SAŽETAK. Plagiranje je neovlašteno preuzimanje tuđih ideja, postupaka ili teksta bez odgovarajuće... more SAŽETAK. Plagiranje je neovlašteno preuzimanje tuđih ideja, postupaka ili teksta bez odgovarajuće naznake s nakanom da se prikažu kao vlastita. Preuzimanje već objavljenih vlastitih ideja ili preuzimanje vlastitog već objavljenog teksta prikazujući ga novim i originalnim naziva se samoplagiranjem i smatra se jednako lošim kao i plagiranje. Učestalost plagiranja je u porastu, razvoj informacijsko-komunikacijske tehnologije olakšava neovlašteno preuzimanje teksta, no istovremeno, zahvaljujući istoj tehnologiji, razvijaju se računalni programi i mrežne usluge za otkrivanje plagiranja. Za provjeru tekstova i činjenice jesu li oni plagirani postoje različita programska rješenja. Većina se zasniva na konkordanciji, tj. usporedbi teksta pri čemu program iznalazi i označava podudarne dijelove teksta i izračunava njegov udio s obzirom na cijeli tekst. Neki od programa, osim što uspoređuju tekstove, pretražuju internet radi iznalaženja tekstova s podudarnim sadržajem. Svi programi mogu uspoređiva tekstove napisane na istom jeziku; međujezično pretraživanje nije moguće uz pomoć programske potpore. Primjeri programa su računalni programi (WCopyfi nd) i mrežne usluge (eTBlast, CrossCheck). Prednost mrežne usluge je mogućnost pronalaženja mogućeg teksta izvornika. eTBlast je besplatna mrežna usluga za pronalaženje podudarnih i vrlo sličnih sažetaka znanstvenih radova (pretražuje i bazu podataka Medline) koja je poslužila kao temelj za izradbu baze podataka Déjà vu. Mrežna usluga CrossCheck dostupna je samo članovima (akademske ustanove i časopisi), a korištenjem računalnog algoritma za pronalaženje sličnos iThenticate tvrtke iParadigms (Oakland, CA, SAD) provjerava podudarnost teksta ispitivanog članka s cjelovii m tekstovima sadržanim u bazi podataka CrossCheck ustrojenom suradnjom uredništva i izdavača znanstvenih časopisa koji objavljene članke pridružuju bazi podataka, što omogućuje nesmetano pretraživanje sadržaja zaš ćenog pretplatom. Vrlo je važno prepoznati plagiranje i podučavati o njemu u akademskoj zajednici na svim nivoima obrazovanja. Urednici znanstvenih časopisa i znanstvenici trebaju se zajedno boriti protiv neetičnih istraživanja koja su suprotna znanstvenoj ideji i štetna za znanstvenu i opću zajednicu, kritički čitati i provjeravati znanstvenu publicistiku, prijavljivati plagiranje i ostale sumnjive postupke u istraživanjima uredništvima časopisa i nadležnim tijelima.
ABSTRACT. Plagiarism is an unauthorized appropriation of other people's ideas, processes or text without giving correct credit and with the intention to present it as own property. Appropriation of own published ideas or text and passing it as original is denominated self-plagiarism and considered as bad as plagiarism. The frequency of plagiarism is increasing and development of information and communication technologies facilitates it, but simultaneously, thanks to the same technology, plagiarism detection software is developing. There are different software solutions for checking plagiarism. Most of them are based on concordance , i.e., comparison of text where program tools isolate and mark correspondent parts of the text and calculate its rate regarding the whole text. Several programs, besides comparing the texts, also search the Internet aiming for text with corresponding content. All programs can compare text written in the same language but translingual comparison with plagiarism detection software is not yet possible. The soo ware is available through computer programs (WCopyfi nd) or Web Services (eTBlast, CrossCheck). Their advantage is in the possibility of finding the original source paper. eTBlast is a free of charge web based service for searching corresponding and highly similar scientific paper abstracts (it searches also Medline database), which served as the ground for constructing Déjà vu database. Web-based service CrossCheck is accessible only for members (academic institutions and journals) and by using computer similarity algorithm iThenticate of company iParadigms (Oakland, CA, USA), it checks accordance of the given text with the complete texts in the CrossCheck database. It is organized by a collaboration of journal editorial boards and publishers who pass the published papers to the base and enable searching of content usually protected by subscription. The importance of recognizing and teaching plagiarism in the academic community at all levels of education is enormous. Scientific journal editors and scientists should fi ght together against unethical researches which are opposite to the scientific idea and harmful for the scientific community and society , critically read and examine scientific publications, report plagiarism and other suspicious research misconduct to journal editorial boards and institutional authorities.
