#Crossref15 Tech Workshops + Member Meeting Boston, MA | Taj Boston November 17, 2015 Ben Hogan from Wiley discussed CrossCheck Experiences

1. iThenticate/CrossCheck Usage and Case
Studies
November 17, 2015

2. Sales
Specific
Cases
33%
Sporadic
Checks
30%
Original
Only
18%
Original
and
Revised
19%
Usage
Data pulled from ScholarOne Manuscripts, accurate to
June 2015
Total number of titles (across all
disciplines): 341
Specific Cases: 111
Sporadic Checks: 102
Original Only: 62
Original and Revised: 66
Wiley CrossCheck Usage

3. Min Max Mean
1. Not Used 0 0 0
2. Specific Cases 1% 65% 28%
3. Sporadic Checks 8% 46% 22%
4. Original Only 8% 44% 20%
5. Original & Revised 4% 39% 19%
Average Percentage Match Across All Journals
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1. Not Used 2. Specific Cases 3. Sporadic
Checks
4. Original Only 5. Original &
Revised
Min
Max
Mean

4. % = high Process Exclusions Decision Type with
highest match
Journal A 40 Automated
for original
No Special Accept
(without external
review)
Journal B 30 Automated
for original
No Scope – Immediate
Reject
Journal C 40 Manual No Unsubmit
Journal D 0 Automated
for original
No Reject – Similarity
Index Over 50%
Examples

5. 1. When should journals run their
reports?
2. How do I actually read/use the
reports?
3. How do I take forward with
authors/institutions?
4. Do I run reports with or without
references?
Common questions from editors

6. • How up to date is the database, and
what does it pull from?
• In some cases, we get a match in a
similarity report and the matched
document has a broken URL.
• Do these reports cover me if I need
to approach an author or
institution?
• COPE
More common questions/feedback

9. • Check for evidence
• Ask author for clarification
• If honest error then ask for
revisions.
• If plagiarism then reject.
Main Points of COPE Guidelines

10. • Social science title
• All manuscripts are run through at original
submission, pre-peer review
• Manuscript in question came through with a
relatively low similarity score
• Editorial office was contacted by reviewer
about potential overlap with two of reviewer’s
publications
• Reviewer sent publications and visually,
they looked similar. Publications were from
major publishers and at least 2 years old
• iThenticate report didn’t link to either of the
reviewer’s publications, although there were
similarities to other publications
• Manuscript sent back to author
Journal A

11. • Social science title
• All original manuscripts are run
upon original submission
• Similarity score came in at 38% with
references, 16% without
• Reviewer noted a large passage.
CrossCheck confirmed exact match
of 200 words w/ no attribution
• Action: Authors queried, article
returned for revision
Journal B

12. • Life Science Open Access title
• Auto-runs submissions
• CrossCheck report showed some
similarities to another article in the
field.
• Direct passages weren’t copied over and
articles were about slightly different
topics, but sentence structure was a
match.
• Action: EIC approached authors.
Still ongoing.
Journal C

13. • Wiley routinely advises using
CrossCheck as a standard part of
the peer review process, but we
advise editors to use it as a tool, not
as a catch-all. Reports are great,
but oversight is required.
• Most editors see the value in the
tool, but appreciate any/all
education about using similarity
reports to their best effect.
Conclusions/Next Steps

14. Questions?
bhogan@wiley.com
Thanks!