[Scientific integrity faces plagiarism fabricated with the ChatGPT]. / La integridad científica ante los plagios fabricados con el ChatGPT.

Among the malpractices that undermine research integrity, plagiarism is a major threat given its frequency and evolving presentations. Plagiarism implies the intentional grabbing of texts, ideas, images, or data belonging to others and without crediting them. However, the different and even masked forms of plagiarism often difficult a clear identification. Currently, the many kinds of fraud and plagiarism account for most retractions in traditional and open access journals. Further, the rate of retracted articles is higher in the Latin American databases LILACS and Scielo than in PubMed and Web of Science. This difference has been related to the typical laxity of our culture and the lack of English writing skills of non-Anglophone researchers. These features explain the conflict experienced by Latin American students in USA where they face a stricter culture regarding academic and scientific plagiarism. In the internet era, the ease of accessing scientific literature has increased the temptation to plagiarize but this ethical breach has been countered by antiplagiarism software. Now, the so-called "paraphragiarism" prompted by paraphrasing tools exceeds the infamous "copy-paste". For instance, the innovative ChatGPT can be used for plagiarizing and paraphragiarizing. Moreover, its inclusion as coauthor in scientific papers has been banned by prestigious journals and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors because such chatbot cannot meet the required public responsibility criterium. To avoid plagiarism, it is enough to always give due credit in the proper way. Lastly, I question the ill-fated and now prevailing conjunction of blind faith in progress and zero skepticism that prevents us from foreseeing the negative consequences of technological advances.

De entre las malas prácticas que socavan la integridad científica destaca el plagio, tanto por su frecuencia como por sus cada vez más evolucionadas presentaciones. Plagiar implica apropiarse intencionalmente de textos, ideas, imágenes o datos ajenos sin dar el crédito debido. Sin embargo, las muchas y, a veces, sutiles maneras de plagiar dificultan identificar esta práctica deshonesta. Los fraudes y plagios explican la mayoría de los artículos retractados en revistas tradicionales y en las de acceso abierto. Además, las retractaciones por plagios en las bases de datos LILACS y SciELO exceden las reportadas en PubMed y Web of Science. Dicha diferencia se atribuye a la permisividad propia de nuestra cultura y a la dificultad para escribir en inglés que los académicos no angloparlantes enfrentamos. Tales peculiaridades explican el conflicto que experimentan los estudiantes latinoamericanos de posgrado en Estados Unidos, país cuya cultura es mucho más estricta en cuestión de plagios académicos y científicos. Al facilitar el acceso a la literatura científica, los avances digitales han propiciado los plagios, pero también el desarrollo de programas para detectar tales apropiaciones. Además del burdo "copiar y pegar", las herramientas para parafrasear han refinado y quizá aumentado el llamado "parafragio". Así, el novedoso ChatGPT puede usarse para plagiar y "parafragiar". Peor aún, la inclusión del ChatGPT como coautor de artículos científicos ha llevado a que el International Committee of Medical Journal Editors y editoriales de prestigio precisen que tal recurso no debe incluirse en la lista de autores. Para evitar el plagio, basta dar siempre el crédito a quien corresponda y apropiadamente. Por último, cuestiono la fe ciega en el progreso y el nulo escepticismo ahora imperantes que nos impiden prever las consecuencias negativas de los avances tecnológicos.

Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications

This statement revises our earlier "WAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications" (January 20, 2023). The revision reflects the proliferation of chatbots and their expanding use in scholarly publishing over the last few months, as well as emerging concerns regarding lack of authenticity of content when using chatbots. These recommendations are intended to inform editors and help them develop policies for the use of chatbots in papers published in their journals. They aim to help authors and reviewers understand how best to attribute the use of chatbots in their work and to address the need for all journal editors to have access to manuscript screening tools. In this rapidly evolving field, we will continue to modify these recommendations as the software and its applications develop.

Esta declaración revisa las anteriores "Recomendaciones de WAME sobre ChatGPT y Chatbots en Relation to Scholarly Publications" (20 de enero de 2023). La revisión refleja la proliferación de chatbots y su creciente uso en las publicaciones académicas en los últimos meses, así como la preocupación por la falta de autenticidad de los contenidos cuando se utilizan chatbots. Estas recomendaciones pretenden informar a los editores y ayudarles a desarrollar políticas para el uso de chatbots en los artículos sometidos en sus revistas. Su objetivo es ayudar a autores y revisores a entender cuál es la mejor manera de atribuir el uso de chatbots en su trabajo y a la necesidad de que todos los editores de revistas tengan acceso a herramientas de selección de manuscritos. En este campo en rápida evolución, seguiremos modificando estas recomendaciones a medida que se desarrollen el software y sus aplicaciones.

