Plagiarism - Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth
Contents
1. Published on Cochrane Community beta website http community cochrane org Plagiarism Policy statement Special circumstances for Cochrane Systematic Reviews 3 Avoiding plagiarism 3 1 Use of text templates 3 2 Cochrane Overviews of reviews Cochrane Overviews 4 Detecting plagiarism using CrossCheck 4 1 Getting started with CrossCheck 4 2 What and when to check 4 3 How to check 4 4 CrossCheck reports 4 5 Figures and images 5 What editorial teams should do in cases of suspected plagiarism 5 1 Substantial and or repeat instances of plagiarism 5 2 Recording information about cases of suspected plagiarism in Archie 6 Authors reusing text from their published works Managing reports of suspected plagiarism in articles published in the CDSR 8 About this policy Nr N 1 Policy statement The Cochrane Collaboration takes measures to prevent detect and address plagiarised content in Cochrane Reviews See Box 1 for a definition of plagiarism Box 1 Definition of plagiarism Plagiarism is the use of others published and unpublished ideas or words or other intellectual property without attribution or permission and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source The intent and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader as to the contributions of the plagiarizer This applies whether the ideas or words are taken from abstrac2. See Table 5 for the types of CrossCheck reports where this functionality is available Cochrane Review Groups should agree which editorial staff member s should be responsible for running the CrossCheck reports interpreting the results and deciding on next steps For example an Assistant Managing Editor Managing Editor Trials Search Co ordinator or administrative assistant Page 5 of 11 Published on Cochrane Community beta website http community cochrane org could run a document through CrossCheck and generate a report The results of the report should be considered by the Cochrane Review Group s Managing Editor and or Co ordinating Editor and any action to be taken decided upon 4 4 CrossCheck reports There are different modes of reporting in CrossCheck see Table 5 some of which display different information The Document Viewer is the default setting and shows the best matches for text ina submitted document Figure 1 The Document Viewer report has two pieces of information that will guide the editorial team to have no cause for concern or to decide if any action is needed e It highlights any overlapping text and shows you where it comes from and how many words are overlapping in each instance number of words is more informative than the percentage overlap which is also provided The editorial team can review all instances within the document e The Document Viewer report will include a similarity index score C
3. appropriate citation should be inserted immediately after the relevant quotation and not placed together at the end of the paragraph or section See the Cochrane Style Guide 4 for information about references and citing references in the text Cochrane Review Groups are encouraged to bring the plagiarism policy to the attention of authors early in the review development cycle such as when authors propose a title for a Cochrane Review 3 1 Use of text templates As Cochrane Review Groups have evolved there has been an increasing use of templates that ensure methods are clearly presented However the result is that reviews may include material that is similar or identical to that in other reviews to an extent that might not be permissible in articles published in other journals For example reviews may use standard methods resulting in similar text and some Cochrane Review Groups encourage the use of standard introductory passages e g to describe a condition or intervention Therefore protocols and reviews that include template text should include a statement acknowledging the use of templates such as The background and methods section of this protocol review is based on a standard template used by Cochrane insert name Review Group This statement may be appropriate to include in the Acknowledgements section 3 2 Cochrane Overviews of reviews Cochrane Overviews Cochrane Overviews of reviews Cochrane Overviews a
4. is the responsibility of systematic review authors to ensure the review conforms to Cochrane reporting guidelines including declaring any potential conflicts of interest that the review is free from plagiarised material and that all contributors are acknowledged Wager 2011 Wager and colleagues proposed that authors should ensure that contributors are properly acknowledged that potential conflicts of interest are declared and that the review does not contain plagiarized material Wager 2011 Page 2 of 11 Published on Cochrane Community beta website http community cochrane org In Table 2 we state It is the responsibility of systematic review authors to ensure the review conforms to Cochrane reporting guidelines including Wager 2011 These are our own words and the source is clear from the reference If we wanted instead to use a sentence directly from the Wager paper we would have had to do so by using quotation marks constructing a different sentence citing the reference in brackets immediately afterwards For example Wager and Wiffen proposed that authors should ensure that contributors are properly acknowledged that potential conflicts of interest are declared and that the review does not contain plagiarized material Wager 2011 Citations should be placed as close as possible to the quotation or statement from the original source For example if a paragraph includes two quotations the
