ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2016
Plagiarism in submitted manuscripts: incidence, characteristics and optimization of screening-case study in a major specialty medical journal.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Navigating the Editorial Gauntlet for Excellence in Radiology Publishing.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Article
- Detection of plagiarism among rhinology scientific journals.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2024Article
- A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Plagiarism in medical publishing: each of us can do something about it.European heart journal. Case reports · 2022Article
- Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor.Journal of forestry research · 2022Article
- Authors and Editors of Scholarly Journals Should be Aware of Plagiarism and Its Consequences.Balkan medical journal · 2021Article
- Decoding Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty inPlastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Estimating the prevalence of text overlap in biomedical conference abstracts.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Similarity and Plagiarism in Scholarly Journal Submissions: Bringing Clarity to the Concept for Authors, Reviewers and Editors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Text Recycling in Scientific Writing.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Can the similarity index predict the causes of retractions in high-impact anesthesia journals? A bibliometric analysis.Saudi journal of anaesthesia · 2019Article
- Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- Making the scientific literature fail-safe.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2018Article
- Article
- Comment on Cary Moskovitz' "Text Recycling in Health Sciences Literature: A Rhetorical Perspective".Research integrity and peer review · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlagiarism is common and threatens the integrity of the scientific literature. However, its detection is time consuming and difficult, presenting challenges to editors and publishers who are entrusted with ensuring the integrity of published literature.
methodsIn this study, the extent of plagiarism in manuscripts submitted to a major specialty medical journal was documented. We manually curated submitted manuscripts and deemed an article contained plagiarism if one sentence had 80 % of the words copied from another published paper. Commercial plagiarism detection software was utilized and its use was optimized.
resultsIn 400 consecutively submitted manuscripts, 17 % of submissions contained unacceptable levels of plagiarized material with 82 % of plagiarized manuscripts submitted from countries where English was not an official language. Using the most commonly employed commercial plagiarism detection software, sensitivity and specificity were studied with regard to the generated plagiarism score. The cutoff score maximizing both sensitivity and specificity was 15 % (sensitivity 84.8 % and specificity 80.5 %).
conclusionsPlagiarism was a common occurrence among manuscripts submitted for publication to a major American specialty medical journal and most manuscripts with plagiarized material were submitted from countries in which English was not an official language. The use of commercial plagiarism detection software can be optimized by selecting a cutoff score that reflects desired sensitivity and specificity.
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.