Revistas depredadoras y secuestradas en cirugía. Qué se debe saber sobre ellas y cómo evitarlas

Las revistas depredadoras (RD), constituyen una gran amenaza para la publicación contemporánea, ya que ofrecen una publicación rápida de acceso abierto a cambio de tarifas sin procedimientos de revisión por pares para científicos jóvenes o inexpertos. Son compañías que priorizan el interés propio a expensas de la academia, caracterizándose por entregar información falsa o engañosa, distorsión de las mejores prácticas editoriales y de publicación, falta de transparencia y uso de tácticas de solicitud de manuscritos indiscriminadas y agresivas. El objetivo de este manuscrito fue generar un documento de estudio sobre las RD y secuestradas; así como de las conferencias depredadoras en cirugía.

Predatory journals (PD) are a major threat to contemporary publishing, as they offer rapid open access publication for fees without peer review procedures for young or inexperienced scientists. Are companies that prioritize self-interest at the expense of academia, characterized by providing false or misleading information, misrepresentation of publishing and editorial best practices, lack of transparency, and use of indiscriminate and aggressive manuscript solicitation tactics. The aim of this manuscript was to generate a study document regarding the PD, hijacked journals and predatory conferences in surgery.

Actitudes frente al plagio académico en estudiantes de medicina de universidades privadas y públicas

Introducción: el desarrollo de la sociedad del conocimiento, la sociedad de la información y el auge de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC) facilitan la multi-alfabetización de un estudiante; sin embargo, también facilitan y explotan el fraude académico e intelectual. Objetivo: conocer la percepción estudiantil acerca del plagio en los trabajos de investigación. Metodología: estudio descriptivo observacional, de corte transversal sobre la precepción del plagio en estudiantes de facultades publicas y privadas de ciencias de la salud de Asunción. Resultados: de 139 estudiantes, 68 (49%) correspondieron a facultades publicas. Entre el 51 % al 69 % realizaron trabajos de investigación al menos una vez en su carrera universitaria, la edad media de la muestra fue 21 ± 3 años (rango: 17-40 años). En cuanto al extraer de internet información sin referir el autor: existe una diferencia significativa (p= 0,006), entre facultades publicas y privadas: publicas: 38,2 % algunas veces lo realiza, y 61,8 % nunca lo realiza. Y las privadas: 56,3 % algunas veces lo realiza, 38 % nunca y 5,6 % siempre lo realiza. La mayoría de los estudiantes refieren que el plagio académico siempre se realiza en las escuelas. Los estudiantes manifiestan que se deben implementar medidas para evitar el plagio académico en estos porcentajes: siempre se debe informar entre el 64,6 % y 73,5 %; anular el trabajo de investigación entre el 52,1 % y 75 %. Ambas medidas presentan una diferencia significativa entre las facultades publicas y privadas (p<0,05). Discusión: en general, la percepción de plagio entre los estudiantes de medicina está presente, e identifican el concepto de plagio. Las causas son multifactoriales tanto desde el alumno como del docente. Debe existir penalización para los autores que realizan plagio, acompañado de talleres de concienciación en los niveles iniciales de educación, para evitar esta práctica.

Introduction: the development of the knowledge society, the information society and the rise of information and communication technologies (ICT) facilitate the multi-literacy of a student; however, they also facilitate and exploit academic and intellectual fraud. Objective: to know the student perception about plagiarism in research papers. Methods: descriptive, observational, cross-sectional study on the perception of plagiarism in students of public and private faculties of health sciences in Asunción. Results: of 139 students, 68 (49%) corresponded to public faculties. Between 51% and 69% carried out research work at least once in their university career, the mean age of the sample was 21 ± 3 years (range: 17-40 years). As for extracting information from the internet without referring to the author: there is a significant difference (p= 0.006) between public and private faculties: public: 38.2% sometimes do it, and 61.8% never do it. And the private ones: 56.3% sometimes do it, 38% never and 5.6% always do it. Most of the students refer that academic plagiarism is always carried out in the schools. The students state that measures must be implemented to avoid academic plagiarism in these percentages: between 64.6% and 73.5% must always be reported; cancel the research between 52.1% and 75%. Both measures present a significant difference between the public and private faculties (p<0.05). Discussion: in general, the perception of plagiarism among medical students is present, and they identify the concept of plagiarism. The causes are multifactorial from both the student and the teacher. There must be a penalty for authors who plagiarize, accompanied by awareness workshops at the initial levels of education, to avoid this practice.

