ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Comprehensive Survey of Plagiarism in Iran.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plagiarism: A Bird's Eye View.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Plagiarism in Non-Anglophone Countries: a Cross-sectional Survey of Researchers and Journal Editors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Assessing research misconduct in Iran: a perspective from Iranian medical faculty members.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Plagiarism detection and prevention: a primer for researchers.Reumatologia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveWe conducted this study to assess the prevalence of plagiarism and to shed light on some dark aspects of this issue. The main objectives included to find out the etiology, prevalence, and detection of various forms plagiarism.
methodsIn this Cross-sectional study we used a questionnaire, face-to-face interview, analyzing the present notifications and codes, websites, and literature review. The current study was conducted throughout Iran from 2017-2018. Those associated with scientific journalism, academic staffs, and authors were interviewed or asked to fill out a prepared questionnaire.
resultsNine hundred seventy nine questionnaires were circulated. Out of this 706 (72.1%) were completed and returned. Those with a master degree were most cooperative in filling out the questionnaires (36.4%); followed by Assistant Professors (29.6%). About 74.1% of respondents, had not participated in any educational workshops on plagiarism (
conclusionWe found a noticeable prevalence of plagiarism in Iran. Many factors are involved in this misconduct; most important being the need for academic staff and students to publish e more papers regardless of their quality to meet some of the academic requirements. Considering the high rank of Iran in terms of scientific growth worldwide, it is expected from the regulatory authorities to monitor all aspects of scientific misconducts in medical journalism.
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.