• 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.

• Applied Microscopy
• /
• v.46 no.2
• /
• pp.67-70
• /
• 2016

Research ethics are mainly of two fields; research integrity and publication ethics. Research misconducts can occur at both areas. Examples of the research integrity violations are falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism; and those of the publication ethics violations are duplicate publication including self-plagiarism, and improper authorship. In this paper, concepts of research misconducts defined in Research Misconduct-related Rules of The Korean Society of Microscopy are explained and discussed.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.241-242
• /
• 2023

As part of efforts to internally strengthen the research ethics capacity of the Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management, we have compiled research ethics issues that are frequently encountered in public health researches. Firstly, when reusing research reports or dissertations as papers, efforts should be made to avoid unfair duplicate publication. Compliance with the institutional review board exemption process is required, and additional efforts should be devoted during the text recycling process to prevent self-plagiarism or unjust duplicate publication.

• Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics
• /
• v.51 no.5
• /
• pp.447-451
• /
• 2008

It is fair to say that there are many ethical issues concerning the publication of medical papers. To define the best practice in the ethics of scientific publishing and a proper understanding of appropriate reporting in medical papers, this review should be useful for authors dealing with ethical issues which involve the protection of human and animal rights, the protection of confidentiality and informed consent, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, author and authorship, copy right transfer, duplicate publication, conflict of interest, and dealing with misconduct cases.

• Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics
• /
• v.64 no.5
• /
• pp.208-222
• /
• 2021

The publication of genetic epidemiology meta-analyses has increased rapidly, but it has been suggested that many of the statistically significant results are false positive. In addition, most such meta-analyses have been redundant, duplicate, and erroneous, leading to research waste. In addition, since most claimed candidate gene associations were false-positives, correctly interpreting the published results is important. In this review, we emphasize the importance of interpreting the results of genetic epidemiology meta-analyses using Bayesian statistics and gene network analysis, which could be applied in other diseases.

• Journal of Research and Publication Ethics
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.1-6
• /
• 2021

The aims of this study were to examine the causes and types of the most common and serious fraudulent authors among research misconduct, and to examine ways to reduce the mass production of unjust authors. In scientific research, it is universal and efficient to have multiple authors participate. This is because each author group consisting of a team has its own expertise, and most of them participate in research in a complementary way to maximize the research effect. However, the competition for achievements between researchers, the quantitative evaluation system of universities, and the social atmosphere of performance-oriented are tempting researchers to abandon research ethics. In this study, in relation to the research ethics of existing researchers, the contents of research ethics by a few countries such as United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia etc. and the situation in Korea was examined as well. In addition, the types and causes of domestic unfair authors in Korea were investigated intensively. In conclusion, in order to no longer produce unfair authors such as compulsory authors, honorary authors, mutually supported authors, and duplicate authors, which researchers unknowingly recognize as co-authors, reinforcement of research ethics education and national organization and system should be supported.

• 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.

• Development and Reproduction
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.71-76
• /
• 2011

Due to its role in maintaining the health of scientific societies, research ethics (or integrity) is notably receiving attention by academia, governments and even individuals who are not engaged in scientific researches. In this paper, I will introduce some valuable papers dealt with plagiarism as a representative research misconduct. In general, researcher's results that will soon be published must meet the crucial scientific criteria: originality, accuracy, reproducibility, precision and research ethics. The definition of plagiarism is "appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit." Compared to fabrication and falcification, plagiarism is often considered as a minor misconduct. With intentionality, however, plagiarism can be corresponding to 'theft of intellectual product'. The context of plagiarism is not restricted to the stage of publication. It can be extended to prior stages of proposing (i.e. preparing the research proposal) and performing (executing the research), and reviewing (writing the review papers). Duplicate publication is regarded as a self-plagiarism in broad interpretation of plagiarism. To avoid dangers of plagiarism, earnest efforts from all members of scientific community are needed. First of all, researchers should keep 'transparency' and 'integrity' in their scientific works. Editorial board members and reviewers should keep fairness and well-deserved qualification. Government and research foundations must be willing to provide sufficient financial and policy support to the scientific societies; Up-graded editorial services, making good use of plagiarism detection tools, and thorough instruction on how to write a honest scientific paper will contribute to building up a healthy basis for scientific communities.

• Journal of Society of Preventive Korean Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.75-87
• /
• 2016

Objectives : This study aims to classify and analyze literature related to moire topography, as a diagnostic device of Korean medicine, discuss research trends and major results, and demonstrate the value of moire topography. Methods : To investigate moire topography research trends, Korean keywords that signify 'moire' were searched in a Korean journal search engine. Initially, 2,988 papers were found in the research, and, after classifying them and removing those that are duplicate in other databases, only 37 papers were applicable for the literature review in this study. To analyze research trends, the 37 papers were analyzed based on the publication year, research field, journal, and research type, and, clinical articles were classified based on the diagnosis purpose, subject characteristics, diagnosis method, test method, and test result, for analysis. Results : Moire topography research in South Korea was first conducted in 1995 and most active in 2003, mostly in the field of Korean medicine. In the journal analysis, The Journal of Korea CHUNA Manual Medicine for Spine & Nerves published the highest number of papers, most of which were clinical articles and the rest were literature review. And, in the analysis of clinical papers, based on the diagnosis purpose, muscle somatotype measurement was most common, followed by diagnosis of scoliosis. In terms of subjects, most studies focused on elementary, middle, and high school students, and, in terms of the diagnosis method, other tests were used in most studies. The analysis of moire topography methods showed that most studies measured the shoulder, back, and hip, and the most common measurement method in the studies measured the difference in contour lines on the left and right by designating a central line of the body. In terms of the result, most moire topography brought about significant diagnosis results, and many studies demonstrated its use for musculoskeletal diseases in particular. Conclusions : Moire topography is believed to be highly significant for diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal diseases and further research will be needed to support it.

• 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.