APAME 2013 Tokyo

Context based assessment scheme forsuspected plagiarized scholarly articles:‘Context based comparable data sets’(This is a follow-up of 2012 presentation at New Castle upon Tyne.)

Jeong-Wook Seo, Jeong-Min Yoon, HyunSook Shin,Naye Choi, Dasran Kim
Seoul National University Medical Library andCreative Commons Korea,
Seoul, Korea

This presentation material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivatives License.

Steps to judge an article• SUSPECT : Target article• COMPARE to DETECT : Similar phrases andsentences from comparison database• ASSESS : Quantitative and qualitative• COMPARE to JUDGE : with what?
• JUDGE the article as plagiarized or not(Seo et al., 2012)Glossary of terms
ArticleInformation

Article Text

MatchingSources(Seo et al., 2012)

(Seo et al., 2012)

9%

14%

15%2%7%(Seo et al., 2012)<1%

Steps to judge an article• SUSPECT : Target article• COMPARE to DETECT : Similar phrases andsentences from comparison database• ASSESS : Quantitative and qualitative• COMPARE to JUDGE : with what?
• JUDGE the article as plagiarized or not(Seo et al., 2012)

The judgment of plagiarism is
not straightforward• but is dependent upon the social andacademic context.
• The judgment should be based on thestatistical analysis of similarity reports
in a group of articles from thecomparable academic and socialcontext.
• Different “thresholds” of similarity data
are applied for judgment of plagiarism.
(Seo et al., 2012)

Materials and Methods• Search and collect articles from an institution
by address of authors in 2011 on Web ofScience® : 1844 articles after exclusion.
• Collect pdf files by Find full text on Endnote®
: 1746 articles• Measure Similarity Index, Content tracking byiThenticate®
• Assessment on 393 articles with suspicion• Visualize data by Spotfire®

Summary of data
1st Content tracking vs Similarity index
1st Content tracking

Subtotal

114

417

688

402

1

1746

100

24

2

7

947~50~40~30

3

16

21

77101

163

50

9114

410

584

223

27

1~10~20~30~40~50~20~10~60

1331
1359~70

Similarity Index

Subtotal

1st Content tracking vs Similarity index

DuplicateSalami
Follow-up
MildNormal

Filter Settings- class: (중복, 분할, 추적출판, 경미, 정상, (Empty))- Filtered out at 오전 7:53:17: (No)Names of Journals of articles with high scores

Filter Settings- class: (중복, 분할, 추적출판, 경미, 정상, (Empty))- Filtered out at 오전 7:53:17: (No)Institutions of corresponding authors of articles with high score

Filter Settings- class: (중복, 분할, 추적출판, 경미, 정상, (Empty))- Filtered out at 오전 7:53:17: (No)There are articles with plagiarism but with low scores

Filter Settings- class: (중복, 분할, 추적출판, 경미, 정상, (Empty))- Filtered out at 오전 7:53:17: (No)Pie charts by Departments of authors of artices

Filter Settings- class: (중복, 분할, 추적출판, 경미, 정상, (Empty))- 책임저자소속분류: (국내, 서울대, 외국)We could not Summarize but Simplified DataSalami 26(1.5%)
Duplicate 48(2.7%)

Follow-up articles 9(0.5%)
Mild 83(4.7%)
Normal 227(13%)

Plagiarism detected in 4.2% of papers
Additional 5.2% are at borderline“Normal” 1,359(77.6%)

Filter Settings- class: (중복, 분할, 추적출판, 경미, 정상, (Empty))- Filtered out at 오전 7:53:17: (No)Among 2000 articles from ISI database
Published in 2011
By authors addressed as Collegeof Medicine, S-university, Korea

My Messages•••

To authors– Do not “educate” readers.
– Direct citations are only at indispensable occasions.
– Write a short paper.
– Do not doubt the power of technology on plagiarism.
To administrators of universities– Plagiarism or text copying is severer than expected.
– Peer review does not protect plagiarism in most journals.
– Sustainable / responsible measures by universities.
– Number published articles is not an indicator of a good
researcher but draws attention for duplicates.
New paradigm for plagiarism detection– Researchers’ self-protection is the ideal solution.
– Technology is useful only when human surveillance is ON.
– Plagiarism may be a different group from fabrication orfalsification.
– Journalists, please wait!

End of presentation