Plagiarism in Cuban biomedical research articles. 2016
Keywords:
Plagiarism, scientific conduct, falsification of results, descriptive study.Abstract
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 %) met the criteria of plagiarism. Similarities were found in all sections of the article, mainly in the introduction (52 %), discussion (18 %) and material and methods (10 %). 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”.
Downloads
References
1. Abad García MF. El plagio y las revistas depredadoras como amenaza a la integridad científica. Anales de Pediatría [Internet]. 2019 [Citado 11/11/2019]; 90(1):57e1-e8. Disponible en: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1695403318305265
2. Masic I. Plagiarism in scientific publishing. Acta Informática Medica [Internet]. 2012 Dic [Citado 11/11/2019];20(4):208-13. Disponible en: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23378684
3. Silva LC. Cultura estadística e investigación científica en el campo de la salud: una mirada crítica [Internet]. Madrid: Ediciones Díaz de Santos; 1997. Disponible en: https://www.scielosp.org/article/rpsp/1998.v4n3/218-219/
4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication: Medknow Publications [Internet]. Estados Unidos: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; 2010 [Citado 19/12/2019]. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808590
5. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals (excerpts). The Journal of the American College of Dentists. 2014;81(3):23-30.
6. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals [Internet]. Estados Unidos: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; 2019 [Citado 11/11/2019]. Disponible en: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
7. Bulow W, Helgesson G. Criminalization of scientific misconduct. Medicine Health Care Philosophy [Internet]. 2019 [Citado 12/12/2019];22(2):245-52. Disponible en: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30155851
8. Kuroki T. New Classification of Research Misconduct from the Viewpoint of Truth, Trust, and Risk. Accountability Research [Internet]. 2018 Oct-Nov [Citado 24/04/2019];25(7-8):404-8. Disponible en: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30427209
9. Johnson DR, Ecklund EH. Ethical Ambiguity in Science. Science Engineering Ethics [Internet]. 2016 Aug [Citado 24/04/2019];22(4):989-1005. Disponible en: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26169696
10. Moskovitz C. Text Recycling in Scientific Writing. Science Engineering Ethics [Internet]. 2019 Jun [Citado 14/12/2019];25(3):813-51. Disponible en: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29546574
11. Khadilkar SS. The Plague of Plagiarism: Prevention and Cure. The Journal Obstetrics Gynecology India [Internet]. 2018 Dec [Citado 23/11/2019];68(6):425-31. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207542/pdf/13224_2018_Article_1182.pdf
12. Masic I, Begic E, Dobraca A. Plagiarism Detection by Online Solutions. Studies Health Technology Informatics [Internet]. 2017 [Citado 14/12/2019]; 238:227-30. Disponible en: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28679930
13. Roig M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing [Internet]. USA: Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity; 2015 [Citado 30/12/2019]. Disponible en: https://ori.hhs.gov/content/avoiding-plagiarism-self-plagiarism-and-other-questionable-writing-practices-guide-ethical-writing
14. Shin SY. Plagiarism. Journal Periodontal & Implant Science [Internet]. 2019 Apr [Citado 12/12/2019];49(2):59. Disponible en: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31098327
15. Monzón Pérez ME, Sánchez Ferrán T, Oviedo Herrera LC, Camayd Viera I. El problema científico en artículos de resultado de investigación original publicados en revistas biomédicas cubanas. Revista Habanera de Ciencias Médicas [Internet]. 2018 [Citado 12/12/2019];17:265-77. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1729-519X2018000200012&nrm=iso
16. Bayarre Vea H, Oliva Pérez M, Horsford Saing R, Ranero Aparicio V, Coutín Marie G, Díaz Llanes G. Metodología de la investigación en la APS [Internet]. La Habana: Editorial Ciencias Médicas; 2004 [Citado 12/12/2019]. Disponible en: http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/vigilancia/estadistica.pdf
17. Awasthi S. Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct A Systematic Review. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology. 2019;39(2):94-100.
18. Compagnon A. L'Université ou la tentation du plagiat. En: Vanderdope Ch. Le Plagiat, actes du colloque de l'Université d'Ottawa de septembre 1991. [Internet]. Ottawa: Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa; 1992 .p.173-88 [Citado 12/12/2019]. Disponible en: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/12793/4/Vandendorpe_Christian_1992_Le_plagiat.htm
19. Wager E. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Objectives and achievements 1997-2012. Presse Medicale. 2012;41(9 Pt 1):861-6.
20. Litewka S. La integridad en la investigación científica. En: Zamudio T. Bioética: Herramienta de las Políticas Públicas y de los Derechos Fundamentales en el Siglo XXI [Internet]. Argentina: Universidad del Museo Social Argentino UMSA; 2012 [Citado 12/12/2019]. Disponible en: http://www.bioetica.org/umsa/libros/LIBRO.pdf
21. Bacallao J. Las conductas impropias en la actividad científica. Rev Cubana Salud Pública. 2003;1(29):61-4.
22. Swazey J, Anderson M, Lewia K. Ethical problems in academic research. Amer Scientist. 1993(81):542-53.
23. Baždarić K, Mavrinac M, Pupovac V, Bilić zulle L, Brumini G, Petrovečki M. Features and prevalence of plagiarism in biomedical science [Internet]. Amsterdam: European Federation for Medical Informatics; 2014[Citado 12/12/2019]. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&pid=S0185-2698201600030012000005&lng=en
24. Van Noorden R. Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature [Internet]. 2011 [Citado 12/12/2019];478:[Aprox. 4 p.]. Disponible en: https://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a.html
25. Hernández Islas M. El plagio académico en la investigación científica. Consideraciones desde la óptica del investigador de alto nivel. Perfiles educativos [Inernet]. 2016 [Citado 12/12/2019];38(153):[Aprox 4 p.]. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0185-26982016000300120
Download PDF