La tentación de las revistas depredadoras / The temptation of predatory journals

RESUMEN Probablemente, varios de los lectores de este artículo en determinado momento han recibido correos electrónicos "seductores", en los cuales, de forma encomiástica, cordial y sospechosamente entusiasta, quizás haciendo referencia a investigaciones anteriores del destinatario, el editor ejecutivo de una revista foránea les invita a contribuir con algún informe científico en la confección de un número cuya publicación es inminente. Este tipo de invitación puede resultar un molesto incidente para múltiples profesionales o tal vez, una oferta tentadora para otros, pues la perciben como una oportunidad rápida y facilista para optimizar su gestión curricular. Tales mensajes constituyen una intrusión en la privacidad de los usuarios, consecuencias de políticas de difusión fraudolentas, agresivas e indiscriminadas, carentes de transparencia, promotoras del plagio y transgresoras de la ética científica, practicadas por pseudorevistas conocidas con el término despectivo de "revistas depredadoras". Estas revistas constituyen una amenaza a la ética de las publicaciones científicas, pues tienen como objetivo obtener reconocimiento y beneficios económicos, a expensas de prácticas deshonestas, que fomentan el plagio y ocasionan perjuicios sobre los autores, pacientes e instituciones académicas. El presente artículo de opinión tuvo como objetivo describir las características de las revistas depredadoras y la pseudopublicación científica en general(AU)

ABSTRACT Probably, several of the readers of this article at a certain time have received "seductive" emails, in which, in a commendable, cordial and suspiciously enthusiastic way, perhaps referring to previous research of the recipient, the executive editor of a foreign journal invites them to contribute with some scientific report in the preparation of an issue whose publication is imminent. This type of invitation can be an annoying incident for multiple professionals or perhaps, a tempting offer for others, as they perceive it as a quick and easy opportunity to optimize their curricular management. Such messages constitute an intrusion into the privacy of users, the result of fraudulent, aggressive and indiscriminate dissemination policies, lacking transparency, promoters of plagiarism and transgressors of scientific ethics, practiced by pseudo-journals known with the derogatory term of "predatory journals". These journals constitute a threat to the ethics of scientific publications, since they aim to obtain recognition and economic benefits, at the expense of dishonest practices, which encourage plagiarism and cause harm to authors, patients and academic institutions. This opinion piece aimed to describe the characteristics of predatory journals and scientific pseudo-publishing in general(AU)

Editorial: Originalidad y contexto / Editorial: originality and context

Resumen Aragón-Vargas, L.F. (2021). Editorial: Originalidad y contexto. PENSAR EN MOVIMIENTO: Revista de Ciencias del Ejercicio y la Salud, 19(2), 1-4. En este editorial se reflexiona sobre el grado de originalidad que se debe exigir a los manuscritos que se reciben para publicación en las revistas académicas y, más específicamente, en Pensar en Movimiento.

Abstract Aragón-Vargas, L.F. (2021). Editorial: originality and context. PENSAR EN MOVIMIENTO: Revista de Ciencias del Ejercicio y la Salud, 19(2), 1-4.This editorial presents some reflections on how much originality should be required from those manuscripts submitted for publication in academic journals and, more specifically, in Pensar en Movimiento.

Resumo Aragón-Vargas, L.F. (2021). Editorial: Originalidade e contexto. PENSAR EN MOVIMIENTO: Revista de Ciencias del Ejercicio y la Salud, 19(2), 1-4. Neste editorial é feita uma reflexão sobre o grau de originalidade exigida dos manuscritos recebidos para publicação nas revistas acadêmicas e, mais especificamente, na Pensar en Movimiento.

Reflexões sobre o plágio e a fraude em estudos brasileiros / Reflections on plagiarism and fraud in Brazilian studies / Reflexiones sobre plagio y fraude en estudios brasileños

Resumo Este estudo reflete sobre o plágio e a fraude na produção científica brasileira por meio de revisão integrativa de artigos publicados entre janeiro de 2009 e junho de 2019. As publicações foram buscadas nas bases DOAJ, Lilacs, PubMed, SciELO e Web of Science, com os descritores exatos "plagiarism", "scientific misconduct", "fraud" e "Brazil". Com a rápida expansão da internet e o desenvolvimento tecnológico, os casos de má conduta na produção científica aumentaram, ocorrendo, por exemplo, adulteração, invenção ou reutilização de dados, múltiplas submissões, conflitos de autoria e de interesses, publicação "salame" (fracionada) e plágio. Entre as más condutas acadêmicas mais comuns estão a "cola" e o plágio, presentes nos mais diversos níveis de ensino, da educação básica à educação superior.

Abstract This integrative review reflects on plagiarism and fraud in Brazilian studies based on scientific production and academic attitude. Literature search of articles published between January 2009 and June 2019 was conducted in the DOAJ, LILACS, PubMed, SciELO and Web of Science databases, using the exact descriptors "Plagiarism," "Scientific Misconduct," "Fraud" and "Brazil." The rapid expansion of the internet and technological development lead to increased cases of misconduct in scientific production, occurring, for example, tampering, fabrication or reuse of data, multiple submissions, conflicts of authorship and interests, salami publication (salami slicing) and plagiarism. Among the most common academic misconducts are the copying and plagiarism, present at all education levels, whether in primary or tertiary education.

