- Email: [email protected]
Trust but Verify: The Introduction of Plagiarism Detection Software
Pediatric Neurology 50 (2014) 287
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Pediatric Neurology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pnu
Editorial
Trust but Verify: The Introduction of Plagiarism Detection Software Each year, about 3000 publications with substantial similarities to previously published manuscripts appear in the biomedical literature.1 Some of these articles closely resemble earlier work by the same authors (duplicate publication) and others contain work copied from other authors (plagiarism). By whatever name, unauthorized republication is a serious problem in medical publishing, undercutting the integrity of the entire editorial process and mocking the efforts of honest authors. We recently began analyzing each manuscript submitted to Pediatric Neurology with plagiarism detection software. Admittedly, these detection programs are not flawless, and we will continue to investigate any reports from readers and reviewers. Confirming the unauthorized use of concepts and ideas is far more difficult than discovering duplicate wording, and figures are not automatically analyzed. And although the programs’ databases contain millions of comparison documents, material copied from other sources will not be detected. Despite these limitations, the routine use of plagiarism detection programs on all submitted manuscripts is a significant commitment. Not all duplication is inappropriate. Plagiarism detection programs highlight any text that mimics material in their vast databases, including legitimate duplications such as reference citations, appropriately attributed quotations, and material used with proper permission. The detection programs also recognize identical simple sentences and phrases resulting when two authors express the same thought in the same fashion. But extensive identical passages are usually problematic, and the editors will review any detected similarities and decide if the overlap is appropriate. The spectrum of inappropriate publication is broader than the verbatim use of previously published material. One can claim credit for ideas and concepts without proper attribution. Illustrations can be manipulated to make them “clearer.” Multiauthored articles create a unique risk for individual contributors, because plagiarism by an author of
* Communications should be addressed to: Dr. Roach; Nationwide Children’s Hospital; Ohio State University College of Medicine; Division of Child Neurology E583; 700 Children’s Drive; Columbus, OH 43245. E-mail address: [email protected] 0887-8994/$ - see front matter Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2013.12.021
one section of an article will reflect poorly on all of the authors. Whether one can steal one’s own work (“selfplagiarism”) is questionable, but such republication at best represents duplicity and often copyright abuse. We are aware of rare but credible instances of “accidental” plagiarism. This could occur when source material or excerpted notes are copied into a working draft for convenient reference and then inadvertently left in place. Although the intent may have been more benign, inadvertent plagiarism is still unacceptable. The discovery of plagiarism can result in humiliation, loss of professional stature, and disciplinary action for the offender. Using plagiarism detection software may prevent some ill-advised submissions and identify others before publication, perhaps sparing some of these would-be authors from themselves. We will try to fairly adjudicate all questions of duplicate publication, but our primary duty as editors is to protect the integrity of the editorial process and maintain the trust of the readers. We know that the vast majority of authors are honorable individuals who can be trusted to avoid impropriety. But henceforth all submissions will be automatically analyzed. Trust, but verify.
Reference 1. Garner HR. Combating unethical publications with plagiarism detection services. Urol Oncol. 2011;29:95-99.
E. Steve Roach, MD* Columbus, Ohio Sid Gospe, MD PhD Seattle, Washington Yu-Tze Ng, MD Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Mustafa Sahin, MD PhD Boston, Massachusetts
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Pediatric Neurology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pnu
Editorial
Trust but Verify: The Introduction of Plagiarism Detection Software Each year, about 3000 publications with substantial similarities to previously published manuscripts appear in the biomedical literature.1 Some of these articles closely resemble earlier work by the same authors (duplicate publication) and others contain work copied from other authors (plagiarism). By whatever name, unauthorized republication is a serious problem in medical publishing, undercutting the integrity of the entire editorial process and mocking the efforts of honest authors. We recently began analyzing each manuscript submitted to Pediatric Neurology with plagiarism detection software. Admittedly, these detection programs are not flawless, and we will continue to investigate any reports from readers and reviewers. Confirming the unauthorized use of concepts and ideas is far more difficult than discovering duplicate wording, and figures are not automatically analyzed. And although the programs’ databases contain millions of comparison documents, material copied from other sources will not be detected. Despite these limitations, the routine use of plagiarism detection programs on all submitted manuscripts is a significant commitment. Not all duplication is inappropriate. Plagiarism detection programs highlight any text that mimics material in their vast databases, including legitimate duplications such as reference citations, appropriately attributed quotations, and material used with proper permission. The detection programs also recognize identical simple sentences and phrases resulting when two authors express the same thought in the same fashion. But extensive identical passages are usually problematic, and the editors will review any detected similarities and decide if the overlap is appropriate. The spectrum of inappropriate publication is broader than the verbatim use of previously published material. One can claim credit for ideas and concepts without proper attribution. Illustrations can be manipulated to make them “clearer.” Multiauthored articles create a unique risk for individual contributors, because plagiarism by an author of
* Communications should be addressed to: Dr. Roach; Nationwide Children’s Hospital; Ohio State University College of Medicine; Division of Child Neurology E583; 700 Children’s Drive; Columbus, OH 43245. E-mail address: [email protected] 0887-8994/$ - see front matter Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2013.12.021
one section of an article will reflect poorly on all of the authors. Whether one can steal one’s own work (“selfplagiarism”) is questionable, but such republication at best represents duplicity and often copyright abuse. We are aware of rare but credible instances of “accidental” plagiarism. This could occur when source material or excerpted notes are copied into a working draft for convenient reference and then inadvertently left in place. Although the intent may have been more benign, inadvertent plagiarism is still unacceptable. The discovery of plagiarism can result in humiliation, loss of professional stature, and disciplinary action for the offender. Using plagiarism detection software may prevent some ill-advised submissions and identify others before publication, perhaps sparing some of these would-be authors from themselves. We will try to fairly adjudicate all questions of duplicate publication, but our primary duty as editors is to protect the integrity of the editorial process and maintain the trust of the readers. We know that the vast majority of authors are honorable individuals who can be trusted to avoid impropriety. But henceforth all submissions will be automatically analyzed. Trust, but verify.
Reference 1. Garner HR. Combating unethical publications with plagiarism detection services. Urol Oncol. 2011;29:95-99.
E. Steve Roach, MD* Columbus, Ohio Sid Gospe, MD PhD Seattle, Washington Yu-Tze Ng, MD Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Mustafa Sahin, MD PhD Boston, Massachusetts