Monday, June 02, 2008

Research Plagiarism


Nature 451, 397-399 (24 January 2008) | doi :10.1038/451397a;
Published online 23 January 2008


A tale of two citations


Mounir Errami1
&
Harold Garner2



  1. Mounir Errami is in the Division of
    Translational Research Department, The University of Texas Southwestern
    Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75390-9185,
    USA.
  2. Harold Garner is in the McDermott Center for Human
    Growth and Development, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical
    Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75390-9185, USA.

Abstract

Are
scientists publishing more duplicate papers? An automated search of
seven million biomedical abstracts suggests that they are, report
Mounir Errami and Harold Garner.


With
apologies to Charles Dickens, in the world of biomedical publications,
"It is the best of times, it is the worst of times". Scientific
productivity, as measured by scholarly publication rates, is at an
all-time high1.
However, high-profile cases of scientific misconduct remind us that not
all those publications are to be trusted — but how many and which
papers? Given the pressure to publish, it is important to be aware of
the ways in which community standards can be subverted. Our concern
here is with the three major sins of modern publishing: duplication,
co-submission and plagiarism. It is our belief that without knowing
whether these sins are becoming more widespread, the scientific
community cannot hope to effectively deter or catch future unethical
behaviour.

A tale of two citations

D. PARKINS

There
are legitimate and illegitimate reasons for two scientific articles to
share unusual levels of similarity. Some forms of repeated publication
are not only ethical, but valuable to the scientific community, such as
clinical-trial updates, conference proceedings and errata. The most
unethical practices involve substantial reproduction of another study
(bringing no novelty to the scientific community) without proper
acknowledgement. If such duplicates have different authors, then they
may be guilty of plagiarism, whereas papers with overlapping authors
may represent self-plagiarism. Simultaneous submission of duplicate
articles by the same authors to different journals also violates
journal policies.

Previous studies that have tried
to gauge the level of unethical publishing have mostly relied on small
surveys of specific communities. One of the largest to date used
text-matching software to trawl more than 280,000 entries in arXiv, an
open-access archive of mathematics, physics, computer science, biology
and statistics papers. The study suggested a low number of suspected
acts of plagiarism (0.2% of arXiv papers), but a much higher number of
suspected duplicates with the same authors2 (10.5%). In 2002, an anonymous survey of 3,247 US biomedical researchers3

asking them to admit to questionable behaviour revealed that 4.7%
admitted to repeated publication of the same results and 1.4% to
plagiarism.

quoteleftThe duplication of scientific articles has been largely ignored by the gatekeepers of scientific information.quoteright

In
general, the duplication of scientific articles has largely been
ignored by the gatekeepers of scientific information — the publishers
and database curators. Very few journal editors attempt to
systematically detect duplicates at the time of submission. The US
National Library of Medicine, based in Bethseda, Maryland, curates the
primary biomedical citation index, Medline, and currently reports fewer
than a thousand cases of duplication since the 1950s, discovered mainly
by serendipity. Yet if the results of the anonymous survey3
are extrapolated to the Medline database (more than 17 million
citations and growing steadily), then you would expect to find closer
to 800,000 cases. Where between these two vastly different figures does
the true number lie?

The academic arms race

Establishing
a baseline is a crucial first step, but in our view, monitoring trends
is even more important to the health of the scientific literature. As
the number of peer-reviewed journals has multiplied, the perceived odds
of unethical publications escaping detection have improved.
Fortunately, the advent of new computational text-searching algorithms,
along with electronic indexes or full-text electronic manuscripts, is
also making it easier to detect unethical publications. Together, these
advances enable not only the methodical discovery of individual
incidents, but also a means to study broad trends.

Instead
of relying on serendipity to identify duplicate articles, we have
chosen to search online databases, such as Medline, using
text-similarity software. The search engine, eTBLAST, is freely
available online for anyone to use to search the literature4.
In recent work, we have used eTBLAST to search a subset of more than
62,000 Medline abstracts from the past 12 years to identify highly
similar entries5. The 421 potential duplicates found have been deposited in a publicly available database, Déjà vu (http://spore. swmed.edu/ dejavu),
and after manual inspection were confirmed as duplicates with different
authors (0.04%; based on inspection of full-text articles), or
duplicates with the same authors (1.35%; based on inspection of the
abstracts). The rate of false positives in this study was only 1%. But
without full text it may be difficult to determine if suspected
duplicates properly attributed the earlier work. Whether or not the
duplications are legitimate papers has yet to be established.

Extrapolating
to the subset of Medline records that have abstracts (8.7 million),
this would correspond to roughly 117,500 duplicates with the same
authors4.
Although this number is far higher than the 739 records currently
annotated as duplicates in Medline, these duplication rates are
substantially lower than those found in arXiv, perhaps reflecting
differences in the database formats (preprints versus journal papers),
or disparities between these fields in what is considered acceptable
practice. There is also variation in how these estimates were reached,
including the subjective nature of manual inspection (we used two
manual checkers in each case). The Medline database, unlike arXiv, is
limited to titles and abstracts, and so automated comparison of
full-text articles is not possible, perhaps making it harder to detect
more sophisticated duplications.

