Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Plagiarism in Non-Anglophone Countries: a Cross-sectional Survey of Researchers and Journal Editors.
Gupta, Latika; Tariq, Javeria; Yessirkepov, Marlen; Zimba, Olena; Misra, Durga Prasanna; Agarwal, Vikas; Gasparyan, Armen Yuri.
Afiliação
  • Gupta L; Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, SGPGIMS, Lucknow, India. drlatikagupta@gmail.com.
  • Tariq J; Medical College, The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
  • Yessirkepov M; Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.
  • Zimba O; Department of Internal Medicine No. 2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.
  • Misra DP; Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, SGPGIMS, Lucknow, India.
  • Agarwal V; Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, SGPGIMS, Lucknow, India.
  • Gasparyan AY; Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK.
J Korean Med Sci ; 36(39): e247, 2021 Oct 11.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34636502
BACKGROUND: Plagiarism is one of the most common violation of publication ethics, and it still remains an area with several misconceptions and uncertainties. METHODS: This online cross-sectional survey was conducted to analyze plagiarism perceptions among researchers and journal editors, particularly from non-Anglophone countries. RESULTS: Among 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 Rigid and outdated pre- and post-graduate education was considered as the origin of plagiarism by 63% of respondents.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. CONCLUSION: Great 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.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Editoração / Pesquisadores / Plágio Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Editoração / Pesquisadores / Plágio Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article