Empirical evidence for iThenticate software usage by scientific journal editors – experience report
Introduction: Plagiarism accounts for half of the articles retracted from the literature. Textual similarity detection software like iThenticate support editors in preventing plagiarism. However, accounts intended for editors, explaining how to interpret their similarity reports, are scarce. Objecti...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
| Repositorio: | RECIIS (Online) |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:www.reciis.icict.fiocruz.br:article/2297 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://www.reciis.icict.fiocruz.br/index.php/reciis/article/view/2297 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Electronic journals Scholarly publishing Indicators Authorship Plagiarism. Revistas electrónicas Publicación académica Indicadores Autores Plagio. Periódicos eletrônicos Editoração científica Autoria Plágio. |
| Sumario: | Introduction: Plagiarism accounts for half of the articles retracted from the literature. Textual similarity detection software like iThenticate support editors in preventing plagiarism. However, accounts intended for editors, explaining how to interpret their similarity reports, are scarce. Objective: To share the experience of the editors of the BAHIANA Journals portal in interpreting iThenticate reports in the past five years. Casuistic: The incidence of similarity in the analyzed texts and a rational to analyze total and partial non-originality scores are presented. How to analyze the reports respecting the methods section of the texts and observing the contemporary demand for more scientific transparency is discussed. Final remarks: The software’s automatic reports provide evidence of plagiarism in general, but the final verdict requires qualitative analysis that take into consideration the specifics of each text. |
|---|