Closer than close

Because
of the sheer size of the Medline database, scaling up the eTBLAST
search to all 17 million records would be extremely time consuming even
though each search takes only about 40 seconds. Fortunately, we
observed that 73% of the Medline duplicates identified in our initial
study and curated in Déjà vu also feature as the 'most related article'

in Medline (calculated by a Medline algorithm). So, we downloaded the
related abstracts for 7,064,721 Medline records, and compared the
original and related abstracts against one another using eTBLAST. This
approach allowed us to complete our analysis in 10 days rather than 10
years. In this way we have identified a further 70,458 highly similar
records, all of which have been deposited in Déjà vu.

Given
the limitations of our process, we expect around 50,000 of these to be
true duplicates. This is partly because we used a less stringent
duplication threshold for the latest data set and so after manual
checking 27% of the records turn out to be false positives (see http://spore. swmed.edu/ dejavu/statistic s).
To date, 2,600 of the Déjà vu records have been manually inspected
alongside the original, but until that is done the status of each entry
remains unverified. However, extrapolating to the entire database, we
estimate there are potentially more than 200,000 duplicates in Medline,
after various correction factors have been applied.

Although
manual verification of the Déjà vu database is very much a work in
progress, and so analysis of the full data set should be interpreted
with caution, we have started looking for trends in the approximately
70,000 candidate duplicates.With the articles so far captured within
the Déjà vu database, merged with analysis of other data extracted from
full-text versions of Medline articles available in PubMed Central
(such as publication date, language of article and country of origin),
it is possible to begin to identify broad trends in publication
behaviour. Perhaps the most obvious is a steady rise in the rate of
such publications in the biomedical literature since 1975 (Figure 1).


Figure 1: Increasing opportunity?
Figure 1 : Increasing opportunity? Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

The
number of biomedical papers indexed in the citation database, Medline,
has grown steadily over the past 30 years. A search of 7 million
abstracts, using the text-matching software eTBLAST, reveals tens of
thousands of highly similar articles (unpublished data), which are also
growing in number. Are these legitimate or illegitimate publications?


Medline indexes over 5,000
journals published in the United States and more than 80 other
countries worldwide. Rising duplicate publication rates documented in Figure 1
are therefore a global phenomenon. Potential factors contributing to
this trend are the explosion in the number of journals with online
content (increasing opportunities for unethical copying), and a body of
literature growing so fast that the risk of being detected seems to
diminish. This last factor may be the most important, and we believe
that automated detection processes that can provide an effective
deterrent may be our best weapon in fighting duplicate publications.

One
argument for duplicate publication is to make significant works
available to a wider audience, especially in other languages. However,
only 20% of manually verified duplicates in Déjà vu are translations
into another language. What of the examples of text directly translated
with no reference or credit to the original article? Is this justified
or acceptable? And is such behaviour more widespread for review-type
articles for which greater dissemination may be justified? We do not
yet have answers to these questions.

In general, we
find that the duplication rate extracted from the total Déjà vu
database for each country is roughly proportional to the number of
manuscripts that country contributes to Medline (Figure 2).
The top eight contributors to Medline are the United States, Japan,
Germany, China, the United Kingdom, Italy, France and Canada,
representing close to 75% of all Medline records. However, two of these
countries, China and Japan, have estimated duplication rates that are
roughly twice that expected for the number of publications they
contribute to Medline. Perhaps the complexity of translation between
different scripts, differences in ethics training and cultural norms
contribute to elevated duplication rates in these two countries.



Figure 2: Duplication is a global activity.
Figure 2 : Duplication is a global activity. Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

The
proportion of suspected duplicates in the Déjà vu database for each
country was estimated (unpublished data) by assigning articles to
countries based on the corresponding author's address. Also presented
is each country's relative contribution to Medline estimated from
180,000 randomly selected Medline articles.



Simultaneous submission

With
few exceptions, the repeated publication of the same results by those
who conducted the research is ethically questionable. It not only
artificially inflates an author's publication record but places an
undue burden on journal editors and reviewers, and is expressly
forbidden by most journal copyright rules.

Examination
of typical submission and publication dates from 10,000 articles
randomly selected from PubMed Central, shows that on average the review
process takes 4.3 months and that 97% of articles complete this process
within 10 months (see Supplementary information).
Curiously, as many as one-third of the manually verified duplicate
abstracts in Déjà vu sharing at least one author are also published
less than five months after the original. Examination of the submission
and publication dates of these pairs confirms that many of these
duplicates must have been submitted simultaneously to different
journals in violation of journal policies and accepted norms. For
instance, the Déjà vu database contains many pairs of highly similar
abstracts with overlapping authors that appear in the same month, all
apparently acts of simultaneous submission to multiple journals.

