Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal.

Krishna Subedi, Nuwadatta Subedi, Rebicca Ranjit
{"title":"Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal.","authors":"Krishna Subedi, Nuwadatta Subedi, Rebicca Ranjit","doi":"10.1186/s41073-024-00149-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study was conducted to assess the knowledge and ongoing practices of plagiarism among the journal editors of Nepal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This web-based questionnaire analytical cross-sectional was conducted among journal editors working across various journals in Nepal. All journal editors from NepJOL-indexed journals in Nepal who provided e-consent were included in the study using a convenience sampling technique. A final set of questionnaires was prepared using Google Forms, including six knowledge questions, three practice questions (with subsets) for authors, and four (with subsets) for editors. These were distributed to journal editors in Nepal via email, Facebook Messenger, Viber, and WhatsApp. Reminders were sent weekly, up to three times. Data analysis was done in R software. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for the demographic variables, correct responses regarding knowledge, and practices related to plagiarism. Independent t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to compare mean knowledge with demographic variables. For all tests, statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 147 participants completed the survey.The mean age of the participants was found to be 43.61 ± 8.91 years. Nearly all participants were aware of plagiarism, and most had heard of both Turnitin and iThenticate. Slightly more than three-fourths correctly identified that citation and referencing can avoid plagiarism. The overall mean knowledge score was 5.32 ± 0.99, with no significant differences across demographic variables. As authors, 4% admitted to copying sections of others' work without acknowledgment and reusing their own published work without proper citations. Just over one-fifth did not use plagiarism detection software when writing research articles. Fewer than half reported that their journals used authentic plagiarism detection software. Four-fifths of them suspected plagiarism in the manuscripts assigned through their journal. Three out of every five participants reported the plagiarism used in the manuscript to the respective authors. Nearly all participants believe every journal must have plagiarism-detection software.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although journal editors' knowledge and practices regarding plagiarism appear to be high, they are still not satisfactory. It is strongly recommended to use authentic plagiarism detection software by the journals and editors should be adequately trained and update their knowledge about it.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"9 1","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11342615/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-024-00149-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study was conducted to assess the knowledge and ongoing practices of plagiarism among the journal editors of Nepal.

Methods: This web-based questionnaire analytical cross-sectional was conducted among journal editors working across various journals in Nepal. All journal editors from NepJOL-indexed journals in Nepal who provided e-consent were included in the study using a convenience sampling technique. A final set of questionnaires was prepared using Google Forms, including six knowledge questions, three practice questions (with subsets) for authors, and four (with subsets) for editors. These were distributed to journal editors in Nepal via email, Facebook Messenger, Viber, and WhatsApp. Reminders were sent weekly, up to three times. Data analysis was done in R software. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for the demographic variables, correct responses regarding knowledge, and practices related to plagiarism. Independent t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to compare mean knowledge with demographic variables. For all tests, statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results: A total of 147 participants completed the survey.The mean age of the participants was found to be 43.61 ± 8.91 years. Nearly all participants were aware of plagiarism, and most had heard of both Turnitin and iThenticate. Slightly more than three-fourths correctly identified that citation and referencing can avoid plagiarism. The overall mean knowledge score was 5.32 ± 0.99, with no significant differences across demographic variables. As authors, 4% admitted to copying sections of others' work without acknowledgment and reusing their own published work without proper citations. Just over one-fifth did not use plagiarism detection software when writing research articles. Fewer than half reported that their journals used authentic plagiarism detection software. Four-fifths of them suspected plagiarism in the manuscripts assigned through their journal. Three out of every five participants reported the plagiarism used in the manuscript to the respective authors. Nearly all participants believe every journal must have plagiarism-detection software.

Conclusions: Although journal editors' knowledge and practices regarding plagiarism appear to be high, they are still not satisfactory. It is strongly recommended to use authentic plagiarism detection software by the journals and editors should be adequately trained and update their knowledge about it.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
尼泊尔期刊编辑对剽窃行为的认识和做法。
研究背景本研究旨在评估尼泊尔期刊编辑对剽窃行为的认识和现行做法:这项基于网络的横断面分析问卷调查在尼泊尔各种期刊的编辑中进行。采用便利抽样技术,将尼泊尔所有提供电子同意书的尼泊尔期刊编辑纳入研究范围。我们使用谷歌表格编制了一套最终问卷,其中包括六个知识问题、三个针对作者的实践问题(含子集)和四个针对编辑的实践问题(含子集)。这些问卷通过电子邮件、Facebook Messenger、Viber 和 WhatsApp 分发给尼泊尔的期刊编辑。提醒邮件每周发送一次,最多可发送三次。数据分析使用 R 软件进行。计算了人口统计学变量、对知识的正确回答以及与剽窃相关的做法的频率和百分比。使用独立 t 检验和单因素方差分析来比较知识平均值和人口统计学变量。所有检验的统计显著性均以 p 为标准:共有 147 名参与者完成了调查,平均年龄为 43.61 ± 8.91 岁。几乎所有参与者都了解抄袭行为,大多数人都听说过 Turnitin 和 iThenticate。略多于四分之三的人正确地指出了引用和参考文献可以避免抄袭。知识总平均得分为 5.32 ± 0.99,不同人口统计学变量之间无显著差异。作为作者,4% 的人承认抄袭过他人作品的部分内容,但没有注明出处,也重复使用过自己发表的作品,但没有适当引用。五分之一多一点的人在撰写研究文章时没有使用剽窃检测软件。只有不到一半的人报告说他们的期刊使用了真正的剽窃检测软件。五分之四的参与者怀疑其期刊所发稿件存在抄袭现象。每五位参与者中就有三位向相关作者报告了稿件中的抄袭行为。几乎所有参与者都认为每份期刊都必须有剽窃检测软件:尽管期刊编辑对剽窃问题的认识和做法似乎很高,但仍不能令人满意。强烈建议期刊使用正宗的剽窃检测软件,编辑应接受适当的培训并更新相关知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture. An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency. Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting. Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal. Perceptions, experiences, and motivation of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in South Africa: a qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1