Resumen Este estudio promueve una reflexión sobre el plagio y el fraude en estudios brasileños basados en la producción científica y la postura académica a través de una revisión integradora de artículos publicados entre enero de 2009 y junio de 2019. Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos DOAJ, LILACS, PubMed, SciELO y Web. of Science, utilizando los descriptores exactos "Plagio", "Mala conducta científica", "Fraude" y "Brasil". Con la rápida expansión de Internet y el desarrollo tecnológico, han aumentado los casos de mala conducta en la producción científica, ocurriendo, por ejemplo, adulteración, invención o reutilización de datos, múltiples presentaciones, conflictos de autoría e intereses, publicación "salami" (fraccional) y plagio. Entre las faltas académicas más comunes se encuentran el "pegamento" y el plagio, presentes en los más diversos estratos, ya sea en la Educación Básica o en la Educación Superior.

El plagio académico desde la perspectiva de la ética de la publicación científica / Academic plagiarism as misconduct in scientific publication

Las malas conductas científicas que puedan cometer los autores al momento de planificar, ejecutar o informar los resultados de sus estudios pueden conducir al rechazo del futuro artículo e incluso a la veda del autor con las consiguientes sanciones administrativas, legales y/o jurídicas. El plagio es un acto de apropiación indebida de propiedades intelectuales, textos académicos, métodos investigativos, gráficos e ideas, así como la fabricación y falsificación de información, que en la ética de las publicaciones científicas se clasifican como un tipo de mala conducta científica. En el ambiente universitario se evidencia un aumento de casos de plagio al momento de analizar los trabajos académicos, tesis, trabajos de fin de grado, tesis y disertaciones cuando se utilizan software antiplagio; sin embargo, se resalta que el desconocimiento de las estrategias para evitar el plagio es frecuente entre estudiantes de pregrado y de posgrado. Con la finalidad de exponer información sobre el plagio académico, el presente artículo tuvo como objetivo describir los principales conceptos, causas, factores asociados e impacto que posee el plagio desde la perspectiva de la ética de la publicación científica(AU)

The acts of scientific misconduct potentially performed by authors when planning, conducting or reporting the results of their studies may lead to rejection of the future paper and even the banning of the author alongside the corresponding administrative and/or legal sanctions. Plagiarism is the wrongful appropriation of copyrights, academic texts, research methods, charts and ideas, as well as the fabrication and falsification of information, all of which classifies as instances of scientific misconduct in the ethics of scientific publication. An increase in the number of instances of plagiarism is observed in the university environment when analyzing academic studies, theses, diploma papers and dissertations using anti-plagiarism software. However, unawareness of the strategies to prevent plagiarism is common among undergraduate and graduate students. The purpose of the present study was to present information about academic plagiarism, discussing the main concepts, causes, associated factors and impact of plagiarism from the perspective of scientific publication ethics(AU)

Ética e bioética no mundo científico: uma revisão integrativa / Ética y bioética en el mundo científico: una revisión integradora de la literatura / Ethics and Bioethics in the Scientific World: An Integrative Review

Resumo Objetivou-se analisar, por meio da literatura, a realidade das questões éticas e bioéticas no mundo científico. Trata-se de uma revisão integrativa, realizada com artigos contidos em três bases de dados. Foram utilizados sete Descritores em Ciências da Saúde, a partir dos quais foram elaboradas três combinações utilizadas em todas as bases. Após aplicar os critérios de inclusão, foram selecionados 18 artigos. As más condutas, especialmente o plágio, a falsificação e fabricação de dados vêm apresentando comportamento crescente e requerem medidas mais severas para seu controle, a fim de manter a credibilidade científica perante a sociedade e os órgãos superiores.

Resumen El objetivo fue analizar, por medio de la literatura, la realidad de las cuestiones éticas y bioéticas en el mundo científico. Esta es una revisión integradora, realizada con artículos de tres bases. Se utilizaron siete Descriptores de Ciencias de la Salud, desde los cuales se elaboraron tres combinaciones que se utilizaron en todas las bases. Después de aplicar los criterios de inclusión, se seleccionaron 18 artículos. La mala conducta, especialmente el plagio, falsificación y fabricación de datos, ha mostrado un comportamiento creciente y requiere medidas más estrictas para controlarlo a fin de mantener la credibilidad científica con la sociedad y las instituciones superiores.

Abstract This paper studies the reality of ethical and bioethical issues in the scientific world through an integrative literature review of articles included in three databases. Seven terms from the thesaurus Health Sciences Descriptors were used, from which three combinations were elaborated and used in the three databases. After applying inclusion requirements, a total of 18 articles were selected. Certain misconducts, particularly plagiarism, falsification and data fabrication, have been showing an increasing behavior, which requires more stringent measures in order to control such phenomenon and maintain scientific credibility before society and authorities.

