Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36974397›Full record

ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2023

The Cultural Context of Plagiarism and Research Misconduct in the Asian Region.

Flinta Rodrigues, Prakash Gupta, Afzal Parvez Khan, Tulika Chatterjee, Nimrat Kaur Sandhu, Latika Gupta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Plagiarism in Publications: All about Being Fair!The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025
    Article
  4. Authors, beware of plagiarism in medical writing.Journal of postgraduate medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Thoughts on plagiarism and the case against Claudine Gay.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Flinta RodriguesDepartment of Medicine, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7724-3516
Prakash GuptaDepartment of Medicine, Saint Louis University Hospital of the Sacred Heart, Baguio, Benguet, Philippines.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1267-3769
Afzal Parvez KhanDepartment of Medicine, University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1676-967X
Tulika ChatterjeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, Peoria, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8844-851X
Nimrat Kaur SandhuDepartment of Public Health, University of California, Merced, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9040-1814
Latika GuptaDepartment of Rheumatology, Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2753-2990

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plagiarism is one of the most frequent forms of research misconduct in South and East Asian countries. This narrative review examines the factors contributing to research misconduct, emphasizing plagiarism, particularly in South, East and Southeast Asian countries. We conducted a PubMed and Scopus search using the terms plagiarism, Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, research misconduct and retractions in January of 2022. Articles with missing abstracts, incomplete information about plagiarism, publication dates before 2010, and those unrelated to South, East, and Southeast Asian countries were excluded. The retraction watch database was searched for articles retracted between 9th January 2020 to 9th January 2022. A total of 159 articles were identified, of which 21 were included in the study using the database search criteria mentioned above. The review of articles identified a lack of training in scientific writing and research ethics, publication pressure, permissive attitudes, and inadequate regulatory measures as the primary reasons behind research misconduct in scientific publications. Plagiarism remains a common cause of unethical publications and retractions in regions of Asia (namely South, East and Southeast). Researchers lack training in scientific writing, and substantial gaps exist in understanding various forms of plagiarism, which heavily contribute to the problem. There is an urgent need to foster high research ethics standards and adhere to journal policies. Providing appropriate training in scientific writing among researchers may help improve the knowledge of different types of plagiarism and promote the use of antiplagiarism software, leading to a substantial reduction in the problem.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchScientific MisconductAsiaHumansPlagiarismPubMedWritingEast AsiaPlagiarismPublication EthicsResearch MisconductRetractionSouth AsiaSoutheast Asia

Identifiers

PMID36974397
PMCPMC10042729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.