Plagiarism sleuths tackle full-text biomedical articles

October 25, 2010

In scientific publishing, how much reuse of text is too much? Researchers at the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute at Virginia Tech and collaborators have shown that a computer-based text-searching tool is capable of unearthing questionable publication practices from thousands of full-text papers in the biomedical literature.

The first step in the process is to find out what is restated before zeroing in on who may have crossed an ethically unacceptable threshold. The findings, published in , offer hope for curbing unethical scientific publication practice, a growing problem throughout the world.

"Building upon our earlier work reported in Science and Nature, which uncovered ethically questionable by comparing their abstracts, we have now re-tuned our computer program, eTBLAST, to scan thousands of full-text articles in PubMed Central, a freely available repository of full-text biomedical literature," said Harold "Skip" Garner, author on the paper and executive director of the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute. "Our goal was to measure how much and where in papers – for example, the introduction, methods or results sections – text is duplicated to establish the 'norm' in publishing. This will allow ethicists, which we are not, to begin to develop guidelines as to what is and what is not acceptable publication practice."

Although abstract search is an effective approach to detect potential plagiarism, full text analysis is needed to uncover all potential duplicate citations in the scientific literature. The researchers examined 72 011 full-text articles using the eTBLAST , which is only the tip of the iceberg for the number of published biomedical articles in the archives.

"We found that most papers are novel, as expected in scientific reporting, but even in papers reporting novel results, certain sections, such as the introduction or methods section, frequently have large amounts of content that appear elsewhere," said Garner. The researchers went on to explain that the re-use of text in certain sections, such as the methods section of papers, where authors provide details on how the work was done, is not a bad thing because it is important to use the accepted and most consistent techniques. "We also expect that other sections like the results section to be very unique just like the abstract. And this is the case in the overwhelming majority of papers," said Garner.

The current study revealed that the introduction section tended to be copied the most in similar citations. Also review articles were confirmed as being particularly prone to repetition.

"We believe this type of research will help us write better, more informative scientific papers, and prepare reviewers and journal editors for interpreting the similarity results that are emerging from the computational analysis of scientific papers. This approach is becoming increasingly commonplace as part of the scientific review process," added Garner. "Before crossing the line between acceptable and unacceptable writing, it is important to know the location of the line," concluded Garner.

Explore further: Science retracts cloning articles

More information: Link to the PLoS ONE article:

Related Stories

Science retracts cloning articles

January 13, 2006

The journal Science has retracted two articles by discredited South Korean scientist who claimed production of a stem-cell line from a cloned human embryo.

Science group posts interactive Web site

December 22, 2006

The San Francisco-based Public Library of Science says its online journal will post research and allow interactive review before and after publication.

Free articles get read but don't generate more citations

July 31, 2008

When academic articles are "open access" or free online, they get read more often, but they don't -- going against conventional wisdom -- get cited more often in academic literature, finds a new Cornell study.

UCD scientists no 1 hot paper in Nature Medicine

August 20, 2010

A paper led by UCD scientists is currently the No 1 Hot Paper in Nature Medicine, according to Thompson Reuters. The paper has been cited almost 3 times more than any other paper published by the journal over the past 24 ...

Recommended for you

Ancient genome from Africa sequenced for the first time

October 8, 2015

The first ancient human genome from Africa to be sequenced has revealed that a wave of migration back into Africa from Western Eurasia around 3,000 years ago was up to twice as significant as previously thought, and affected ...

Rare braincase provides insight into dinosaur brain

October 8, 2015

Experts have described one of the most complete sauropod dinosaur braincases ever found in Europe. The find could help scientists uncover some of the mysteries of how dinosaur brains operated, including their intellectual ...

How much for that Nobel prize in the window?

October 3, 2015

No need to make peace in the Middle East, resolve one of science's great mysteries or pen a masterpiece: the easiest way to get yourself a Nobel prize may be to buy one.

The dark side of Nobel prizewinning research

October 4, 2015

Think of the Nobel prizes and you think of groundbreaking research bettering mankind, but the awards have also honoured some quite unhumanitarian inventions such as chemical weapons, DDT and lobotomies.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Oct 25, 2010
What's the big deal anyway?

I thought the point of science, especially medical sciences, was to further knowledge for the betterment of mankind.

Who cares if an article is plagiarized or builds on someone elses work, if it helps contribute to people knowing better medicine, or saving lives?

Lately, the definition of plagiarism has become so broad that almost anything can be considered as such anyway.

But everything in science (and even science fiction,) is based on someone else's work.
not rated yet Oct 25, 2010
I have to agree at some level with QC. While it is important to give credit where credit is due, plagiarism seems to be creeping into the realm of the insane lawsuit, where anyone sues for anything.

Yes, give original source credit but don't put such a burden on people expanding on your ideas that it is almost impossible to create progress.

One of the issues is many people are more interested in puffing up their own ego then really contributing to the species as a whole.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.