¿Qué es plagio? / What is plagiarism?

Esta guía tiene como objetivo brindar al docente/investigador conocimientos básicos acerca del plagio y el derecho de autor. Se mencionan los distintos tipos de plagio y la forma de evitarlo a través de la citación. Finalmente, se ofrece un listado de las principales normas o estilos de citas bibliográficas internacionalmente reconocidas y algunos ejemplos de programas gratuitos y de pago para detectar el plagio.

This guide is intended to provide the teacher / researcher with a basic understanding of plagiarism and copyright. The different types of plagiarism and the way to avoid it through citation are mentioned. Finally, there is a list of the main internationally recognized standards or styles of bibliographic citations and some examples of free and paid programs to detect plagiarism.

Plagio en artículos de investigación en revistas biomédicas cubanas. 2016 / Plagiarism in Cuban biomedical research articles. 2016

Introducción: El plagio junto a la fabricación y falsificación de resultados constituyen las formas más graves de mala conducta científica. Sin embargo, la escasez de estudios concretos sobre esta mala práctica, motivó realizar la presente investigación. Objetivo: Caracterizar los artículos que incurren en plagio publicado en revistas biomédicas cubanas indizadas en SciELO, durante 2016. Material y métodos: Estudio descriptivo, transversal, con una muestra probabilística de 50 artículos originales, obtenida por muestreo aleatorio simple de 786 investigaciones publicadas en 32 revistas biomédicas cubanas indizadas en SciELO. Se realizó un análisis textual a través de Google Scholar, para identificar textos idénticos. Luego se cotejaron los artículos con similitudes, y se seleccionó como original el de fecha de publicación más antigua. Para el análisis se utilizó el Software RStudio 1.0.136. No se revelan títulos de artículos, autores, instituciones ni revistas en que se publicaron. Resultados: Más de la mitad de los artículos (52 por ciento) cumplía el criterio de plagio. Los hallazgos se encontraron en todas las secciones del artículo, fundamentalmente en introducción (52 por ciento), discusión (18 por ciento) y material y métodos (10 por ciento). El patrón de plagio más frecuente fue "en mosaico" (sustitución, adición, sustracción), seguido por "plagio directo" (copia exacta de bloques de texto). Conclusiones: La frecuencia de plagio en los artículos revisados es alta, con predominio hacia las estructuras teóricas del artículo (introducción y discusión), y fundamentalmente a partir del uso de sinónimos, cambios de verbos, adición y/o sustracción de texto, correspondiente al plagio en mosaico(AU)

Introduction: Plagiarism and the fabrication and falsification of results constitute the most serious forms of scientific misconduct. However, there is a lack of solid studies on this malpractice which motivated us to carry out this research work. Objective: To characterize the articles engaged in plagiarism published in Cuban biomedical journals indexed in SciELO in 2016. Material and Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using a probabilistic sample of 50 original articles obtained by simple random sampling of 786 research studies published in 32 Cuban biomedical journals indexed in SciELO. A textual analysis was performed using Google Scholar to identify identical texts. After that, similar articles were compared and the oldest data of publication was taken into account to determine the original article. R Studio Software 1.0.136 was used for the analysis. The titles of the articles, authors, institutions and journals were not shown. Results: More than half of the articles (52 percent) met the criteria of plagiarism. Similarities were found in all sections of the article, mainly in the introduction (52 percent), discussion (18 percent) and material and methods (10 percent). The most frequent pattern of plagiarism was in "mosaic" (substitution, addiction, subtraction), followed by "direct plagiarism" (exact copy of sections of text). Conclusions: The frequency of plagiarism in the articles reviewed is high, predominating in the theoretical structures of the article (introduction and discussion), where synonyms, changes in verbs, addition or omission of parts of the text were identified, corresponding to plagiarism in mosaic.

Percepción de los profesores de universidades peruanas respecto a la conducta responsable en investigación / Perception of professors at Peruvian universities regarding responsable conduct in research

RESUMEN Fundamento: Para orientar esfuerzos y estrategias al logro de una conducta responsable en investigación, es de suma importancia conocer el estado de opinión de investigadores consolidados, de manera que se pueda esclarecer cómo se ven a sí mismos y cómo perciben el contexto en que se desempeñan. Objetivo: caracterizar la percepción de los profesores de universidades peruanas respecto a la conducta responsable en investigación. Métodos: estudio descriptivo, exploratorio, que incluyó a 70 docentes universitarios, pertenecientes a las respectivas cátedras de metodología de la investigación de tres universidades de Perú. En función de la variable conducta responsable en investigación, se establecieron tres dimensiones (conceptual, personal, institucional), con sus respectivos indicadores; y de estos, a su vez, derivaron las preguntas de una encuesta. Resultados: en la dimensión conceptual, se manifestó un escaso conocimiento acerca de situaciones de conducta no responsable en investigación en el 64,29 % de los docentes encuestados. Solo en el 28,6 % de los encuestados las respuestas evidenciaron que sí son responsables en el plano individual. En cuanto al rol de las instituciones educativas en general, la gran mayoría, el 58,6 %, expresó que estas muestran algún interés por el tema. Conclusión: los profesores de universidades peruanas perciben la conducta responsable en investigación como medianamente favorable. En su práctica individual, la mayoría no cumple con la totalidad de los principios éticos elementales al investigar. Respecto al papel de la universidad, el criterio que prevaleció fue que esta no muestra todo el interés que debería.