Duplication by different authors

Articles
sharing excessive similarity with other papers with different authors
do not necessarily represent plagiarism, as there are sometimes valid
or trivial reasons (such as a simple author name change). However,
considering only those duplicates in Déjà vu where the full text of
both articles has been manually inspected, we have found 73 plagiarism
candidates, most of which were previously undetected. Discerning the
difference between legitimate and illegitimate duplication is beyond
the capacity of automated algorithms (and apparently many scientists),
and so it is critical to withhold judgement of any candidate duplicates
until evaluated by a suitable body such as an editorial board or a
university ethics committee. As part of our study, we have started to
send out requests for additional information for such cases, one of
which has initiated an investigation by a journal. It is our intent to
send such requests for information to all individuals and journals
involved in, or affected by, duplicate records with different authors.

quoteleftAutomated
text-matching systems are used by high schools and universities. We
hold our children up to a higher standard than we do our scientists.quoteright

Many
duplicate articles without authors in common go undiscovered. Are the
perpetrators then likely to repeat the offence? Searching the Déjà vu
database reveals several repeat practitioners, and manual inspection of
full-text articles confirms some of these as suspected serial
offenders. As with any potential illegitimate duplication, caution and
careful human judgement must be exercised, and detailed comments and
manual assessments for these and other duplicate pairs can be found
within the Déjà vu database.

Unlike repeated
publication by the same authors, simultaneous publication is rarely
observed for duplicates that do not share authors (see Supplementary information),
undoubtedly due to the fact that it is usually difficult to re-use
someone else's work before it appears in print — unless the duplicating
author also happens to have been a referee of the original. Although
anecdotes abound of referees stalling a publication in order to give
themselves time to duplicate and publish the same result first, the
general lack of duplicates with different authors appearing in rapid
succession suggests that this is either rarer than feared, or that the
perpetrators do a good job of concealing it.

In
general, duplicates are often published in journals with lower impact
factors (undoubtedly at least in part to minimize the odds of
detection) but this does not prevent negative consequences — especially
in clinical research. Duplication, particularly of the results of
patient trials, can negatively affect the practice of medicine, as it
can instill a false sense of confidence regarding the efficacy and
safety of new drugs and procedures. There are very good reasons why
multiple independent studies are required before a new medical practice
makes it into the clinic, and duplicate publication subverts that
crucial quality control (not to mention defrauding the original authors
and journals).

What can be done?

Although
duplicate publication and plagiarism are often discussed, it seems that
discussion is not enough. Two important contributing factors are the
level of confusion over acceptable publishing behaviour and the
perception that there is a high likelihood of escaping detection. The
lack of clear standards for what level of text and figure re-use is
appropriate (for example in the introduction and methods) is a well
known problem; but the belief that one can get away with re-use is
probably the single most important factor.

quoteleftThe fear of having some transgression exposed in a public and embarrassing manner could be a very effective deterrent.quoteright

Addressing
these two aspects could be relatively quick and easy. If journal
editors were to use more frequently the new computational tools to
detect incidents of duplicate publication — and advertise that they
will do so — much of the problem is likely to take care of itself. We
find it odd that automated text-matching systems are used regularly by
high schools and universities, thereby enabling us to hold our children
up to a higher standard than we do our scientists. In our view, it
would be fairly simple to fold these tools into electronic-manuscri pt
submission systems, making it a ubiquitous aspect of the publication
process.

Although text-comparison algorithms have
come a long way in the last decade, they are still in their infancy,
and experience with student software shows that as tools to detect
duplicate publication improve, determined and skilled cheats will find
ways to defeat them. But as in any arms race, the winners are usually
determined by the cost–benefit balance, and the costs entailed in
unethical duplication practices will quickly rise to a level that makes
them prohibitively expensive to all but the most desperate (or most
skilled) practitioners.

There are additional
practical avenues for improving Medline and other databases, such as
more aggressive enforcement of copyrights by journals, and the creation
of an 'update' publication category under which clinical updates and
longitudinal surveys in sociology or psychology could be categorized,
and these should be explored.

But above all, the
fear of having some transgression exposed in a public and embarrassing
manner could be a very effective deterrent. Like Dickens's Ebenezer
Scrooge, the spectre of being haunted by publications past may be
enough to get unscrupulous scientists to change their ways.



References

  1. http://www.nlm. nih.gov/bsd/ medline_cit_ counts_yr_ pub.html
  2. Sorokina, D., Gehrke, J., Warner, S. & Ginsparg, P. Sixth International Conference on Data Mining 1070–1075 (2006).
  3. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S. & de Vries, R. Nature 435, 737–738 (2005). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  4. Errami, M., Wren, J. D., Hicks, J. M. & Garner, H. R. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, W12-5 (2007). | Article | PubMed |
  5. Errami, M. et al. Bioinformatics advance online publication, doi:10.1093/ bioinformatics/ btm574 (2007)





------------ --------- --------- --------- ------

dikutip dari milis biotek :
Ulasan menarik untuk dijadikan bahan renungan buat para peneliti di
Indonesia. Saat ini tema yang semisal menjadi bahan diskusi yang cukup
hot, walaupun artikel ini sudah cukup lama (Januari 2008)


Oleh Khomaini Hasan






0 komentar:

Komisi Bioetika Nasional

CGIAR Site Updates

FAO: BIOTECHNOLOGY

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP