Editor's message: sufficient details in a manuscript, originality, and similarity score

IF 0.9 4区 工程技术 Q4 ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy Pub Date : 2022-04-03 DOI:10.1080/08327823.2022.2071810
Juan Antonio, Aguilar Garib
{"title":"Editor's message: sufficient details in a manuscript, originality, and similarity score","authors":"Juan Antonio, Aguilar Garib","doi":"10.1080/08327823.2022.2071810","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is no doubt about the value of multimedia and other resources for sharing the advances in the sciences and the arts of a given discipline. They help to grow awareness and interest in different topics, as a sense of what sounds reasonable and what does not. Good quality of the information is essential, as the aim of most journals expresses openly their commitment to being a reliable and trustful source for presenting confirmed advances and findings, validated enough to be a support for building criteria or as a foundation of further research. The information published in the journals is generated by the authors and there are several mechanisms, mostly derived from the scientific method, to ensure as possible that the information that is collected with the intention to be communicated fulfills the mentioned requirements. Peer review of the submitted material is a key element, it is often double-blind performed, seeking to be sure that feedback and criticism responses are included in the manuscript and eventually are available to the readers. Revision of the material does not finish after publication, indeed there is a post review conducted by the readers and those that take the information as the base for their own research. Authors and journals are under continuous evaluation by the readers, some of them will confirm or reject the worthiness of the published material and apply their results or submit new manuscripts that follow the same process, so that finally converge, more than agree, and the conclusion will result in new knowledge. Among the criteria for accepting a paper is the originality, and a sort of tool for evaluating it is known as the ‘Similarity score’, which is the ratio, expressed in percentage, of text in a paper that is found in other sources. This score is becoming one of the acceptance criteria by some journals, as some scoring engines are referred to as plagiarism finders. A high similarity score raises suspicion of plagiarism, which is not, and must not be tolerated, however, other aspects might be considered before concluding about unethical behavior. There are many reports suggesting the maximum acceptable score of similarity, some admit 15% while others consider up to 25%. If this score means plagiarism by itself, then the admissible score must be 0%. However, a fair review must consider other factors that affect this score and that must be pondered with the request of submission. For instance, it is asked to the authors of manuscripts dealing with the derivation of methods that the framework of assumptions is described and justified in detail. In this case, the contribution of the description to the score could be irrelevant, while it is expected that the justification is not a repetition of something found somewhere else. It is understandable that having concerns about the score might be against the request for sufficient information for duplicating the results. Therefore, a probable explanation for scores higher than the admissible ones, maybe around 30%, could be the excess of details and failure when summarizing material already","PeriodicalId":16556,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08327823.2022.2071810","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is no doubt about the value of multimedia and other resources for sharing the advances in the sciences and the arts of a given discipline. They help to grow awareness and interest in different topics, as a sense of what sounds reasonable and what does not. Good quality of the information is essential, as the aim of most journals expresses openly their commitment to being a reliable and trustful source for presenting confirmed advances and findings, validated enough to be a support for building criteria or as a foundation of further research. The information published in the journals is generated by the authors and there are several mechanisms, mostly derived from the scientific method, to ensure as possible that the information that is collected with the intention to be communicated fulfills the mentioned requirements. Peer review of the submitted material is a key element, it is