Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Scientific and Scholarly Communication Yuehong (Helen) Zhang Against Plagiarism A Guide for Editors and Authors Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis fi of Scienti c and Scholarly Communication Series editors Wolfgang Glänzel, Katholieke Univeristeit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Andras Schubert, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13902 Yuehong (Helen) Zhang Against Plagiarism A Guide for Editors and Authors 123 Yuehong (Helen) Zhang ZhejiangUniversity Press Hangzhou China ThisbookispartofaresearchstudycommissionedbytheCommitteeonPublicationEthics (COPE)withtheaimofdevelopingevidence-basedguidanceforauthorsandeditorsonhow to avoid different kinds of plagiarism (http://publicationethics.org/resources/research); the author also acknowledges the support of the Project for Enhancing International Impact of China STM Journal (http://www.cast.org.cn/n35081/n35488/15215969.html) and the National Natural ScienceFoundation of China(No.30824802). ISSN 2365-8371 ISSN 2365-838X (electronic) Qualitative andQuantitative Analysis ofScientificandScholarly Communication ISBN978-3-319-24158-6 ISBN978-3-319-24160-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24160-9 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015950004 SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon ©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2016 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor foranyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade. Printedonacid-freepaper SpringerInternationalPublishingAGSwitzerlandispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia (www.springer.com) Foreword Pretendingthatsomeoneelse’sworkisone’sown,i.e.,usingitwithoutattribution, isplagiarism;theplagiarizeditemmaybeasectionoftext,afigure,atable,oreven an idea. And re-using sections of text, figures, tables, or data from one’s own previously published work without crediting the original publication is also pla- giarism, in this case self-plagiarism. Plagiarism can occur in all kinds of creative work—writing, music, film, etc.—but this book is specifically concerned with plagiarism in scholarly journal articles. Plagiarismisthusaformoftheft(stealingsomeoneelse’swork)anddishonesty (passing it off as one’s own). If the copied material is extensive, it may involve copyrighttheftaswell;therearenosetrulesonhowmuchmaterialmaybequoted before copyright permission is required. What is more, it wastes the precious time ofeditors,reviewers,andreaders,obligingthemtoreadsomethingthatisnotnew, under the mistaken impression that it is original. Plagiarismisnotanewproblem:theRomanpoetMartial,wholivedinthefirst century CE, complained that other poets were copying and issuing his works withoutattribution[1].However,theInternetmakesitmuchsimplertoplagiarize— anauthorcaneasilycopypassagesfromotherworksandpastethemintoherown. The problem occurs at all levels of authorship; there have been instances of very well-respectedauthorsbeingfoundoutinplagiarism[2].However,itdoesseemto be more common among inexperienced authors—who may be unaware of the correctstandardsofconductforacademicauthorship—andinauthorsfromcultures where repetition of a master’s words is considered to be highly respectful [3–5]. While the Internet makes plagiarism easier to commit, it also makes it much easier to detect—tools such as iThenticate (the software used by CrossCheck) enablejournaleditorsandpublisherstocheckwhethersignificantstringsoftextina submitted article are similar or identical to those in other published works already available within the tool’s database [6]. Therearepitfallsinrelyingtooheavilyonsuchtools,however.Notallrelevant publishedworkwillnecessarilybeinthedatabaseusedbythetoolofchoice;thisis where the expertise of journal editors and peer reviewers is invaluable, since they v vi Foreword should be very familiar with the literature in their field and thus able to recognize materialtakenfromothersources.Thedetectionofsimilaroridenticalstringsoftext does not always indicate plagiarism; the re-used material may in fact have been creditedtoitssource,oritmayrepresentastandarddescriptionofsomething,such asacommonprocedure.Theeditormustalwayslookatthehighlightedsectionsof textandmakeadecisionastowhetherornotplagiarismisinvolved.Andatthesame time,toolssuchasthesecannotidentifyallinstancesofplagiarism,suchasre-used illustrative material, or—of course—ideas. The Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE,has