• Title/Summary/Keyword: Duplicate Publications

Search Result 3, Processing Time 0.017 seconds

The trends of duplicate publication in Korean Medical journals. (한의학 학술지에서의 이중게재 현황)

  • Ahn, Jin-hyang;Lee, Young-jin;Kwak, Jae-young;Kim, Min-hee;Choi, Inhwa
    • The Journal of Korean Medicine
    • /
    • v.38 no.3
    • /
    • pp.103-110
    • /
    • 2017
  • Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical articles indexed in the Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System(OASIS). Methods: We searched the list of papers published in Korean medical journals by using OASIS. We randomly extracted 10% of total articles (n=1,162). We searched using OASIS by entering keywords from the title and names of the first and last authors of each indexed article. After the librarian selected the candidates of duplicate publication, three authors reviewed the full texts of the articles independently. When their opinions were not in agreement, reconciliation was made by discussion. The patterns of duplicate publication, such as copy, salami slicing (fragmentation), and aggregation (imalas), were also determined. Results: A total of 1162 articles were evaluated, 24 (2.1%) index articles of which were duplicate articles. Among 24 index articles, Two were triple publications and 22 were double publications. The patterns of duplication publication were as follows; (1) copy (n=8, 33.3%); (2) salami (9, 37.5%), (3) imalas (5, 20.8%) (4) others (2, 8.3%). Conclusion: Duplicate publications have appeared in Korean medical journals in a small proportion. Education on publication ethics and authors'ethical awareness is needed.

The Standard of Judgement on Plagiarism in Research Ethics and the Guideline of Global Journals for KODISA (KODISA 연구윤리의 표절 판단기준과 글로벌 학술지 가이드라인)

  • Hwang, Hee-Joong;Kim, Dong-Ho;Youn, Myoung-Kil;Lee, Jung-Wan;Lee, Jong-Ho
    • Journal of Distribution Science
    • /
    • v.12 no.6
    • /
    • pp.15-20
    • /
    • 2014
  • Purpose - In general, researchers try to abide by the code of research ethics, but many of them are not fully aware of plagiarism, unintentionally committing the research misconduct when they write a research paper. This research aims to introduce researchers a clear and easy guideline at a conference, which helps researchers avoid accidental plagiarism by addressing the issue. This research is expected to contribute building a climate and encouraging creative research among scholars. Research design, data, methodology & Results - Plagiarism is considered a sort of research misconduct along with fabrication and falsification. It is defined as an improper usage of another author's ideas, language, process, or results without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism has nothing to do with examining the truth or accessing value of research data, process, or results. Plagiarism is determined based on whether a research corresponds to widely-used research ethics, containing proper citations. Within academia, plagiarism goes beyond the legal boundary, encompassing any kind of intentional wrongful appropriation of a research, which was created by another researchers. In summary, the definition of plagiarism is to steal other people's creative idea, research model, hypotheses, methods, definition, variables, images, tables and graphs, and use them without reasonable attribution to their true sources. There are various types of plagiarism. Some people assort plagiarism into idea plagiarism, text plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, and idea distortion. Others view that plagiarism includes uncredited usage of another person's work without appropriate citations, self-plagiarism (using a part of a researcher's own previous research without proper citations), duplicate publication (publishing a researcher's own previous work with a different title), unethical citation (using quoted parts of another person's research without proper citations as if the parts are being cited by the current author). When an author wants to cite a part that was previously drawn from another source the author is supposed to reveal that the part is re-cited. If it is hard to state all the sources the author is allowed to mention the original source only. Today, various disciplines are developing their own measures to address these plagiarism issues, especially duplicate publications, by requiring researchers to clearly reveal true sources when they refer to any other research. Conclusions - Research misconducts including plagiarism have broad and unclear boundaries which allow ambiguous definitions and diverse interpretations. It seems difficult for researchers to have clear understandings of ways to avoid plagiarism and how to cite other's works properly. However, if guidelines are developed to detect and avoid plagiarism considering characteristics of each discipline (For example, social science and natural sciences might be able to have different standards on plagiarism.) and shared among researchers they will likely have a consensus and understanding regarding the issue. Particularly, since duplicate publications has frequently appeared more than plagiarism, academic institutions will need to provide pre-warning and screening in evaluation processes in order to reduce mistakes of researchers and to prevent duplicate publications. What is critical for researchers is to clearly reveal the true sources based on the common citation rules and to only borrow necessary amounts of others' research.

Trends in Research on Patients With COVID-19 in Korean Medical Journals

  • Heejeong Choi;Seunggwan Song;Heesang Ahn;Hyobean Yang;Hyeonseong Lim;Yohan Park;Juhyun Kim;Hongju Yong;Minseok Yoon;Mi Ah Han
    • Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
    • /
    • v.57 no.1
    • /
    • pp.47-54
    • /
    • 2024
  • Objectives: This study was conducted to systematically summarize trends in research concerning patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as reported in Korean medical journals. Methods: We performed a literature search of KoreaMed from January 2020 to September 2022. We included only primary studies of patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, then performed full-text screening, both independently and in duplicate. We first identified the 5 journals with the greatest numbers of eligible publications, then extracted data pertaining to the general characteristics, study population attributes, and research features of papers published in these journals. Results: Our analysis encompassed 142 primary studies. Of these, approximately 41.0% reported a funding source, while 3.5% disclosed a conflict of interest. In 2020, 42.9% of studies included fewer than 10 participants; however, by 2022, the proportion of studies with over 200 participants had increased to 40.6%. The most common design was the cohort study (48.6%), followed by case reports/series (35.2%). Only 3 randomized controlled trials were identified. Studies most frequently focused on prognosis (58.5%), followed by therapy/intervention (20.4%). Regarding the type of intervention/exposure, therapeutic clinical interventions comprised 26.1%, while studies of morbidity accounted for 13.4%. As for the outcomes measured, 50.7% of studies assessed symptoms/clinical status/improvement, and 14.1% evaluated mortality. Conclusions: Employing a systematic approach, we examined the characteristics of research involving patients with COVID-19 that was published in Korean medical journals from 2020 onward. Subsequent research should assess not only publication trends over a longer timeframe but also the quality of evidence provided.