Percepciones y eficacia de los mecanismos de detección de plagio en revistas científicas de Ciencias Sociales españolas, portuguesas e iberoamericanas

Eva María Espiñeira Bellón; Jesús Miguel Muñoz Cantero; Ana María Porto Castro; María Josefa Mosteiro García

doi:10.30827/relieve.v29i2.29097

Authors

Eva María Espiñeira Bellón University of A Coruña, Spain
Jesús Miguel Muñoz Cantero University of A Coruña, Spain https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5502-1771
Ana María Porto Castro University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9410-5457
María Josefa Mosteiro García University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6354-3289

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30827/relieve.v29i2.29097

Keywords:

editorial boards, ethics, academic integrity, plagiarism

Abstract

One of the greatest challenges faced by the editorial boards of scientific journals is related to the detection of plagiarism in the manuscripts received. This study addresses this issue based on the perception of the members of editorial committees of 166 journals in the field of Social Sciences in the Ibero-American context indexed in Scopus. The responses were collected through a digital questionnaire, and a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the information provided was conducted. The results show that most of the journals consulted have plagiarism detection software, with numerous reasons for and against its use. Most of the articles discarded in the reception processes include self-plagiarism and covert plagiarism through paraphrasing. In cases of plagiarism, most journals reject manuscripts in the reception process, although it is noteworthy that more than 15% give authors the opportunity to correct the error and resubmit the paper. This study concludes that, despite taking preventive measures, these do not guarantee the eradication of such a problem.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Eva María Espiñeira Bellón, University of A Coruña, Spain

Associate Professor in the area of Research Methods and Diagnosis in Education at the Faculty of Education Sciences of the University of A Coruña. At this institution, she coordinates the Research Group on Educational Evaluation and Quality (GIACE) and is part of the Group for Methodological Innovation through Tutoring and ICT (IMETTIC). Its lines of work are focused on educational evaluation and quality, attention to diversity and academic honesty (integridadacademia.com). She has held several management positions such as senior quality technician, vice-dean of quality and coordinator of the Master's Degree (email: eva.espineira@udc.es).

Jesús Miguel Muñoz Cantero, University of A Coruña, Spain

University Professor in the area of Research Methods and Diagnosis in Education at the University of A Coruña (Galicia-Spain). His lines of research are focused on attention to diversity, educational quality, and academic honesty and integrity. In this last line, he has coordinated five research contracts with the Xunta de Galicia that analyze plagiarism, the academic integrity of teachers and students, the resources of higher education institutions and the integrity of scientific journals. He is president of the Interuniversity Association for Pedagogical Research (AIDIPE) and evaluator of various quality agencies of the university system (email: jesus.miguel.munoz@udc.es)

Ana María Porto Castro, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Associate Professor of the MIDE area at the University of Santiago de Compostela. Coordinator of the IDEA research group (Research, Educational Diagnosis and Evaluation) and Director of the Institute of Education Sciences (ICE) of the University of Santiago de Compostela. Member of the "Ibero-American Network for Research in Academic Integrity" (Red-IA). The main lines of research in which she works are honesty and academic integrity and attention to diversity and inclusive education, from which she has derived research projects, doctoral theses and publications in high-impact scientific journals (email: anamaria.porto@usc.es).

María Josefa Mosteiro García, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Associate professor in the MIDE area at the University of Santiago de Compostela. Secretary of the Interuniversity Association for Pedagogical Research (AIDIPE). Member of the IDEA research group (Research, Educational Diagnosis and Evaluation) and of the "Ibero-American Network for Research in Academic Integrity" (Red-IA). Her main lines of research are academic honesty and integrity and attention to diversity and inclusive education, from which she has derived projects and publications in high-impact scientific journals (email: pepa.mosteiro@usc.es).

References

Baiget, T. (2010). Ética en revistas científicas. Revista de Sistemas de Información y Documentación, 4, 59-65. https://doi.org/10.54886/ibersid.v4i.3873

Baskaran, S., Agarwal, A., Panner-Selvam, M.K., Henkel, R., Durairajanayagam, D., Leisegang, K., Majzoub, A., Singh, D., & Khalafalla, K. (2019). Is there plagiarism in the most influential publications in the field of andrology? First International Journal of Andrology Andrologia, 51(10), e13405. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.13405

Becker, A., & Lukka, K. (2022). Instrumentalism and the publish-or-perish regime. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 102436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2022.102436

Bretag, T., & Carapiet, S. (2007). A preliminary study to determine the extent of self-plagiarism in Australian academic research. Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary. Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication and Falsification, 2(5), 92-103. https://bit.ly/3kvZq02

Bruton. S.V., & Rachal, J.R. (2015). Education Journal Editors’ Perspectives on Self-Plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13, 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9224-0

Comas, R., Lancaster, T., Curiel, E., & Touza, C. (2023). Automatic paraphrasing tools: an unexpected consequence of addressing student plagiarism and the impact of COVID in distance education settings. Práxis Educativa, 18, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5212/PraxEduc.v.18.21679.020

Debnath, J. (2016). Plagiarism: A silent epidemic in scientific writing - reasons, recognition and remedies. Medical Journal Armed Forces India, 72(2), 164-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.03.010

Debnath, J., & Cariappa, M.P. (2018). Wishing away plagiarism in scientific publications! Will it work? A situational analysis of plagiarism policy of journals in PubMed. Medical Journal Armed Forces India, 74(2), 143-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2017.09.003

Domínguez-Aroca, M.I. (2012). Lucha contra el plagio desde las bibliotecas universitarias. El Profesional de la Información, 21(5), 498-503. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2012.sep.08

Fernández-Cano, A. (2022). Parasitismo académico. Torres editores.

Foltýnek, T., Dlabolová, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Razı, S., Kravjar, J., Kamzola, L., ... & Weber-Wulff, D. (2020). Testing of support tools for plagiarism detection. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00192-4

Giménez-Toledo, E. (2015). La evaluación de la producción científica: breve análisis crítico. Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa (RELIEVE), 21(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.21.1.5160

Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research. Open University Press.

Higgins, J.R., Lin, F.C., & Evans, J.P. (2016). Plagiarism in submitted manuscripts: incidence, characteristics and optimization of screening-case study in a major specialty medical journal. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0021-8

Horbach, S. S., & Halffman, W. W. (2019). The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’. Research policy, 48(2), 492-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.004

Jia, X., Tan, X., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Replication of the methods section in biosciences papers: is it plagiarism? Scientometrics, 98, 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1033-5

Jordan, S. R., & Hill, K. Q. (2012). Ethical assurance statements in political science journals. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10, 243-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9163-6

Kittleson, M. (1997). Determining effective follow-up of e-mail surveys”. American Journal of Health Behavior. 21(3), 193-196.

Krokoscz, M. (2021). Plagiarism in articles published in journals indexed in the Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library (SPELL): a comparative analysis between 2013 and 2018. International Journal for Educational Integrity 17, art. 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-00063-5

Matías-Guiu, J., & García-Ramos, M. (2010). Fraude y conductas inapropiadas en las publicaciones científicas. Neurología. Publicación Oficial de la Sociedad Española de Neurología, 25(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0213-4853(10)70015-3

Monzón-Pérez M.E., Oviedo-Herrera L.C., Sánchez-Ferrán, T., Valdés-Balbín, R., Camayd-Viera I., & Calero-Ricardo, J.L. (2020). Plagio en artículos de investigación en revistas biomédicas cubanas. 2016. Revista Habanera de Ciencias Médicas, 19(4), e3526. https://bit.ly/3QY73YY

Muñoz-Borja, P., Hernández-Ruíz, P., & Escobar-Sarria, J. (2016). La política editorial antifraude de las revistas científicas españolas e iberoamericanas del JCR en Ciencias Sociales. Comunicar, 48(24), 19-27. https://doi.org/10.3916/C48-2016-02

