ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2021
Plagiarism in Non-Anglophone Countries: a Cross-sectional Survey of Researchers and Journal Editors.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plagiarism in Publications: All about Being Fair!The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Article
- Advancing Research, Writing, and Publishing in Nursing: Addressing Challenges and Improving Standards.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Review
- Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Review
- Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Ambiguity in Ethical Standards: Global Versus Local Science in Explaining Academic Plagiarism.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Characteristics of Retracted Publications From Kazakhstan: An Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Plagiarism: A Bird's Eye View.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- [Scientific integrity faces plagiarism fabricated with the ChatGPT].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2023Article
- Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- The Acceptable Text Similarity Level in Manuscripts Submitted to Scientific Journals.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- The Cultural Context of Plagiarism and Research Misconduct in the Asian Region.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Analysis of Retracted Publications in The Biomedical Literature from Turkey.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlagiarism is one of the most common violation of publication ethics, and it still remains an area with several misconceptions and uncertainties.
methodsThis online cross-sectional survey was conducted to analyze plagiarism perceptions among researchers and journal editors, particularly from non-Anglophone countries.
resultsAmong 211 respondents (mean age 40 years; M:F, 0.85:1), 26 were scholarly journal editors and 70 were reviewers with a large representation from India (50, 24%), Turkey (28, 13%), Kazakhstan (25, 12%) and Ukraine (24, 11%). Rigid and outdated pre- and post-graduate education was considered as the origin of plagiarism by 63% of respondents. Paraphragiarism was the most commonly encountered type of plagiarism (145, 69%). Students (150, 71%), non-Anglophone researchers with poor English writing skills (117, 55%), and agents of commercial editing agencies (126, 60%) were thought to be prone to plagiarize. There was a significant disagreement on the legitimacy of text copying in scholarly articles, permitted plagiarism limit, and plagiarized text in methods section. More than half (165, 78%) recommended specifically designed courses for plagiarism detection and prevention, and 94.7% (200) thought that social media platforms may be deployed to educate and notify about plagiarism.
conclusionGreat variation exists in the understanding of plagiarism, potentially contributing to unethical publications and even retractions. Bridging the knowledge gap by arranging topical education and widely employing advanced anti-plagiarism software address this unmet need.
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.