ABSTRACT Foundation: For guiding efforts and strategies to achieve responsible research behavior, it is of utmost importance to know the state of established researcher's opinion, so that they can clarify how they see themselves and how they perceive the context in which they perform. Objective: to characterize the perception of Peruvian universities professors regarding the responsible behavior in research. Methods: descriptive, exploratory study, which included 70 university professors, belonging to the respective chairs of research methodology in three universities in Peru. Based on the variable responsible behavior in research, three dimensions were established (conceptual, personal, institutional), with their corresponding indicators; and from these, in turn, questions from a survey were derived. Results: in the conceptual dimension, there was little knowledge about situations of non-responsible behavior in research in 64.29% of the professors surveyed. Only in 28.6% show that they are individually responsible. Regarding the role of educational institutions in general, the vast majority, 58.6%, expressed that they show some interest in the topic. Conclusion: Peruvian universities professors perceive responsible behavior in research as moderately favorable. In their individual practice, most do not comply with all of the basic ethical principles when investigating. Regarding the role of the university, the prevailing criterion was that it does not show all the interest it should.

Retraction of publications: a study of biomedical journals retracting publications based on impact factor and journal category.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the biomedical journal characteristics that are associated with the retraction of papers. METHOD: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted. All papers retracted and indexed in PubMed from January 1st 2013 to December 31st, 2016 were included. We used nine main categories to classify retractions: aspects related with data, authors issues, plagiarism, unethical research, journal issues, review process, conflict of interest, other, and unknown. These categories were further classified as: misconduct, suspicion of misconduct, or no misconduct. RESULTS: The proportion of retraction was 2.5 per 10,000 publications. Retractions appeared in 611 journals. During the study period, retraction due to misconduct was more frequent among journals with low-impact factor. Within these retracted publications, among low-impact journals the presence of misconduct was higher with a 73% compared to 61% for the high-impact journals (p=0.001). There were differences in the percentage of retractions due to misconduct regarding the journal classification category (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Retraction of publications is present in both high- and low-impact factor biomedical journals, but misconduct is more frequent among the papers retracted from lower impact journals. Measures before and after publication should be taken to limit misconduct.

Nova face de um velho problema: o autoplágio no cenário da produção científica / A new side of an old problem: self-plagiarism in scientific publications

Este artigo é parte de uma série especial que foi desenvolvida para auxiliar autores no processo da redação científica e comunicação. No cenário da produção científica, dentre as várias infrações éticas, está cada vez mais comum a ocorrência do plágio. Define-se plágio como a apresentação de uma obra contendo partes que pertençam a outra pessoa, sem o devido crédito. Um tipo de plágio que tem ganhado destaque nos últimos anos é o autoplágio, no qual o próprio autor reutiliza seus trabalhos anteriores sem a devida referência. Entretanto, há discussões na comunidade científica sobre esse tipo de plágio, estendendo o termo a algumas má-condutas específicas em publicações científicas. Isso acaba gerando artigos inautênticos e prejudicando a integridade da ciência. O presente artigo tem por objetivo abordar de forma mais detalhada o que é autoplágio, seus motivos e consequências para a comunidade científica. Para tanto, realizou-se uma pesquisa não sistemática da literatura, a fim de também apresentar os principais tipos de autoplágio, o que pode ser feito para evitá-lo e como proceder quando o mesmo é detectado.

This article is part of a special series that was designed to assist authors in the process of scientific writing and communication. Among the various forms of ethical misconduct in scientific publishing, plagiarism is increasingly common. Plagiarism is defined as the presentation of a work containing parts authored by another person without due credit. One type of plagiarism that has gained prominence in recent years is self-plagiarism, in which authors themselves reuse their previous work without proper referencing. However, active discussion remains in the scientific community about this type of plagiarism, with the term being extended to some specific forms of misconduct in scientific publication. This practice leads to inauthentic work and ultimately undermines the integrity of science. The purpose of this article is to address in depth the definition of self-plagiarism, the underlying motives for this practice and its consequences for the scientific community. To do so, a non-systematic review of the literature was conducted. Guidance is provided on the major types of self-plagiarism, what can be done to avoid it and how to proceed when it is detected.