Introduction: Plagiarism is one of the most frequent and serious forms of misconduct in academic ... more Introduction: Plagiarism is one of the most frequent and serious forms of misconduct in academic environment. The cross-sectional survey study was done with aim to explore the attitudes toward plagiarism. Materials and methods: First year students of Faculty of Pharmacy and Medical Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, Croatia (N = 146) were anonymously tested using Attitude toward Plagiarism (ATP) questionnaire. The questionnaire is composed of 29 statements on a 5 point Likert scale, (1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – neither agree nor disagree, 4 – agree and 5 – strongly agree) measuring three attitudinal factors (positive and negative attitude and subjective norms) toward plagiarism. Results were presented as score (mean ± SD) followed by reference range (divided in three equal parts: low, moderate and high score). Score range expends from 12 to 60 (low: 12-28; moderate: 29-45; high: 46-60) measuring positive attitude toward plagiarism, from 7 to 35 (low: 7-16; moderate: 17-26; high: 27-35) measuring negative attitude toward plagiarism and from 10 to 50 (low: 10-23; moderate: 24-37; high: 38-50) measuring subjective norms. Response rate was 99% (N = 144). Results: Results revealed moderate positive attitude (36 ± 7) and subjective norms (32 ± 6) toward plagiarism and moderate to high negative attitude (26 ± 4). Plagiarism is perceived as not very important (63% of students), harmless (59%), justi ed under special circumstances (42%), and sometimes necessary (35%). Conclusion: Students' attitudes re ect insu cient level of seriousness and awareness with which plagiarism is perceived. They are lacking knowledge on scienti c methodology, academic and scienti c misconduct. Plan and program to educate students about academic integrity and research methodology is required on all educational level.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of anonymous surveys asking scientists whether... more We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of anonymous surveys asking scientists whether they ever committed various forms of plagiarism. From May to December 2011 we searched 35 bibliographic databases, five grey literature databases and hand searched nine journals for potentially relevant studies. We included surveys that asked scientists if, in a given recall period, they had committed or knew of a colleague who committed plagiarism, and from each survey extracted the proportion of those who reported at least one case. Studies that focused on academic (i.e. student) plagiarism were excluded. Literature searches returned 12,460 titles from which 18 relevant survey studies were identified. Meta-analysis of studies reporting committed (N=7) and witnessed (N=11) plagiarism yielded a pooled weighted estimate of, respectively, 1.7% (95%CI 1.2-2.4) and 30% (95%CI 17-46). Basic methodological factors, including sample size, year of survey, delivery method and whether survey questions were explicit rather and indirect made a significant difference on survey results. Even after controlling for these methodological factors, between-study differences in admission rates were significantly above those expected by sampling error alone and remained largely unexplained. Despite several limitations of the data and of this meta-analysis, we draw three robust conclusions: 1- The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is higher than for data fabrication and falsification; 2-The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is correlated to that of fabrication and falsification; 3-The rate at which scientists admit having committed either form of misconduct (i.e. fabrication, falsification and plagiarism) in surveys has declined over time.
The prevalence and characteristics of research misconduct have mainly been studied in highly deve... more The prevalence and characteristics of research misconduct have mainly been studied in highly developed countries. In moderately or poorly developed countries such as Croatia, data on research misconduct are scarce. The primary aim of this study was to determine the rates at which scientists report committing or observing the most serious forms of research misconduct, such as falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, and violation of authorship rules in the Croatian scientific community. Additionally, we sought to determine the degree of development and the extent of implementation of the system for defining and regulating research misconduct in a typical scientific community in Croatia. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among 1,232 Croatian scientists at the University of Rijeka in 2012/2013 and 237 (19.2%) returned the survey. Based on the respondents who admitted having committed research misconduct, 9 (3.8%) admitted to plagiarism, 22 (9.3%) to data falsification, 9 (3.8%) to data fabrication, and 60 (25.3%) respondents admitted to violation of authorship rules. Based on the respondents who admitted having observed research misconduct of fellow scientists, 72 (30.4%) observed plagiarism, 69 (29.1%) observed data falsification, 46 (19.4%) observed data fabrication, and 132 (55.7%) respondents admitted having observed violation of the authorship rules. The results of our study indicate that the efficacy of the system for managing research misconduct in Croatia is poor. At the University of Rijeka there is no document dedicated exclusively to research integrity, describing the values that should be fostered by a scientist and clarifying the forms of research misconduct and what constitutes a questionable research practice. Scientists do not trust ethical bodies and the system for defining and regulating research misconduct; therefore the observed cases of research misconduct are rarely reported. Finally, Croatian scientists are not formally educated about responsible conduct of research at any level of their formal education. All mentioned indicate possible reasons of higher rates of research misconduct among Croatian scientists in comparison with scientists in highly developed countries.
SAŽETAK. Plagiranje je neovlašteno preuzimanje tuđih ideja, postupaka ili teksta bez odgovarajuće... more SAŽETAK. Plagiranje je neovlašteno preuzimanje tuđih ideja, postupaka ili teksta bez odgovarajuće naznake s nakanom da se prikažu kao vlastita. Preuzimanje već objavljenih vlastitih ideja ili preuzimanje vlastitog već objavljenog teksta prikazujući ga novim i originalnim naziva se samoplagiranjem i smatra se jednako lošim kao i plagiranje. Učestalost plagiranja je u porastu, razvoj informacijsko-komunikacijske tehnologije olakšava neovlašteno preuzimanje teksta, no istovremeno, zahvaljujući istoj tehnologiji, razvijaju se računalni programi i mrežne usluge za otkrivanje plagiranja. Za provjeru tekstova i činjenice jesu li oni plagirani postoje različita programska rješenja. Većina se zasniva na konkordanciji, tj. usporedbi teksta pri čemu program iznalazi i označava podudarne dijelove teksta i izračunava njegov udio s obzirom na cijeli tekst. Neki od programa, osim što uspoređuju tekstove, pretražuju internet radi iznalaženja tekstova s podudarnim sadržajem. Svi programi mogu uspoređiva tekstove napisane na istom jeziku; međujezično pretraživanje nije moguće uz pomoć programske potpore. Primjeri programa su računalni programi (WCopyfi nd) i mrežne usluge (eTBlast, CrossCheck). Prednost mrežne usluge je mogućnost pronalaženja mogućeg teksta izvornika. eTBlast je besplatna mrežna usluga za pronalaženje podudarnih i vrlo sličnih sažetaka znanstvenih radova (pretražuje i bazu podataka Medline) koja je poslužila kao temelj za izradbu baze podataka Déjà vu. Mrežna usluga CrossCheck dostupna je samo članovima (akademske ustanove i časopisi), a korištenjem računalnog algoritma za pronalaženje sličnos iThenticate tvrtke iParadigms (Oakland, CA, SAD) provjerava podudarnost teksta ispitivanog članka s cjelovii m tekstovima sadržanim u bazi podataka CrossCheck ustrojenom suradnjom uredništva i izdavača znanstvenih časopisa koji objavljene članke pridružuju bazi podataka, što omogućuje nesmetano pretraživanje sadržaja zaš ćenog pretplatom. Vrlo je važno prepoznati plagiranje i podučavati o njemu u akademskoj zajednici na svim nivoima obrazovanja. Urednici znanstvenih časopisa i znanstvenici trebaju se zajedno boriti protiv neetičnih istraživanja koja su suprotna znanstvenoj ideji i štetna za znanstvenu i opću zajednicu, kritički čitati i provjeravati znanstvenu publicistiku, prijavljivati plagiranje i ostale sumnjive postupke u istraživanjima uredništvima časopisa i nadležnim tijelima.