5. 6 Authors reusing text from their published works An author may wish to reuse text from another publication that he or she has authored To avoid the possibility of suspected plagiarism see Box 2 and or the possibility of violating copyright of the other work published by the author the author should follow the practices outlined above see section 3 Avoiding plagiarism or seek permission to republish content under copyright Editorial teams should work with authors where this may have occurred in a review to ensure that text has the correct attributions This applies predominantly to articles other than Cochrane Reviews It is expected that authors of a Cochrane Review will reuse substantial parts of their protocol in the Cochrane Review that follows for example and this is one of the special circumstances outlined in Section 2 These special circumstances do not equate to plagiarism Box 2 Authors reusing text from their published works without proper attribution and or copyright clearance may be known asduplicate publication multiple publication overlapping publications redundant publication repetitive publication self plagiarism or text recycling Wager 2014 Source Wager E Defining and responding to plagiarism Learned Publishing 2014 27 1 33 42 The Committee on Publication Ethics 15 COPE has published guidance in the form of a flowchart on how to deal with suspected redundant publication in a submitted ma
6. age Abstract Plain language summary Background Methods Results Discussion Authors conclusions Omit 1 matches to the published protocol from the similarity report and 2 references Where changes have been made to the text Abstract Plain language summary Background Methods Results Discussion Authors conclusions Omit 1 matches to the published protocol 2 published previous versions of the review from the similarity report and 3 references Screening not recommended at this stage While it is possible to check an entire document for similar text sections of a Cochrane Review such as the methods characteristics of studies tables and references sections are likely to give a high similarity score due to the nature of their content gt Some Cochrane Review Groups may recommend the use of template text for the Background or Methods section If so the authors should have made a note of this within the protocol or review See Section 2 Special circumstances for Cochrane Systematic Reviews for more information It is possible to do this in CrossCheck see Table 5 Page 4 of 11 Published on Cochrane Community beta website http community cochrane org 4 3 How to check CrossCheck provides a similarity score which indicates the total amount of text that matches text in other sources There are two steps to using CrossCheck 1 an automated step in whi
7. as a non RevMan PDF file type CrossCheck does not accept RevMan file types i e rm By default CrossCheck includes the optional settings to exclude quotes i e text within quotation marks reference lists and or small matches of text to avoid false positives in the similarity index However while it is possible to request references to be excluded from comparison using CrossCheck this does not always happen and it is preferable to upload a file without this section It is not always advisable to exclude small matches to text because small matches could be direct quotes that need quotation marks and citations CrossCheck has an option to include a simultaneous Internet search called websearch in CrossCheck in addition to the standard iThenticate database search This extends the CrossCheck comparison to include content not included in the iThenticate database such as Wikipedia and presents the collated results This option should be used routinely When matches are identified in a report CrossCheck has an option to exclude one or more matching sources As described in Table 1 a high percentage of overlap would be expected between a protocol and review and a review and an update This functionality allows the user to exclude the protocol or original review for example This functionality may become less useful as the number of times a Cochrane Review is updated as the number of exclusions that need to be made increases