Integridad y conductas inapropiadas en investigación biomédica / Integrity and misconduct in biomedical research

Resumen: Los Comités Editoriales de revistas de corriente principal se ven enfrentados ocasionalmente a con ductas éticas inapropiadas en los manuscritos recibidos. El Comité de Ética en las publicaciones (COPE) ofrece recomendaciones para los editores respecto a cómo actuar frente a la sospecha de falta de ética en los manuscritos, ya sea recibidos o publicados. Cuando se pesquisa una mala práctica durante el proceso de revisión por pares, el manuscrito es rechazado, no obstante, si la conducta ina propiada es detectada después de la publicación de manuscrito, se procede a retractar la publicación. Revista Chilena de Pediatría no ha sido exenta a este tipo de conflictos. En este artículo analizamos los distintos aspectos relacionados con la falta de integridad de las publicaciones, como son las autorías, el plagio y el conflicto de intereses. Podemos concluir que las malas prácticas ocurren principalmente por desconocimiento de los autores, más que por intención de fraude. Se espera que el presente ma nuscrito logre instruir y sensibilizar a nuestros investigadores, respecto a las buenas prácticas en la investigación y publicación, y, contribuir, en lo posible, a prevenir que estas acciones ocurran en los manuscritos enviados a nuestra Revista.

Abstract: Editorial Boards of mainstream journals occasionally face ethical misconducts in received manus cripts. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provides recommendations for editors on how to deal with suspected ethical misconduct in either received or published manuscripts. The manus cript is rejected when malpractice is observed during the peer review process, however, if the mis conduct is detected after the publication, the publication will be retracted. The Revista Chilena de Pediatría (Chilean Journal of Pediatrics) has not been exempt from these type of conflicts. In this article, we analyze different aspects regarding the lack of integrity in publications, such as authorship, plagiarism, and conflict of interest. We can conclude that malpractices take place mainly due to the lack of knowledge of the authors rather than intent to defraud. It is expected that this article will suc ceed in instructing and sensitizing our researchers on good practices in research and publication, and contribute, as far as possible, to prevent this actions in the manuscripts sent to our Journal.

O plágio na produção científica na área da saúde: uma revisão da literatura / Plagiarism in scientific production in the health area: a literature review

A presente pesquisa é de natureza bibliográfica, compreendida como uma revisão sistemática da literatura. Tem como questão principal: "Qual é o estado da arte no que tange a temática do plágio na produção científica da área da saúde no Brasil?". Considera que o plágio, apesar de se agravar na era da informação, existe há muito tempo e que este, quando se prolifera no fazer científico, nas publicações e passa despercebido por avaliadores, acarreta prejuízos financeiros, ético-morais e desprestígio da ciência. Uma forma de verificar como estão avançando as discussões e observar a apropriação desse tema pela comunidade científica brasileira dá-se mediante a apreciação de artigos sobre plágio publicados nos periódicos indexados em bases de dados. Este trabalho objetivou delinear o cenário da produção científica acerca do plágio na área da saúde a partir de artigos indexados em periódicos científicos brasileiros entre os anos de 2010 a 2015. A revisão sistemática da literatura foi realizada nos bancos de dados eletrônicos LILACS, MEDLINE e ColecionaSUS, utilizando-se palavra-chave para capturar os artigos. Após aplicação dos critérios de inclusão e exclusão, foram selecionadas 14 publicações. Verificou-se que a discussão sobre o plágio é ainda incipiente no Brasil. O plágio é visto como um assunto complexo que necessita de enfrentamento, com ações educativas desde a formação inicial, com corresponsabilização da sociedade e pesquisadores. Verificou-se que ainda há lacunas na produção científica brasileira.

This is a bibliographic research, understood as a systematic literature review. It attempts to answer the main question: "What is the state of the art regarding the topic of plagiarism in the scientific production in the health area in Brazil?". It considers that plagiarism, although worsened in the information age, has existed for a long time. And when it proliferates in the scientific work and publications, going unnoticed by evaluators, results in financial losses, damaging both ethical and moral prestige of the sciences. One way to check the advancement in the discussions and observe the appropriation of this issue by the Brazilian scientific community is through the appreciation of articles regarding plagiarism published in database-indexed journals. This study aimed to outline the scientific production scenario regarding plagiarism in health from articles indexed in Brazilian scientific journals between 2010 and 2015. A systematic literature review was conducted in the electronic databases LILACS, MEDLINE and ColecionaSUS using keyword to capture the articles. After the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 14 publications were selected. It could be observed that the discussion regarding plagiarism is still incipient in Brazil. Plagiarism is seen as a complex issue that requires actions to be taken, including educational activities from the initial training, with co-responsibility of the society and researchers. It was also observed that gaps still exist in the Brazilian scientific production.

