↓ Skip to main content

Plagiarism in submitted manuscripts: incidence, characteristics and optimization of screening—case study in a major specialty medical journal

Overview of attention for article published in Research Integrity and Peer Review, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Plagiarism in submitted manuscripts: incidence, characteristics and optimization of screening—case study in a major specialty medical journal
Published in
Research Integrity and Peer Review, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41073-016-0021-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janet R. Higgins, Feng-Chang Lin, James P. Evans

Abstract

Plagiarism is common and threatens the integrity of the scientific literature. However, its detection is time consuming and difficult, presenting challenges to editors and publishers who are entrusted with ensuring the integrity of published literature. In this study, the extent of plagiarism in manuscripts submitted to a major specialty medical journal was documented. We manually curated submitted manuscripts and deemed an article contained plagiarism if one sentence had 80 % of the words copied from another published paper. Commercial plagiarism detection software was utilized and its use was optimized. In 400 consecutively submitted manuscripts, 17 % of submissions contained unacceptable levels of plagiarized material with 82 % of plagiarized manuscripts submitted from countries where English was not an official language. Using the most commonly employed commercial plagiarism detection software, sensitivity and specificity were studied with regard to the generated plagiarism score. The cutoff score maximizing both sensitivity and specificity was 15 % (sensitivity 84.8 % and specificity 80.5 %). Plagiarism was a common occurrence among manuscripts submitted for publication to a major American specialty medical journal and most manuscripts with plagiarized material were submitted from countries in which English was not an official language. The use of commercial plagiarism detection software can be optimized by selecting a cutoff score that reflects desired sensitivity and specificity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Master 5 9%
Professor 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Other 14 25%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Philosophy 2 4%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 19 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,943,569
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#83
of 133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,167
of 328,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 65.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,228 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.