19. Plagiarism

(Based on recommendations on publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals, prepared by the WAME Publication Ethics Committee) 

Plagiarism is using others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing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the ideas or words are taken from abstracts, research grant applications, Institutional Review Board applications, or unpublished or published manuscripts in any publication format (print or electronic).

Self-plagiarism refers to the practice of an author using portions of their previous writings on the same topic in another of their publications without specifically citing it formally in quotes. This practice is widespread and sometimes unintentional, as there are only so many ways to say the same thing on many occasions, particularly when writing the Methods section of an article. Although this usually violates the copyright that has been assigned to the publisher, there is no consensus as to whether this is a form of scientific misconduct or how many of one's own words one can use before it is truly "plagiarism." Probably for this reason, self-plagiarism is not regarded in the same light as plagiarism of the ideas and words of other individuals.

Plagiarism Policy

All articles submitted will be checked using the iThenticate plagiarism detection software.

• A specific process is followed to manage a case of plagiarism. Negah Journals follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines presented in the  following flowcharts: Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript
• Suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript

For other plagiarism issues and scientific misconduct, Negah journals apply the COPE Guidance on Plagiarism Cases.

Types of Plagiarism

We detect and consider the following types of plagiarism in the journal and ‎prevent them from being used:‎

Full Plagiarism: Previously published content without any changes to the text, idea, and grammar is considered as full plagiarism. It involves presenting exact text from a source as one's own.

Partial Plagiarism: If the content is a mixture of multiple different sources, where the author has extensively rephrased text, then it is known as partial plagiarism.

Self-Plagiarism: When an author reuses complete or portions of their pre-published research, then it is known as self-plagiarism. Complete self-plagiarism is a case when an author republishes their own previously published work in a new journal. (Read the COPE guidelines on text recycling)

Self-plagiarism or Text Recycling Guidelines

(Based on COPE's guideline: Text recycling guidelines for editors)

Self-plagiarism, also referred to as 'text recycling,' is a topical issue and is currently generating much discussion among editors. Opinions are divided as to how much text overlap with an author's own previous publications is acceptable, and editors often find it hard to judge when action is required.

How to deal with text recycling

Introduction

These guidelines are intended to guide editors in dealing with cases of text recycling. Text recycling, also known as self-plagiarism, is when sections of the same text appear in more than one of an author's own publications.

Editors should consider each case of text recycling on an individual basis as the most appropriate course of action will depend on several factors. When should action be considered?

• Text recycling can take many forms, and editors should consider which parts of the text have been recycled. Duplication of data is likely always to be considered serious (and should be dealt with according to the COPE guidelines for duplicate publications.
• The use of similar or identical phrases in methods sections where there are limited ways to describe a common method is not uncommon. In such cases, an element of text recycling is likely to be unavoidable in further publications using the same method. Editors should use their discretion when deciding how much overlap of methods text is acceptable, considering factors such as whether authors have been transparent and stated that the methods have already been described in detail elsewhere and provided a citation.
• Duplication of background ideas in the introduction may be considered less significant than duplicating the hypothesis, discussion, or conclusions.

When significant overlap is identified between two or more articles, editors should consider taking action. Several factors may need to be taken into account when deciding whether the overlap is considered significant.

Text recycling in a submitted manuscript

• Text recycling may be identified in a submitted article by editors or reviewers or by using plagiarism detection software, e.g., CrossCheck. Editors should consider the extent of the overlap when deciding how to act. Where overlap is considered to be minor, authors may be asked to re-write overlapping sections and cite their previous article(s).
• More significant overlap may result in the rejection of the manuscript.
• Where the overlap includes data, editors should handle cases according to the COPE flowchart to deal with suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript.

Text recycling in a published article

If text recycling is discovered in a published article, it may be necessary to publish a correction or retraction of the original article. This decision will depend on the degree and nature of the overlap, and several factors will need to be considered. As for text recycling in a submitted manuscript, editors should handle cases of overlap in data according to the COPE flowchart to deal with suspected redundant publication in a published article.

• Journal editors should consider publishing a correction article when Sections of the text, generally excluding methods, are identical or near identical to a previous publication by the same author(s);
• The original publication is not referenced in the subsequent publication, but
• There is still sufficient new material in the article to justify its publication.

The correction should amend the literature by adding the missing citation and clarifying what is new in the subsequent publication versus the original publication.

• Journal editors should consider publishing a retraction article when: There is significant overlap in the text, generally excluding methods, with sections that are identical or near identical to a previous publication by the same author(s);
• The recycled text reports previously published data, and there is insufficient new material in the article to justify its publication in light of the previous publication(s).
• The recycled text forms the major part of the discussion or conclusion of the article.
• The overlap breaches copyright.

The retraction should be issued in line with the COPE retraction guidelines.

How far back should this be applied?

Attitudes towards text recycling have changed over the past decade. Editors should consider this when deciding how to deal with individual cases of text recycling in published articles. Editors should judge each case in line with accepted practice at the time of publication.

In general, where overlap does not involve duplication of results, editors are advised to consider taking no corrective action for cases where the text recycling occurred earlier than 2004. Editors may wish to take corrective action prior to this date if data duplication occurs. They should follow the COPE flowchart to deal with suspected redundant publication in a published article.

Opinion, Review, and Commentary articles

Non-research article types such as Opinion, Review, and Commentary articles should, in principle, adhere to the same guidelines as research articles. Due to the critical and opinion-based nature of some non-research article types, action should be considered when text is recycled from an earlier publication without any further novel development of previously published opinions or ideas or when presented as a novel without any reference to previous publications.

References/further reading

1. COPE flowchart for suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript 

2. COPE flowchart for suspected redundant publication in a published article 

3. COPE guidelines for retracting articles