ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2017
Encouraging Editorial Flexibility in Cases of Textual Reuse.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing Research, Writing, and Publishing in Nursing: Addressing Challenges and Improving Standards.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Review
- Writing up your clinical trial report for a scientific journal: the REPORT trial guide for effective and transparent research reporting without spin.British journal of sports medicine · 2022Review
- Plagiarism in Non-Anglophone Countries: a Cross-sectional Survey of Researchers and Journal Editors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Plagiarism detection and prevention: a primer for researchers.Reumatologia · 2021Article
- Similarity and Plagiarism in Scholarly Journal Submissions: Bringing Clarity to the Concept for Authors, Reviewers and Editors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Plagiarism as Reported by Participants Completing the AuthorAID MOOC on Research Writing.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Editorial Abuses.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Article
- Preventing plagiarism in higher educational institutes of India.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
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
Because many technical descriptions of scientific processes and phenomena are difficult to paraphrase and because an increasing proportion of contributors to the scientific literature are not sufficiently proficient at writing in English, it is proposed that journal editors re-examine their approaches toward instances of textual reuse (similarity). The plagiarism definition by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is more suitable than other definitions for dealing with cases of ostensible plagiarism. Editors are strongly encouraged to examine cases of textual reuse in the context of both, the ORI guidance and the offending authors' proficiency in English. Editors should also reconsider making plagiarism determinations based exclusively on text similarity scores reported by plagiarism detection software.
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.