[Plagiarism and predatory journals: A threat to scientific integrity]. / El plagio y las revistas depredadoras como amenaza a la integridad científica.

This article presents an analysis of the concept of plagiarism in order to show the wide spectrum of manifestations that can be considered as such when committing a transgression of intellectual property, carried out with the intention of deceiving the authors' true contribution and the originality and novelty of the information. The article describes the concurrent circumstances in intentional plagiarism, and the damage that this misconduct causes in the credibility of the scientific system, in which authorship credit is the foundation of the academic career, of the prestige of the author in the scientific community, and the basis for research funding. Some circumstances are favouring this fraud: the pressure exerted on researchers by the criteria used for promotion and reward that prioritise the quantity of works on their quality, the existence of a market for the purchase and sale of scientific articles, and the proliferation of predatory journals that operate without or minimal ethical standards. Finally, the paper highlights the convenience of the adoption of criteria that prioritise the intrinsic quality of the work versus its quantity, including the active involvement of the institutions in the development of active policies for the prevention, detection, and punishment of the cases of potential fraud, and emphasize that, in the end, the prevention of fraud relies on the individual adoption of an ethical and responsible behaviour.

Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the causes of retracted publications and the main characteristics of their authors. METHOD: A descriptive cross-sectional study was designed including all retracted publications from January 1st, 2013-December 31st, 2016 indexed in PubMed. The causes of retraction were classified as: data management, authorship issues, plagiarism, unethical research, journal issues, review process, conflict of interest, other causes, and unknown reasons. Then, misbehaviour was classified as misconduct, suspicion of misconduct or no misconduct suspicion. RESULTS: 1,082 retracted publications were identified. The retraction rate for the period was 2.5 per 10,000 publications. The main cause of retraction was misconduct (65.3%), and the leading reasons were plagiarism, data management and compromise of the review process. The highest proportion of retracted publications corresponded to Iran (15.52 per 10,000), followed by Egypt and China (11.75 and 8.26 per 10,000). CONCLUSIONS: Currently, misconduct is the main cause of retraction. Specific strategies to limit this phenomenon must be implemented. It would be useful to standardize reasons and procedures for retraction. The development of a standard retraction form to be permanently indexed in a database might be relevant.

Escala de Autorrelato de Trapaça-Admissão: Evidências de Validade Fatorial e Precisão / Cheating Admission Self Report Scale: Evidence of Factorial Validity and Precision / Escala de Autoinforme de Trampa-Admisión: Evidencias de Validez Factorial y Precisión

Resumo Este estudo objetivou adaptar ao contexto brasileiro a Escala de Autorrelato de Trapaça-Admissão (EAT-A), reunindo evidências de sua validade fatorial e consistência interna. Participaram 441 estudantes (M=16 anos, 54.6% do sexo feminino), divididos aleatoriamente em dois grupos. Todos responderam à EAT-A e a perguntas demográficas. A análise de componentes principais revelou uma estrutura bifatorial, cujos fatores apresentaram alfas de Cronbach (α) superiores a .80 (G 1 ). Essa estrutura foi corroborada através da análise fatorial confirmatória (e.g., CFI=.87 e RMSEA=.08). Concluiu-se que essa escala mostrou-se psicometricamente adequada e reuniu evidências de validade fatorial e consistência interna, podendo ser utilizada para mensurar plágio em contexto acadêmico.

Abstract This study aimed to adapt the Cheating Admission Self Report Scale (CASRS) to the Brazilian context and collect evidence on factorial validity and internal consistency. 441 students participated (M=16 years, 54.6% females), randomly divided in two groups. All responded to CASRS and to demographic questions. The analysis of the main components demonstrated a bifactor structure, whose factors presented Cronbach's alphas (α) greater than .80 (G1). This structure was corroborated by means of confirmatory factor analysis (for example, CFI =.87 and RMSEA =.08). The scale was shown to be psychometrically adequate and there was evidence of factorial validity and internal consistency; the scale can be used to measure plagiarism in the academic context.

Resumen El estudio tuvo como fin adaptar al contexto brasileño la Escala de Autoinforme de Trampa- Admisión (EAT-A), reuniendo evidencias de su validez factorial y consistencia interna. Participaron 441 estudiantes (m=16 años, 54.6% del sexo femenino), divididos al azar en dos grupos. Todos respondieron a EAT-A y a preguntas demográficas. El análisis de componentes principales evidenció una estructura bifactorial, cuyos factores presentaron alfas de Cronbach (α) superiores a .80 (G1). Esta estructura fue corroborada por medio de análisis factorial confirmatorio (por ejemplo, CFI=.87 y RMSEA=.08). Se concluyó que esta escala se mostró psicométricamente adecuada y reunió evidencias de validez factorial y consistencia interna, y puede utilizarse para mensurar plagio en contexto académico.