very useful guidanceon its Web site (http://publicationethics.org/). Everyjournalshouldhaveaclearwrittenpolicyonplagiarism(andotherethical problems)fortheguidancenotonlyofauthors,butalsoofeditorsandreviewers.The policy should be based on the best available guidance and examples, such as the CommitteeonPublicationEthics’ownguidelines,theOfficeofResearchIntegrity’s ‘Guide to Ethical Writing’ (http://ori.hhs.gov/avoiding-plagiarism-self-plagiarism- and-other-questionable-writing-practices-guide-ethical-writing),andexamplesfrom the most respected journals in the field. The journal should set high standards and shouldmake clear what will happen ifthose standards are notmet. Authors can avoid suspicions of plagiarism by always identifying clearly any materialthathasbeentakenfromanothersource(whethertheauthor’sownworkor someone else’s). Short quoted extracts should be indicated in quotation marks, while longer ones should be shown as indented paragraphs. In either case, a full citation must be given to the original source; if the extract is at all extensive, copyrightpermission mustalsobesoughtfromthepublisher aswellastheauthor, since the latter may not always be the copyright holder. Changing a few words or even paraphrasing someone else’s words does not alter the situation, since the contentisstillnotoriginal—theoriginalauthorandsourceshouldstillbecredited. In this book, Yuehong (Helen) Zhang—who has rapidly become an acknowl- edged expert on plagiarism, particularly in less developed countries—draws toge- theranumberofresearcharticlesreportingstudiescarriedout,withhercolleagues, on various aspects of plagiarism. These examine the attitudes and experiences of authors,reviewers,andeditorsinanumberofdifferentdisciplines.Buildingonthis knowledge base, and drawing on the best available international guidance, Zhang puts forward soundpracticaladvice forbothauthorsandjournaleditorsonhowto avoid committing plagiarism, how to find it, and what to do when it is found. If readersofthisbookfollowtheguidelinesitprovides,theincidenceofplagiarism— both unintentional and intentional—will be considerably reduced, which will greatly benefit the integrity of scientific research publication. Sally Morris Sally Morris has worked in journal and book publishing for over forty years, for pressesincludingOxfordUniversityPress,ChurchillLivingstoneandWiley,andas CEO of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers and Foreword vii editor-in-chief of Learned Publishing. She has played a leading role in many industry and publisher/library groups and has written and lectured widely on copyright and journal publishing. References 1. Martial,Epigrams1.53. 2. Cadbury, D.2010.TheDinosaur hunters:a truestoryof scientificrivalry andthediscovery oftheprehistoricworld.London:FourthEstate. 3. Qiu,J.2010.PublishorperishinChina.Nature463:142–43.doi:10.1038/463142a. 4. Fang,F.C.,F. G.Steen,and A.Casadevalli. 2012.Misconduct accounts for themajority of retractedscientificpublications.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences109:17028– 33.doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109. 5. Thatcher, S. G. China’s copyright dilemma. Learned Publishing 21: 278084. doi:10.1087/ 095315108x356707. 6. Jungbauer,B.2010.CrossCheck—Plagiarismpoliceonthescene.Science2.0.July7,2010. http://www.science20.com/truth_universally_acknowledged/crosscheck_plagiarism_police_ scene. Preface: Why I Wrote This Book Back on the morning of September 8, 2010, a normal working day as a journal editor, when I went to open my office e-mail in-box, the title of one particular e-mail—‘Your Correspondence in Nature’—suddenly made my heart beat faster. I soon realized that the title of my recent short paper in Nature [1]—‘Chinese journal finds 31 % of submissions plagiarized’—might be about to cause trouble. CommentsaboutthepaperrapidlyaccumulatedbothonNature’sWebsite[2]and onChina’sScienceNet[3],andlaterthatdaymyuniversityprincipal,Yang,phoned metoaskwhyIhadgivenmypaper suchacontentioustitle ratherthantheearlier title of ‘Policing plagiarism in China is helped by innovative software’ which he had seen in proof a few days earlier and indeed cited in his presentation at the ShanghaiScientificJournalDevelopmentConference(also,asithappens,attended by Nature’s chief editor, Philip Campbell) the previous day. The dramatic title change was suggestedatthelastminutebyasenioreditorofNature,whofelt that ‘the new title would have more impact and encourage more people to read the letter.’ The outcome was that my normally quiet life was suddenly disrupted by many telephone calls and interviews from both domestic and foreign media; there was also a flurry of online comments [2, 3], which were a mixture of criticism, doubt, support, and understanding. Inthosefewdays,Ialsoreceivedmanylettersfromhomeandabroad,including one from Professor John Suppe, an eminent geoscientist and a member of the US National Academy of Sciences. The correspondence, and his letter in particular, openedmyeyesandmademerealizethatIwasdoingtherightthing,eventhoughit had got me into trouble. Here is what his letter said: DearHelen, ThankyouforwritingtomeandcongratulationsforyourpublicationinNature,evenifitis causingyousomeproblems…IstillthinkyoushouldbesupportedinChinaatthehighest levelandcongratulatedforthiscontribution.Infactthecontroversyshouldultimatelybea goodthingfordevelopinghigherscientificsuccessinChina. … ix x Preface:WhyIWroteThisBook Iguesspartoftheproblemisthatthereareanumberofsomewhatdifferentunacceptable anddubiouspracticesthatarecombinedtogetherandcalledplagiarisminthetitle.Inyour 2010LearnedPublishingpaper[4]youexplainveryclearlywhattheseare.Somearemuch more serious than others. For some types I think there may be legitimate disagreement, particularly in some specific cases. You stated in the abstract of the Learned Publishing articlethatitisimportantforthecommunitytoreachaconsensusontheseissues.Iagree. ThescientificandpublishingcommunityinChinamustreachconsensustogetherinaway thatpromoteshighqualityinChinesescience. … It is very important that Chinese science and scholarly publications truly rise to the highestlevels,justasChinaisaspiringtothehighestlevelsineverysphere,suchassports andeconomicdevelopment.Clearly,cheatinginsportswouldbeviewedasunacceptablein the international community, even though people and groups in every part of the world attempt to cheat. It is the role, for example, of the Olympics Committee or other such bodiestoapplystrictstandardsofenforcement,eventhoughitcanleadtobigpublicdebate and controversy. In the same way, I am sure that the Chinese National Natural Science Foundation realizes that it must fully support the application of the highest standards of scientific excellence and excellence in standards of publication. The rewards come from truehighqualityoriginalcontributionstoknowledge,notfromtakingshortcuts. However,thereisatemptationsometimestomakeashortcut…Iremember,manyyears agothereweremajorproblemsinTaiwanbecauseofpiracyofbooks,music,software,and otherindustrialproducts.Itwasfinallyrealizedthatthispiracyhadtostop—itwasnotgood foreconomicdevelopmentinTaiwan.Iguessthelocalauthoritiesworkedhardtoenforce regulationsandthiswasimportantforthedevelopmentofastrongandinnovativetechnical industry,competitiveintheworld. The same is true for scientific development. Plagiarism ultimately weakens the quality ofthescienceandisverydangerous.It’saformofcorruption.Itiswelldocumentedthat thereisaninverserelationshipbetweeneconomicdevelopmentandcorruption.Thelackof economic development of the Philippines over the last 50 years is widely ascribed to corruption. The rather weak performance of Italy both economically and scientifically is widelyascribedtocorruption,evenbytheItalians.Butitisamatterofdegree,Italydoes havesomeverygreatscientists,butthenationwouldbeworldclass,atthelevelofFrance, Britain,GermanyorSwitzerland,ifitwerenotforcorruption. SoIthinkitisimportanttoChinathatsomeverystrongpeopleinChinasupportyouinthis. It’saveryimportantissueforthesuccessofChinesescience.YoumightrememberIwrote ashortarticleonthegrowthofscienceforthe100thanniversaryofNanjingUniversity[5] inwhichIforecastthatthebiggestcontributortogrowthofscienceworldwideinthe21st centurywouldbeChina.However,itisequallyclearthattherearevariousthingsthatcan keep China from tasting the highest success. Plagiarism and other short cuts to a false success caneasilyweakenChinesescience. I’m surethattheleaders ofscienceinChina fullyrealizethisandwillgivecloseattention. ThecontroversywasalsoreportedbybothChineseandforeignmediaincluding CCTV-24 (China Central Television), The New York Times and National Public Radio (NPR). Here is a flavor of these reports: Last month a collection of scientific journals published by Zhejiang University in Hangzhoureignitedthefirestormbypublicizingresultsfroma20-monthexperimentwith softwarethatdetectsplagiarism.Thesoftware,calledCrossCheck,rejectednearlyathirdof all submissions on suspicion that the content was pirated from previously published