8. can document using CrossCheck Thank informant and say you plan to investigate Review the detail of the CrossCheck report Get full documentary evidence if not already provided Clear plagiarism Copying of short phrases only Redundancy No unattributed use of large No misattribution of data i e copying from problem author s own work portions of text and or data presented as if they were by the review author Contact author in neutral terms explaining Cochrane s position i 10Self plagiarism Ask author to rephrase copied see sections 2 and 6 phrases or include as direct quotations with references as per section 3 Duplicate publication see sections 2 and 6 Template text see section 2 Plagiarism policy has been write to contact author citing Cochrane s policy and brought to the attention of enclosing documentary evidence of plagiarism the authors previously e g included in the Review Proposal Form or editorial guidance notes provided to authors 16No respon 2 Contact co authors 1No response Pause review development Write to author all authors Unsatisfactory Satisfactory if possible rejecting explanation explanation honest submission explaining admits guilt error position and expected future instructions unclear behaviour with documentary very junior evidence of plagiarism if not researcher provided previously as per section 3 Contact Editor
9. ch CrossCheck runs the online comparison and 2 a manual step for someone in the Cochrane Review Group to interpret the report results and decide on next steps see Table 4 These two steps combined can take from 5 minutes to 2 hours but it is usually around 15 minutes CrossCheck provides a list of resources for using the software www ithenticate com resources customer training 9 Table 4 Overview of CrossCheck process Automatic process CrossCheck finds and highlights overlapping text between manuscript and published material A similarity score is generated Manual process CrossCheck report reviewed Determine severity of plagiarism Decide on action to be taken Once logged into CrossCheck there is the option to submit different file types for screening It is not recommended to submit the full version of the document because it may be very long and will include sections that have little value in being screened e g references see Table 3 Therefore it may be easier to select specific sections of the protocol or review to be screened There are three possible approaches 1 Prepare a new document by cutting and pasting specific sections of text into a new document and save as one of the following file types plain text MS Word PDF RTF PostScript HTML or XML 2 Use the Cut and Paste upload option in CrossCheck 3 In RevMan and if you have software installed to print to PDF select the required sections and print and save
10. e org publisher of The Cochrane Library John Wiley amp Sons Wiley provides each Cochrane Review Group with access to CrossCheck free of charge Managing Editors can contact Gavin Stewart gstewart wiley com 8 Associate Editor Wiley for a user name and password 4 2 What and when to check Cochrane Review Groups are encouraged to at minimum check at least a portion of text for all protocols and reviews including updates when initially submitted to the Cochrane Review Group There are different stages in the editorial process where CrossCheck screening could occur see Table 3 Cochrane Review Groups may wish to screen more than once or they may wish to screen at a particular time such as before peer review or where the writing styles varies within a single document Table 3 Different stages in the editorial process where CrossCheck screening could occur Stage Title Protocol Review Document All Review Proposal Forms Initial submission of protocol All resubmissions of revised protocols Substantively updated protocols i e new citation version Final version for publication Initial submission of review All resubmissions of revised reviews or review amendments Updates initial version and revisions Final version for publication Recommended sections to screen All text excluding references Background Methods As above As above Screening not recommended at this st
11. f suspected plagiarism should follow the process outlined in the flowchart in Figure 2 As shown in the flowchart there is no arbitrary threshold that should be used to signify plagiarism rather the nature of the duplicated material is as important as the incidence As described in the flowchart once overlapping text has been identified the severity of overlap will dictate the action to be taken Common reaction from authors when confronted with accusations of plagiarism can range from indifference to anger and panic Make your decisions thoughtfully Sharing the similarity report can be useful for discussion with authors if it adds value to the discussion and understanding of the issue Be educational rather than punitive It is good practice to ensure that the Co ordinating Editor and Contact Editor if used for a review are informed in cases of overlapping text and correspondence with authors When authors make changes in response to an editor s feedback a member of the editorial team should check the Page 7 of 11 Published on Cochrane Community beta website http community cochrane org revised manuscript when resubmitted to confirm the revisions are sufficient Figure 2 Flowchart what to do if plagiarism is suspected Page 8 of 11 Published on Cochrane Community beta website http community cochrane org CRG receives submission see section 4 2 Review group is informed about suspected plagiarism S