ABSTRACT. Plagiarism is an unauthorized appropriation of other people's ideas, processes or text without giving correct credit and with the intention to present it as own property. Appropriation of own published ideas or text and passing it as original is denominated self-plagiarism and considered as bad as plagiarism. The frequency of plagiarism is increasing and development of information and communication technologies facilitates it, but simultaneously, thanks to the same technology, plagiarism detection software is developing. There are different software solutions for checking plagiarism. Most of them are based on concordance , i.e., comparison of text where program tools isolate and mark correspondent parts of the text and calculate its rate regarding the whole text. Several programs, besides comparing the texts, also search the Internet aiming for text with corresponding content. All programs can compare text written in the same language but translingual comparison with plagiarism detection software is not yet possible. The soo ware is available through computer programs (WCopyfi nd) or Web Services (eTBlast, CrossCheck). Their advantage is in the possibility of finding the original source paper. eTBlast is a free of charge web based service for searching corresponding and highly similar scientific paper abstracts (it searches also Medline database), which served as the ground for constructing Déjà vu database. Web-based service CrossCheck is accessible only for members (academic institutions and journals) and by using computer similarity algorithm iThenticate of company iParadigms (Oakland, CA, USA), it checks accordance of the given text with the complete texts in the CrossCheck database. It is organized by a collaboration of journal editorial boards and publishers who pass the published papers to the base and enable searching of content usually protected by subscription. The importance of recognizing and teaching plagiarism in the academic community at all levels of education is enormous. Scientific journal editors and scientists should fi ght together against unethical researches which are opposite to the scientific idea and harmful for the scientific community and society , critically read and examine scientific publications, report plagiarism and other suspicious research misconduct to journal editorial boards and institutional authorities.
Introduction: Plagiarism is one of the most frequent and serious forms of misconduct in academic ... more Introduction: Plagiarism is one of the most frequent and serious forms of misconduct in academic environment. The cross-sectional survey study was done with aim to explore the attitudes toward plagiarism. Materials and methods: First year students of Faculty of Pharmacy and Medical Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, Croatia (N = 146) were anonymously tested using Attitude toward Plagiarism (ATP) questionnaire. The questionnaire is composed of 29 statements on a 5 point Likert scale, (1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – neither agree nor disagree, 4 – agree and 5 – strongly agree) measuring three attitudinal factors (positive and negative attitude and subjective norms) toward plagiarism. Results were presented as score (mean ± SD) followed by reference range (divided in three equal parts: low, moderate and high score). Score range expends from 12 to 60 (low: 12-28; moderate: 29-45; high: 46-60) measuring positive attitude toward plagiarism, from 7 to 35 (low: 7-16; moderate: 17-26; high: 27-35) measuring negative attitude toward plagiarism and from 10 to 50 (low: 10-23; moderate: 24-37; high: 38-50) measuring subjective norms. Response rate was 99% (N = 144). Results: Results revealed moderate positive attitude (36 ± 7) and subjective norms (32 ± 6) toward plagiarism and moderate to high negative attitude (26 ± 4). Plagiarism is perceived as not very important (63% of students), harmless (59%), justi ed under special circumstances (42%), and sometimes necessary (35%). Conclusion: Students' attitudes re ect insu cient level of seriousness and awareness with which plagiarism is perceived. They are lacking knowledge on scienti c methodology, academic and scienti c misconduct. Plan and program to educate students about academic integrity and research methodology is required on all educational level.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of anonymous surveys asking scientists whether... more We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of anonymous surveys asking scientists whether they ever committed various forms of plagiarism. From May to December 2011 we searched 35 bibliographic databases, five grey literature databases and hand searched nine journals for potentially relevant studies. We included surveys that asked scientists if, in a given recall period, they had committed or knew of a colleague who committed plagiarism, and from each survey extracted the proportion of those who reported at least one case. Studies that focused on academic (i.e. student) plagiarism were excluded. Literature searches returned 12,460 titles from which 18 relevant survey studies were identified. Meta-analysis of studies reporting committed (N=7) and witnessed (N=11) plagiarism yielded a pooled weighted estimate of, respectively, 1.7% (95%CI 1.2-2.4) and 30% (95%CI 17-46). Basic methodological factors, including sample size, year of survey, delivery method and whether survey questions were explicit rather and indirect made a significant difference on survey results. Even after controlling for these methodological factors, between-study differences in admission rates were significantly above those expected by sampling error alone and remained largely unexplained. Despite several limitations of the data and of this meta-analysis, we draw three robust conclusions: 1- The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is higher than for data fabrication and falsification; 2-The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is correlated to that of fabrication and falsification; 3-The rate at which scientists admit having committed either form of misconduct (i.e. fabrication, falsification and plagiarism) in surveys has declined over time.
