejected: Dealing with an unfavourable decision on a scientific manuscript.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2018Review
- Wishing away Plagiarism in Scientific Publications! Will it work? A situational analysis of Plagiarism policy of journals in PubMed.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2018Article
- Fraud and plagiarism: Important problem in scientific publication.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2016Article
- Scientific publications - Unscientific demeanor: Where are the problems?Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2016Article
- Preparing and Publishing a Scientific Manuscript.Journal of human reproductive sciencesReview
- Ignorism.International journal of trichologyArticle
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
Plagiarism is one of the most serious forms of scientific misconduct prevalent today and is an important reason for significant proportion of rejection of manuscripts and retraction of published articles. It is time for the medical fraternity to unanimously adopt a 'zero tolerance' policy towards this menace. While responsibility for ensuring a plagiarism-free manuscript primarily lies with the authors, editors cannot absolve themselves of their accountability. The only way to write a plagiarism-free manuscript for an author is to write an article in his/her own words, literally and figuratively. This article discusses various types of plagiarism, reasons for increasingly reported instances of plagiarism, pros and cons of use of plagiarism detection tools for detecting plagiarism and role of authors and editors in preventing/avoiding plagiarism in a submitted manuscript. Regular usage of professional plagiarism detection tools for similarity checks with critical interpretation by the editorial team at the pre-review stage will certainly help in reducing the menace of plagiarism in submitted manuscripts.
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.