12. g policy resource mecir 3 http community cochrane org 22http 3A 252F 4 http www cochrane org training cochrane style resource cochrane style guide 5 http nandbook cochrane org chapter_22 22 over 6 http www crossref org crosscheck index html 7 http www ithenticate com 8 mailto gstewart wiley com 9 http www ithenticate com resources customer tra 10 http community cochrane org help crossref org home 11 http www ieee org documents CrossCheck_User 12 http www ithenticate com plagiarism detection bl 13 http www ithenticate com training dv walkthrough 14 http www cochrane org editorial and publishing p 15 http publicationethics org 16 http publicationethics org files u7140 plagiarism 17 http publicationethics org resources flowcharts Page 11 of 11
13. in Chief requesting your concern is passed to author s superior and or person responsible for research governance Write to author all authors if possible explaining position and expected future behaviour 22Inform Editor in Chief who may consider informing author s superior and or person responsible for research governance and or authors of plagiarised content e g Office of Research Inform author s of your Notify initial informant of pee y the rk rer action outcome action aca Council In the Adapted with permission from COPE from the flowchart What to do if you suspect plagiarism Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript 16 lf Editor in Chief does not receive a response institution contacted every 3 to 6 months If no resolution Editor in Chief will consider contacting other authorities 5 1 Substantial and or repeat instances of plagiarism Page 9 of 11 Published on Cochrane Community beta website http community cochrane org Cochrane Review Groups should follow certain steps if they identify one of the following 1 high levels of clear plagiarism within one review that the Co ordinating Editor would like to draw to the attention of the Editor in Chief 2 repeated instances of plagiarism at different stages of a review or 3 from the same author s in different reviews As noted in the flowchart Figure 2 it may be appropriate to report author s to academic institu
14. nuscript Editorial teams may wish to refer to this or discuss a particular situation with the Editor in Chief 7 Managing reports of suspected plagiarism in articles published in the CDSR Page 10 of 11 Published on Cochrane Community beta website http community cochrane org If editorial teams are alerted to suspected plagiarism in articles including Cochrane Reviews published in the CDSR refer to the COPE flowchart for Suspected plagiarism in a published article see publicationethics org resources flowcharts 17 and inform the Editor in Chief The Editor in Chief may withdraw retract the publication as a result 8 About this policy The following group of people contributed to the development of this policy Ann Jones Anna Hobson Gavin Stewart Harriet MacLehose Karin Dearness Laura Prescott Liz Wager Paul Garner Peter Tugwell Phil Wiffen Ruth Brassington Sera Tort The starting point for this policy was text drafted by Liz Wager and Phil Wiffen on publication ethics including plagiarism Contact Harriet MacLehose HMaclehose cochrane org Cochrane Editorial Unit Important changes Important update Describe change Section added to resource Date of change 11 September 2014 Source URL http community cochrane org editorial and publishing policy resource plagiarism Links 1 http www wame org resources publication ethicspolicies 2 http www cochrane org editorial and publishin
15. oftware com i ET 2 This CrossCheck Document Viewer report shows the document being checked on the left side highlighting matching text in this example in red blue and green and the context of the matching text in the match document Spirit MJ et al on the right side In this example the highlighted text in red and green match other sources than the text in blue and are not shown The Document Viewer is the chosen reporting mode Clicking on the Text Only Report button will change the display to other reporting modes which are detailed in Table 5 The Similarity Index applies to the entire document being checked and indicates the percentage of text from the entire document which overlaps with identifies sources matched documents and is shown in the upper right hand side of the report 4 5 Figures and images Editorial teams should be aware that CrossCheck will not identify any plagiarized figures or images such as line drawings and photographs See section on figures and tables 14 for details about copyright and identifying the copyright of figures in Cochrane Reviews 5 What editorial teams should do in cases of suspected plagiarism The Committee on Publication Ethics 15 COPE has published guidance in the form of a flowchart on how to deal with suspected plagiarism This flowchart has been adapted with permission to The Cochrane Collaboration s editorial process Editorial teams with a case o
