被劫持期刊中的剽窃现象:文本相似性分析

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-08-17 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2387210
Anna Abalkina
{"title":"被劫持期刊中的剽窃现象:文本相似性分析","authors":"Anna Abalkina","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2387210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The study examines the prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals, a category of problematic journals that have proliferated over the past decade.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quasi-random sample of 936 papers published in 58 hijacked journals that provided free access to their archive as of June 2021 was selected for the analysis. The study utilizes Urkund (Ouriginal) software and manual verification to investigate plagiarism and finds a significant prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the analyzed sample papers, 618 (66%) were found to contain instances of plagiarism, and 28% of papers from the sample (n = 259) displayed text similarities of 25% or more. The analysis reveals that a majority of authors originate from developing and ex-Soviet countries, with limited affiliation ties to developed countries and scarce international cooperation in papers submitted to hijacked journals. The absence of rigorous publication requirements, peer review processes, and plagiarism checks in hijacked journals creates an environment where authors can publish texts with a significant amount of plagiarism.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest a tendency for fraudulent journals to attract authors who do not uphold scientific integrity principles. The legitimization of papers from hijacked journals in bibliographic databases, along with their citation, poses significant challenges to scientific integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals: A text similarity analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Anna Abalkina\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2024.2387210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The study examines the prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals, a category of problematic journals that have proliferated over the past decade.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quasi-random sample of 936 papers published in 58 hijacked journals that provided free access to their archive as of June 2021 was selected for the analysis. The study utilizes Urkund (Ouriginal) software and manual verification to investigate plagiarism and finds a significant prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the analyzed sample papers, 618 (66%) were found to contain instances of plagiarism, and 28% of papers from the sample (n = 259) displayed text similarities of 25% or more. The analysis reveals that a majority of authors originate from developing and ex-Soviet countries, with limited affiliation ties to developed countries and scarce international cooperation in papers submitted to hijacked journals. The absence of rigorous publication requirements, peer review processes, and plagiarism checks in hijacked journals creates an environment where authors can publish texts with a significant amount of plagiarism.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest a tendency for fraudulent journals to attract authors who do not uphold scientific integrity principles. The legitimization of papers from hijacked journals in bibliographic databases, along with their citation, poses significant challenges to scientific integrity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2387210\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2387210","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究背景本研究探讨了被劫持期刊中剽窃论文的普遍程度,被劫持期刊是过去十年间激增的一类问题期刊:本研究选取了截至 2021 年 6 月在 58 种劫持期刊上发表的 936 篇论文作为准随机样本进行分析。研究利用Urkund(Ouriginal)软件和人工验证来调查剽窃行为,发现被劫持期刊的剽窃现象非常普遍:在分析的样本论文中,发现 618 篇(66%)论文存在抄袭现象,28% 的样本论文(n = 259)文本相似度达到或超过 25%。分析显示,大多数作者来自发展中国家和前苏联国家,与发达国家的隶属关系有限,向被劫持期刊投稿的论文很少有国际合作。被劫持期刊缺乏严格的出版要求、同行评审程序和剽窃检查,这为作者发表大量剽窃文章创造了环境:这些研究结果表明,欺诈性期刊倾向于吸引不遵守科学诚信原则的作者。被劫持期刊的论文在书目数据库中的合法化及其引用对科学诚信构成了重大挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals: A text similarity analysis.

Background: The study examines the prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals, a category of problematic journals that have proliferated over the past decade.

Methods: A quasi-random sample of 936 papers published in 58 hijacked journals that provided free access to their archive as of June 2021 was selected for the analysis. The study utilizes Urkund (Ouriginal) software and manual verification to investigate plagiarism and finds a significant prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals.

Results: Out of the analyzed sample papers, 618 (66%) were found to contain instances of plagiarism, and 28% of papers from the sample (n = 259) displayed text similarities of 25% or more. The analysis reveals that a majority of authors originate from developing and ex-Soviet countries, with limited affiliation ties to developed countries and scarce international cooperation in papers submitted to hijacked journals. The absence of rigorous publication requirements, peer review processes, and plagiarism checks in hijacked journals creates an environment where authors can publish texts with a significant amount of plagiarism.

Conclusions: These findings suggest a tendency for fraudulent journals to attract authors who do not uphold scientific integrity principles. The legitimization of papers from hijacked journals in bibliographic databases, along with their citation, poses significant challenges to scientific integrity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
期刊最新文献
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity. A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia. A randomized trial alerting authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted. Citation bias, diversity, and ethics. Time-based changes in authorship trend in research-intensive universities in Malaysia.
×
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