The prevalence and characteristics of research misconduct have mainly been studied in highly deve... more The prevalence and characteristics of research misconduct have mainly been studied in highly developed countries. In moderately or poorly developed countries such as Croatia, data on research misconduct are scarce. The primary aim of this study was to determine the rates at which scientists report committing or observing the most serious forms of research misconduct, such as falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, and violation of authorship rules in the Croatian scientific community. Additionally, we sought to determine the degree of development and the extent of implementation of the system for defining and regulating research misconduct in a typical scientific community in Croatia. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among 1,232 Croatian scientists at the University of Rijeka in 2012/2013 and 237 (19.2%) returned the survey. Based on the respondents who admitted having committed research misconduct, 9 (3.8%) admitted to plagiarism, 22 (9.3%) to data falsification, 9 (3.8%) to data fabrication, and 60 (25.3%) respondents admitted to violation of authorship rules. Based on the respondents who admitted having observed research misconduct of fellow scientists, 72 (30.4%) observed plagiarism, 69 (29.1%) observed data falsification, 46 (19.4%) observed data fabrication, and 132 (55.7%) respondents admitted having observed violation of the authorship rules. The results of our study indicate that the efficacy of the system for managing research misconduct in Croatia is poor. At the University of Rijeka there is no document dedicated exclusively to research integrity, describing the values that should be fostered by a scientist and clarifying the forms of research misconduct and what constitutes a questionable research practice. Scientists do not trust ethical bodies and the system for defining and regulating research misconduct; therefore the observed cases of research misconduct are rarely reported. Finally, Croatian scientists are not formally educated about responsible conduct of research at any level of their formal education. All mentioned indicate possible reasons of higher rates of research misconduct among Croatian scientists in comparison with scientists in highly developed countries.
Uploads
ABSTRACT. Plagiarism is an unauthorized appropriation of other people's ideas, processes or text without giving correct credit and with the intention to present it as own property. Appropriation of own published ideas or text and passing it as original is denominated self-plagiarism and considered as bad as plagiarism. The frequency of plagiarism is increasing and development of information and communication technologies facilitates it, but simultaneously, thanks to the same technology, plagiarism detection software is developing. There are different software solutions for checking plagiarism. Most of them are based on concordance , i.e., comparison of text where program tools isolate and mark correspondent parts of the text and calculate its rate regarding the whole text. Several programs, besides comparing the texts, also search the Internet aiming for text with corresponding content. All programs can compare text written in the same language but translingual comparison with plagiarism detection software is not yet possible. The soo ware is available through computer programs (WCopyfi nd) or Web Services (eTBlast, CrossCheck). Their advantage is in the possibility of finding the original source paper. eTBlast is a free of charge web based service for searching corresponding and highly similar scientific paper abstracts (it searches also Medline database), which served as the ground for constructing Déjà vu database. Web-based service CrossCheck is accessible only for members (academic institutions and journals) and by using computer similarity algorithm iThenticate of company iParadigms (Oakland, CA, USA), it checks accordance of the given text with the complete texts in the CrossCheck database. It is organized by a collaboration of journal editorial boards and publishers who pass the published papers to the base and enable searching of content usually protected by subscription. The importance of recognizing and teaching plagiarism in the academic community at all levels of education is enormous. Scientific journal editors and scientists should fi ght together against unethical researches which are opposite to the scientific idea and harmful for the scientific community and society , critically read and examine scientific publications, report plagiarism and other suspicious research misconduct to journal editorial boards and institutional authorities.