16. r uses a Cochrane Review Group template for or more sections one or more sections e g background methods and states Page 1 of 11 Protocol to review review to update etc Generic protocol i e two or more reviews based on one protocol Split and merged reviews i e review either split into two or more reviews or two or more reviews are combined into one review Similarities with published studies e g trials described in the characteristics tables risk of bias tables Co publication of a Cochrane Review including Protocol and Updates or republication in official Cochrane journals or derivative products A non Cochrane systematic review is converted to a Cochrane Review 3 Avoiding plagiarism Published on Cochrane Community beta website http community cochrane org that a template has been used a high percentage of overlap would be expected and should not cause concern See Use of text templates below for details Yes a high percentage of overlap would be expected between certain sections of these versions e g background methods and should not cause concern Yes a high percentage of overlap would be expected between certain sections of the protocol and the reviews that follow the protocol e g background methods This should not cause concern but it should be clear to the reader that the same text is used across a series of linked reviews Yes some overlap would be expected be
17. re Cochrane Reviews designed to compile evidence from multiple systematic reviews of interventions into one accessible and usable document see the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention Chapter 22 5 Authors may wish to reuse text from the original systematic reviews in a Cochrane Overview In this circumstance authors should follow the standard guidance to reference source material A high percentage of overlap with other source content e g a Cochrane Review may occur but will not cause concern if the text has been cited appropriately 4 Detecting plagiarism using CrossCheck CrossCheck 6 is a partnership between CrossRef a not for profit collaboration between publishers and iParadigm s text matching software iThenticate 7 CrossCheck provides an extensive database of scientific technical and medical content including material behind journal paywalls which would not be available from a simple internet search When a document is checked in CrossCheck it is compared with the content of this database which is made up of published and unpublished documents including over 40 million research articles conference proceedings and e books from scientific technical and medical publishing 4 1 Getting started with CrossCheck Cochrane Review Groups are encouraged to use CrossCheck through the licence held by the Page 3 of 11 Published on Cochrane Community beta website http community cochran
18. rossCheck s similarity index should not be used as an absolute measure of whether significant overlap exists but rather as a signal to have a closer look at the text The score is a percentage of text that it has identified as an overlap with one or more other sources A low score means less overlap and a high score means more overlap For further information on using CrossCheck please see the official CrossCheck user manual 10 An additional user guide has been prepared by IEEE 11 For further information about the similarity score see the iThenticate website 12 Table 5 Types of CrossCheck reports www ithenticate com training dv walkthrough 13 Document Viewer Default report a detailed report that uses colour coding to compare texts and hyperlinks to allows user to review matches You can exclude particular sources in this mode Similarity report Displays matching sources side by side with sampled text You can exclude particular sources in this mode Content tracking Enables users to see if matches were manually excluded or if there are more than one match for the sample and ranking of proportional match in the report You can exclude particular sources in this mode Summary report Same information as the similarity report but it displays matching sources above the document Largest matches Ranks sample according to the word count and percentage of words that match a string of words Figure 1 Example C