Muñoz-Cantero, J.M. (2017). Competencias transversales en la investigación. Ser y estar en la red. Aula Magna 2.0. [Blog]: https://cuedespyd.hypotheses.org/2977

Muñoz-Cantero, J.M. (2018). ¿Plagio o coincidencia? Principal causa de rechazo de los artículos científicos. Aula Magna 2.0. [Blog]: https://cuedespyd.hypotheses.org/3374

Pamies-Berenguer, M., Cascales-Martínez, A., & Gomariz-Vicente, M. A. (2022). Factores condicionantes de la transferencia de la formación y la probabilidad de transferencia. RELIEVE, 28(2), art. 7. http://doi.org/10.30827/relieve.v28i2.24604

Pastor, J. (2018). Plagiarism in publications. Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología, 93(12), 571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oftal.2018.10.024

Pupovac, V. (2021). The frequency of plagiarism identified by text-matching software in scientific articles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientometrics, 126(11), 8981-9003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04140-5

Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: a meta-analysis of surveys. Science and engineering ethics, 21, 1331-1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6

Resnik, D. B., Patrone, D., & Peddada, S. (2010). Research misconduct policies of social science journals and impact factor. Accountability in research, 17(2), 79-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621003641181

Reyes, H. (2009). El plagio en publicaciones científicas. Revista Médica de Chile, 137, 7-9. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872009000100001

Sarabipour, S., Debat, H. J., Emmott, E., Burgess, S. J., Schwessinger, B., & Hensel, Z. (2019). On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective. PLoS biology, 17(2), e3000151. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151

Schroter, S., Roberts, J., Loder, E., Penzien, D.B., Mahadeo, S., & Houle,T.T. (2018). Biomedical authors' awareness of publication ethics: an international survey. British Medical Journal Open, 8(11), e021282. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021282

Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, N. G. (1997). Using e-mail to survey Internet users in the United States: Methodology and assessment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(3), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00101.x

Smart, P., & Gaston, T. (2019). How prevalent are plagiarized submissions? Global survey of editors. Learned Publishing, 32(1), 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1218

Solís-Sánchez, G., Cano-Garcinuño, A., Anton-Gamero, M., Alsina-Manrique de Lara, L., & Rey-Galán, C. (2018). Plagio y ética en las publicaciones científicas. Anales de Pediatría, 90(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpedi.2018.10.008

Taylor, D.B. (2017). Plagiarism in manuscripts submitted to the AJR: development of an optimal screening algorithm and management pathways. American Journal of Roentgenology, 209(1). https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17208

Teddlie, C., & Tashkkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Sage.

Thomas, A. (2019). Plagiarism in South African management journals: a follow-up study. South African Journal of Science, 115(5/6), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/5723

Wager, E., & Wiffen, P.J. (2011). Ethical issues in preparing and publishing systematic reviews. Journal of Evidence Based Medicine, 4(2), 130-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-5391.2011.01122.x

Wen‑Yau, C.L. (2020). Self‑plagiarism in academic journal articles: from the perspectives of international editors‑in‑chief in editorial and COPE case. Scientometrics,123, 299-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03373-0

Williams, P., & Wager, E. (2013). Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: findings from a qualitative study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9292-0

White, C. (2005). Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth. BMJ, 331(7511), 281-288. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7511.281

Yu-Chih, S. (2013). Do journal authors plagiarize? Using plagiarism detection software to uncover matching text across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 264-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.07.002

Zhang H.Y. (2010). CrossCheck: an effective tool for detecting plagiarism. Learned Publishing, 23, 9-14. https://doi.org/10.1087/20100103

Zúñiga-Vargas, J.P. (2020). Comportamiento ético en la publicación científica: malas conductas y acciones para evitarlas. Revista Educación, 44(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.15517/revedu.v44i1.35548