An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among 1,232 Croatian scientists at the University of Rijeka in 2012/2013 and 237 (19.2%) returned the survey. Based on the respondents who admitted having committed research misconduct, 9 (3.8%) admitted to plagiarism, 22 (9.3%) to data falsification, 9 (3.8%) to data fabrication, and 60 (25.3%) respondents admitted to violation of authorship rules. Based on the respondents who admitted having observed research misconduct of fellow scientists, 72 (30.4%) observed plagiarism, 69 (29.1%) observed data falsification, 46 (19.4%) observed data fabrication, and 132 (55.7%) respondents admitted having observed violation of the authorship rules.
The results of our study indicate that the efficacy of the system for managing research misconduct in Croatia is poor. At the University of Rijeka there is no document dedicated exclusively to research integrity, describing the values that should be fostered by a scientist and clarifying the forms of research misconduct and what constitutes a questionable research practice. Scientists do not trust ethical bodies and the system for defining and regulating research misconduct; therefore the observed cases of research misconduct are rarely reported. Finally, Croatian scientists are not formally educated about responsible conduct of research at any level of their formal education. All mentioned indicate possible reasons of higher rates of research misconduct among Croatian scientists in comparison with scientists in highly developed countries.
ABSTRACT. Plagiarism is an unauthorized appropriation of other people's ideas, processes or text without giving correct credit and with the intention to present it as own property. Appropriation of own published ideas or text and passing it as original is denominated self-plagiarism and considered as bad as plagiarism. The frequency of plagiarism is increasing and development of information and communication technologies facilitates it, but simultaneously, thanks to the same technology, plagiarism detection software is developing. There are different software solutions for checking plagiarism. Most of them are based on concordance , i.e., comparison of text where program tools isolate and mark correspondent parts of the text and calculate its rate regarding the whole text. Several programs, besides comparing the texts, also search the Internet aiming for text with corresponding content. All programs can compare text written in the same language but translingual comparison with plagiarism detection software is not yet possible. The soo ware is available through computer programs (WCopyfi nd) or Web Services (eTBlast, CrossCheck). Their advantage is in the possibility of finding the original source paper. eTBlast is a free of charge web based service for searching corresponding and highly similar scientific paper abstracts (it searches also Medline database), which served as the ground for constructing Déjà vu database. Web-based service CrossCheck is accessible only for members (academic institutions and journals) and by using computer similarity algorithm iThenticate of company iParadigms (Oakland, CA, USA), it checks accordance of the given text with the complete texts in the CrossCheck database. It is organized by a collaboration of journal editorial boards and publishers who pass the published papers to the base and enable searching of content usually protected by subscription. The importance of recognizing and teaching plagiarism in the academic community at all levels of education is enormous. Scientific journal editors and scientists should fi ght together against unethical researches which are opposite to the scientific idea and harmful for the scientific community and society , critically read and examine scientific publications, report plagiarism and other suspicious research misconduct to journal editorial boards and institutional authorities.
An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among 1,232 Croatian scientists at the University of Rijeka in 2012/2013 and 237 (19.2%) returned the survey. Based on the respondents who admitted having committed research misconduct, 9 (3.8%) admitted to plagiarism, 22 (9.3%) to data falsification, 9 (3.8%) to data fabrication, and 60 (25.3%) respondents admitted to violation of authorship rules. Based on the respondents who admitted having observed research misconduct of fellow scientists, 72 (30.4%) observed plagiarism, 69 (29.1%) observed data falsification, 46 (19.4%) observed data fabrication, and 132 (55.7%) respondents admitted having observed violation of the authorship rules.
The results of our study indicate that the efficacy of the system for managing research misconduct in Croatia is poor. At the University of Rijeka there is no document dedicated exclusively to research integrity, describing the values that should be fostered by a scientist and clarifying the forms of research misconduct and what constitutes a questionable research practice. Scientists do not trust ethical bodies and the system for defining and regulating research misconduct; therefore the observed cases of research misconduct are rarely reported. Finally, Croatian scientists are not formally educated about responsible conduct of research at any level of their formal education. All mentioned indicate possible reasons of higher rates of research misconduct among Croatian scientists in comparison with scientists in highly developed countries.