19. rossCheck Document Viewer Page 6 of 11 13 Aug 2014 04 23PM 1871 words 36 matches 28 sources g gt Caffeine 12 Aug Background and methods Matched Document Y iThenticate Original Document g g cne z r P Match Overview cup of tea may contain around 30 mg per cup It is possible for a cup of tea instant a J Denise Bai C idine interventions for th w coffee or can of cola beverage to have similar caffeine content 55 to 65 mg however 2 E E 4 Internet the mean values per cup of black tea 28 to 46 mg are considerably lower than for 3 rawea 3 awma com au brewed coffee 107 to 151 mg 4 paraa SAE 3 www ncbi nim nih gov CrossCheck 42 word How the intervention might work 5 Freak Polt Rosanne LA Miranda Cumpston Anna Peete 2 rs Stacy A Clemes and Rosanne LA Freak Poll Workp CrossCheck 33 word Caffeine is a mild stimulant that acts as an antagonist of the adenosine receptors 6 aonan Mond t MoD Y ATEN SERR Nae 2 k x z CrossCheck 32 word blocking the action of this naturally occurring neuromodulator Snyder 1984 The 7 Carolina Weller Interventions for helping people adneret 2 Compression treatments for venous leg ulceration C effect is increased activity of the central nervous system Smith 2002 8 pectic the i 2 onilinelibrary wiley com Internet Uncontrolled cohort studies have suggested that the use of coffee and tea is beneficial r 9 vied on 03 M 4 2 www update s
20. tions This action and any other very serious consequences must be discussed and undertaken in consultation with the Editor in Chief The Editor in Chief will however consider situations on a case by case basis and decide on an appropriate course of action 5 2 Recording information about cases of suspected plagiarism in Archie Storing CrossCheck reports Editorial teams can record similarity scores with notes of what was checked in the History section of the review workflow If relevant copies of similarity reports may be saved in the workflow files Recording actions taken Editorial teams should consider whether to record as a note any action against an author in their Archie person record sharing the note within their entity or with a specific administrative role Notes should be as factual as possible noting what has occurred and the actions taken as opposed to judgmental For example it would be appropriate to write A paragraph of text was copied verbatim from a separate article without acknowledgement of the original text The author was asked to explain the reason for this and make appropriate changes before resubmitting It would be inappropriate to write for example Author often plagiarises text Instances of serious plagiarism will be escalated to the Editor in Chief see Section 5 1 The Editor in Chief will monitor whether cases occur with the same authors or groups of authors and will take appropriate action
21. ts research grant applications Institutional Review Board applications or unpublished or published manuscripts in any publication format print or electronic Source www wame org resources publication ethics policies for medical journals plagiarism 1 This policy relates to the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews MECIR reporting standard 22 www cochrane org editorial and publishing policy resource mecir 2 2 Special circumstances for Cochrane Systematic Reviews There are special circumstances when similarity in text is expected in Cochrane Systematic Reviews by the nature of the type of work These special circumstances may result in text similarity software such as CrossCheck Table 1 finding a high level of similarity of the Cochrane Review text with text from other article s High levels of similarity would not always be considered plagiarism Table 1 Special circumstances that will generate high levels of text similarity between Cochrane Systematic Reviews versions of Cochrane Systematic Reviews and other articles Special circumstance Text similarity expected Similar methods sections Yes Cochrane Reviews can be expected to have a high percentage of overlap in the methods section because of standardized methods This is unlikely to cause concern unless text is copied verbatim and without correct citation Cochrane Review Group specific template used for text in one Yes if an autho
22. tween the different reviews This should not cause concern but it should be clear to the reader that the same text is used across a series of linked reviews Yes some overlap would be accepted here Authors should follow the guidance see Avoiding plagiarism to avoid the possibility of plagiarism Yes a high level of overlap would be expected This should not cause concern as long as the co publication was agreed according to the policy www cochrane org editorial and publishing policy resource co publication 3 Yes a high level of overlap may be expected This should not cause concern as long as the co publication was agreed according to the policy www cochrane org editorial and publishing policy resource scenarios addressed policy ConvertingToCochrane 3 A Cochrane Review is expected to be an original piece of academic work produced by the listed authors Material copied from other sources may be used but should always be acknowledged If direct quotes of more than a few words of original material are included these should generally be indicated both by using quotation marks and by citing the source citation alone is not enough See examples in Table 2 Table 2 Examples of correct citation Citing Paraphrasing using own words and making the source clear from the reference Using text verbatim The study was successful Griffin 1990 it confirmed previous findings Howes 1995 It
Download Pdf Manuals
Related Search