ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2017
Plagiarism in the Context of Education and Evolving Detection Strategies.
Review 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 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Retracted Publications in the Diabetes Literature.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Article
- Advancing Medical Research Through Artificial Intelligence: Progressive and Transformative Strategies: A Literature Review.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Advancing Research, Writing, and Publishing in Nursing: Addressing Challenges and Improving Standards.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Review
- Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Beyond the Keyboard: Academic Writing in the Era of ChatGPT.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- The Cultural Context of Plagiarism and Research Misconduct in the Asian Region.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Faculty Members' Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Anti-Plagiarism Detection Tools: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2022Article
- Analysis of Retracted Publications in The Biomedical Literature from Turkey.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- Learning from Retracted Papers Authored by the Highly Cited Iran-affiliated Researchers: Revisiting Research Policies and a Key Message to Clarivate Analytics.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Experience and awareness of research integrity among Japanese physicians: a nationwide cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Plagiarism in Non-Anglophone Countries: a Cross-sectional Survey of Researchers and Journal Editors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- An online educational model in andrology for student training in the art of scientific writing in the COVID-19 pandemic.Andrologia · 2021Article
- Paragraphing in English Articles: Tips for Non-Anglophone Authors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Plagiarism detection and prevention: a primer for researchers.Reumatologia · 2021Article
- Conventions of English Research Discourse and the Writing of Non-Anglophone Authors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Letter to the Editor: Social Media Is a Double-Edged Sword in the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Plagiarism in Medical Scientific Research: Can Continuing Education and Alarming Prevent This Misconduct?Vascular specialist international · 2020Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Plagiarism as Reported by Participants Completing the AuthorAID MOOC on Research Writing.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology.Clinical rheumatology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plagiarism may take place in any scientific journals despite currently employed anti-plagiarism tools. The absence of widely acceptable definitions of research misconduct and reliance solely on similarity checks do not allow journal editors to prevent most complex cases of recycling of scientific information and wasteful, or 'predatory,' publishing. This article analyses Scopus-based publication activity and evidence on poor writing, lack of related training, emerging anti-plagiarism strategies, and new forms of massive wasting of resources by publishing largely recycled items, which evade the 'red flags' of similarity checks. In some non-Anglophone countries 'copy-and-paste' writing still plagues pre- and postgraduate education. Poor research management, absence of courses on publication ethics, and limited access to quality sources confound plagiarism as a cross-cultural and multidisciplinary phenomenon. Over the past decade, the advent of anti-plagiarism software checks has helped uncover elementary forms of textual recycling across journals. But such a tool alone proves inefficient for preventing complex forms of plagiarism. Recent mass retractions of plagiarized articles by reputable open-access journals point to critical deficiencies of current anti-plagiarism software that do not recognize manipulative paraphrasing and editing. Manipulative editing also finds its way to predatory journals, ignoring the adherence to publication ethics and accommodating nonsense plagiarized items. The evolving preventive strategies are increasingly relying on intelligent (semantic) digital technologies, comprehensively evaluating texts, keywords, graphics, and reference lists. It is the right time to enforce adherence to global editorial guidance and implement a comprehensive anti-plagiarism strategy by helping all stakeholders of scholarly communication.
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.