often double-blind performed, seeking to be sure that feedback and criticism responses are included in the manuscript and eventually are available to the readers. Revision of the material does not finish after publication, indeed there is a post review conducted by the readers and those that take the information as the base for their own research. Authors and journals are under continuous evaluation by the readers, some of them will confirm or reject the worthiness of the published material and apply their results or submit new manuscripts that follow the same process, so that finally converge, more than agree, and the conclusion will result in new knowledge. Among the criteria for accepting a paper is the originality, and a sort of tool for evaluating it is known as the ‘Similarity score’, which is the ratio, expressed in percentage, of text in a paper that is found in other sources. This score is becoming one of the acceptance criteria by some journals, as some scoring engines are referred to as plagiarism finders. A high similarity score raises suspicion of plagiarism, which is not, and must not be tolerated, however, other aspects might be considered before concluding about unethical behavior. There are many reports suggesting the maximum acceptable score of similarity, some admit 15% while others consider up to 25%. If this score means plagiarism by itself, then the admissible score must be 0%. However, a fair review must consider other factors that affect this score and that must be pondered with the request of submission. For instance, it is asked to the authors of manuscripts dealing with the derivation of methods that the framework of assumptions is described and justified in detail. In this case, the contribution of the description to the score could be irrelevant, while it is expected that the justification is not a repetition of something found somewhere else. It is understandable that having concerns about the score might be against the request for sufficient information for duplicating the results. Therefore, a probable explanation for scores higher than the admissible ones, maybe around 30%, could be the excess of details and failure when summarizing material already
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
编辑的信息:手稿中有足够的细节,原创性和相似度评分
毫无疑问,多媒体和其他资源对于分享某一学科的科学和艺术的进步是有价值的。它们有助于提高对不同话题的意识和兴趣,因为它们能让你知道什么听起来合理,什么听起来不合理。高质量的信息是至关重要的,因为大多数期刊的目标都公开表达了他们的承诺,即成为一个可靠和值得信赖的来源,展示已证实的进展和发现,被证实足以支持建立标准或作为进一步研究的基础。发表在期刊上的信息是由作者产生的,有几种机制(主要来自科学方法)可以尽可能确保收集的信息符合上述要求。对提交材料的同行评议是一个关键因素,它通常是双盲进行的,以确保反馈和批评反应包括在手稿中,并最终提供给读者。材料的修订并没有在出版后完成,而是由读者和那些以这些信息为基础进行自己的研究的人进行了事后审查。作者和期刊不断受到读者的评价,他们中的一些人会确认或拒绝已发表材料的价值,并应用他们的结果或提交新的手稿,遵循相同的过程,最终趋同,超过同意,结论将产生新的知识。接受一篇论文的标准之一是其独创性,还有一种评估它的工具被称为“相似度分数”,这是一篇论文中在其他来源中找到的文本的比例,以百分比表示。这个分数正在成为一些期刊的接受标准之一,因为一些评分引擎被称为抄袭发现者。较高的相似度会引发抄袭的嫌疑,这是不能容忍的,但在得出不道德行为的结论之前,可能会考虑其他方面。有很多报告都提出了相似性的最大可接受分数,有些人认为是15%,而另一些人则认为高达25%。如果这个分数本身意味着抄袭,那么可接受的分数必须是0%。然而,公平的审查必须考虑影响这个分数的其他因素,并且必须与提交请求一起考虑。例如,它被要求手稿的作者处理方法的推导,假设的框架被详细描述和证明。在这种情况下,描述对分数的贡献可能是无关的,而我们期望证明不是重复在其他地方找到的东西。可以理解的是,担心分数可能会违反要求提供足够信息以重复结果的要求。因此,分数高于可接受分数(约30%)的一个可能解释可能是细节过多,以及在总结材料时失败
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
Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy
Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL-ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Microwave Power Energy (JMPEE) is a quarterly publication of the International Microwave Power Institute (IMPI), aimed to be one of the primary sources of the most reliable information in the arts and sciences of microwave and RF technology. JMPEE provides space to engineers and researchers for presenting papers about non-communication applications of microwave and RF, mostly industrial, scientific, medical and instrumentation. Topics include, but are not limited to: applications in materials science and nanotechnology, characterization of biological tissues, food industry applications, green chemistry, health and therapeutic applications, microwave chemistry, microwave processing of materials, soil remediation, and waste processing.
期刊最新文献
Editor’s message: Aspects of composing computational models of microwave processes Dielectric properties of honey-water solutions over broad frequency range Effect of vermicompost additive on physical, chemical and dielectric properties of soil and its modeling Effect of temperature and particle size on dielectric property of vanadium-titanium magnetite The combined effect of active packaging and relative phase sweeping on microwave heating performance in a dual-port solid-state system
×
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