首页> 外文期刊>Medical Journal Armed Forces India >Wishing away Plagiarism in Scientific Publications! Will it work? A situational analysis of Plagiarism policy of journals in PubMed
【24h】

Wishing away Plagiarism in Scientific Publications! Will it work? A situational analysis of Plagiarism policy of journals in PubMed

机译:祝抄袭科学出版物! 它会工作吗? Pubmed期刊抄袭政策的情境分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Plagiarism remains a scourge for the modern academia. There are inconsistencies in the plagiarism policy scientific journals. The aims of this study was to analyze types of published articles on 'Plagiarism' available on PubMed over last two decades against a backdrop of the plagiarism policy of the journals publishing such articles. Methods: A literature search on PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) was made using the search term "plagiarism" from 01 January 1997 till 29 March 17. All publications having 'plagiarism' in the title formed the study group. The following were noted: types of articles published, ethical and plagiarism policy of the journal as available in the Instructions to authors and or in the journal home page. Results: A total of 582 publications from 320 journals were studied. Editorials (165,28.3%) and Letters to the Editor (159,27.3%) formed the bulk. Research articles (56,9.6%), Review articles (51,8.7%) and Commentaries (47,8%) formed the remainder. Detailed ethical guidelines were present in 221 (69%). Outline ethical guidelines only were present in 15 (4.7%) journals. 49 (15.3%) journals did not have any ethical guidelines. Detailed description of the policy on plagiarism was found in 80 (25%) journals. Only an outline description was found in 29 (9%) journals while a plagiarism policy/statement was totally absent in 176 (55%) journals. Conclusion: There is a need to have a well defined plagiarism policy/statement for all scholarly journals easily visible on their home pages on the internet and also in their Instructions to Authors.
机译:背景:抄袭仍然是现代学术界的祸害。抄袭政策科学期刊存在不一致。本研究的目的是分析过去二十年中,分析了关于Pubmed的“剽窃”的类型的文章,以防止出版这些条款的期刊抄袭政策的背景。方法:在1997年1月1日至3月29日之前,使用搜索词“抄袭”在PubMed(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed)上进行了文献搜索。所有出版物在“抄袭”中的所有出版物标题组成了研究组。注意到了以下内容:作者和书籍主页中的指示中提供的文章类型,伦理和抄袭政策。结果:研究了320个期刊的共有582个出版物。编辑(165,28.3%)和编辑的信件(159,27.3%)形成了批量。研究文章(56,9.6%),审查文章(51,8.7%)和评论(47,8%)成立了剩余部分。详细的道德准则在221例中存在(69%)。大纲伦理指南仅在15(4.7%)期刊中存在。 49(15.3%)期刊没有任何道德指导。在80(25%)的期刊中发现了关于抄袭政策的详细说明。只有在29(9%)期刊中发现了大纲描述,而176(55%)期刊完全缺席抄袭政策/陈述。结论:需要为所有学术期刊提供明确的抄袭政策/陈述,在互联网上的家庭页面上很容易可见,并在他们对作者的指示中可见。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号