Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

CrossCheck Update for European ISMTE Meeting

1,492

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,492
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Kirsty Meddings, CrossRef ISMTE European Meeting 19/10/10
  • 2. ”Plagiarise!”
  • 3. “Plagiarise! Plagiarise, Let no one else’s work evade your eyes, Remember why the good Lord made your eyes, So don’t shade your eyes, But plagiarise, plagiarise, plagiarise...” - Tom Lehrer, “Lobachevsky”
  • 4. “Plagiarise! Plagiarise, Let no one else’s work evade your eyes, Remember why the good Lord made your eyes, So don’t shade your eyes, But plagiarise, plagiarise, plagiarise... Only be sure always to call it please ‘research’.” - Tom Lehrer, “Lobachevsky”
  • 5. 10.1098/rstl.1665.0001
  • 6. User clicks on CrossRef DOI reference link in Journal A Tani, N., N. Tomaru, M. Araki, AND K. Ohba. 1996. Genetic diversity and differentiation in populations of Japanese stone pine (Pinus pumila) in Japan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26: 1454–1462.[CrossRef]
  • 7. User clicks on CrossRef DOI reference link in Journal A Tani, N., N. Tomaru, M. Araki, AND K. Ohba. 1996. Genetic diversity and differentiation in populations of Japanese stone pine (Pinus pumila) in Japan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26: 1454–1462.[CrossRef] DOI directory returns URL
  • 8. User clicks on User accesses CrossRef DOI cited article in reference link in Journal B Journal A Tani, N., N. Tomaru, M. Araki, AND K. Ohba. 1996. Genetic diversity and differentiation in populations of Japanese stone pine (Pinus pumila) in Japan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26: 1454–1462.[CrossRef] DOI directory returns URL
  • 9. 3,215 publishers and societies 43,704,822 content items with DOIs 22,904 journals 133,112 books 18,887 conference proceedings
  • 10. 35 - 40,000,000
  • 11. To enable easy identi cation and use of trustworthy electronic content by promoting the cooperative development and application of a sustainable infrastructure.
  • 12. To enable easy identi cation and use of trustworthy electronic content by promoting the cooperative development and application of a sustainable infrastructure.
  • 13. http://spore.vbi.vt.edu/dejavu/
  • 14. “In the future I hope that every article submitted to every journal can be scrutinized prior to review by similar software. In the meantime we can only rely on the expertise of our reviewers, which by nature will not encompass every known article previously published on a particular subject. …” Editor of a journal that published a plagiarised article found by Garner et al. using eTBLAST
  • 15. To enable easy identi cation and use of trustworthy electronic content by promoting the cooperative development and application of a sustainable infrastructure.
  • 16. To enable easy identi cation and use of trustworthy electronic content by promoting the cooperative development and application of a sustainable infrastructure.
  • 17. ACTA Press ● American Academy of Pediatrics ● American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) ● American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) ● American Diabetes Association ● American Geophysical Union (AGU) ● American Institute of Physics (AIP) ● American Physical Society (APS) ● American Psychological Association ● American Roentgen Ray Society ● American Society for Clinical Investigation ● American Society for Microbiology ● American Society for Nutrition ● American Society of Civil Engineers ● American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR) ● American Society of Plant Biologists ● American Statistical Association ● American Thoracic Society ● Ammons Scientific ● Annual Reviews ● Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) ● Australian Academic Press ● BioMed Central ● BioScientifica ● Bloomsbury Quatar Foundation Journals ● BMJ Publishing Group ● British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing (BINDT) ● Cambridge University Press ● CFA Institute ● Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine ● Co-Action Publishing ● Commonwealth Forestry Association ● Croatian Medical Journal ● CSIRO Publishing ● Digital Science Press (Urotoday International Journal) ● Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea ● EDP Sciences ● Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) ● Elsevier ● Environmental Health Perspectives ● European Respiratory Society Journals ● Expert Reviews Ltd ● Fundacion Infancia & Aprendizaje (FIA) ● Future Medicine Ltd ● Future Science Ltd ● Geological Society of America ● Hindawi Publishing Corporation ● IM Publications ● IMAPS ● Inderscience ● INFORMS ● Institute of Control, Robotics and Systems ● Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE) ● International Union of Crystallography (IUCr) ● IOP Publishing ● IWA Publishing ● Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery ● Journal of Histochemistry ● Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group ● Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development ● Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE ● King Abdulaziz University Scientific Publishing Centre ● Korea Chemical Society ● Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute ● Korean Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI) ● Korean Pharmacopuncture Institute ● Korean Powder Metallurgy Institute ● Korean Society for Bioinformatics and Systems Biology ● Korean Society for Information Management ● Korean Society of Environmental Engineering ● Korean Society of Sport Biomechanics ● Kyung Hee Oriental Medicine Research Center, Kyung Hee Universit ● LWW / Wolters Kluwer Health ● Mary Ann Liebert ● Mayo Clinic Proceedings ● Mayo Clinic Scientific Publications ● Nature Publishing Group ● New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM/MMS) ● Oncology Nursing Society ● Optical Society of America ● Oxford University Press ● Palgrave Macmillan ● Poultry Science Association ● Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ● Professional Engineering Publishing ● RMIT Publishing ● Rockefeller University Press ● Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh ● Royal Irish Academy ● Sage Publications ● ScienceAsia, Mahidol University ● Society for Endocrinology ● Society for General Microbiology ● Society for Industrial & Applied Mathematics (SIAM) ● Society of Exploration Geophysicists ● Sophia Publishing Group ● Springer Science + Business Media ● Taylor & Francis (Informa) ● The Ecological Society of Korea ● The Ergonomics Society of Korea ● The Korean Ceramic Society ● The Korean Electrochemical Society ● The Korean Environmental Sciences Society ● The Korean Institute of Building Construction ● The Korean Magnetics Society ● The Korean Mathematical Society ● The Korean Society of Applied Pharmacology ● The Korean Society of Environmental Agriculture ● The Korean Society of Fisheries Technology ● The Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition ● The Korean Society of Ginseng ● The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers ● The Korean Society of Mycology ● The Korean Society of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technology ● The Korean Society of Phycology ● The Korean Society of Plant Biotechnology ● The Korean Space Science Society ● The Materials Research Society of Korea ● The Royal Society ● The Society of Naval Architects of Korea ● TUBITAK ● Versita (CESJ) ● Vilnius Gediminas Technical University ● Walter de Gruyter ● Wiley-Blackwell ● World Scientific Publishing
  • 18. 49,971 books, journals & conference proceedings 26.5 million content items
  • 19. Computers are good at discovering duplicated text...
  • 20. They’re not so good at determining intentions.
  • 21. An attempt at plagiarism An incorrect citation? Coincidence? Acceptable copying?
  • 22. Similarity Score = Total amount of text in manuscript that matches text in other sources
  • 23. Similarity Report
  • 24. Similarity Report vs Content Tracking Report
  • 25. Similarity Report Most relevant matched text from all sources vs Content Tracking Report
  • 26. Similarity Report Most relevant matched text from all sources vs Content Tracking Report All matched text from a single source
  • 27. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Praesent ac lorem felis. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec scelerisque orci ac augue auctor ut fringilla urna ultrices. In consectetur ornare velit, non mattis diam mollis non. Etiam sed dui quam, vitae sollicitudin enim. Nullam id nibh neque, sit amet semper quam. Nulla facilisi. Pellentesque tortor tortor, pellentesque a viverra eu, tincidunt et risus. Nam metus lectus, pulvinar id fermentum a, pretium at ligula. Pellentesque risus lorem, congue a pulvinar sed, consectetur nec odio. Ut porta ornare blandit. Match 1, Source A Nullam posuere bibendum sem vitae dapibus. Etiam convallis, neque vel pretium elementum, lectus orci posuere ligula, in rutrum nibh lacus sed erat. Mauris mollis massa sed odio sollicitudin sed convallis mauris interdum. Sed pellentesque eros ac purus hendrerit gravida. Aliquam erat volutpat. Maecenas sit amet tristique turpis. Donec id lacus nibh. Donec tempor euismod urna, sit amet consectetur enim placerat id. Morbi nec mauris lacus. Fusce consectetur, nibh vitae pretium luctus, dolor augue porttitor mi, id facilisis eros neque et sem. Cras porttitor sagittis placerat. Integer mauris diam, consequat nec fermentum in, congue et libero. Maecenas pulvinar tincidunt dapibus. Sed gravida fermentum eros, id euismod massa ultrices nec. Proin ut porttitor lorem. Phasellus convallis sagittis varius. Proin laoreet arcu sed sapien mattis congue. Mauris risus dolor, ornare feugiat ullamcorper a, sollicitudin id lorem. Mauris cursus commodo lectus a vulputate. Donec rhoncus velit vitae tortor tincidunt rutrum. Duis id iaculis metus. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Suspendisse eu turpis sit amet augue pretium gravida a at nibh. Proin vulputate sapien eget est placerat pretium. Proin vel dolor sed enim gravida molestie. In non lectus sed justo placerat laoreet vitae nec odio. Match 2, Source B Nullam iaculis ipsum sed neque viverra bibendum. Mauris mollis tempor sem, et porta lectus consectetur et. Donec euismod mi sed enim pretium hendrerit et vitae leo. Vivamus aliquet libero in tortor euismod consectetur eget sed mi. Nunc iaculis dui et mi rutrum id commodo sem rhoncus. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Suspendisse orci risus, porta in semper eu, laoreet sit amet felis. Curabitur dapibus iaculis eros sit amet commodo. Mauris a libero in lacus bibendum auctor. Phasellus blandit pellentesque est, et porttitor felis ullamcorper nec.
  • 28. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Praesent ac lorem felis. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec scelerisque orci ac augue auctor ut fringilla urna ultrices. In consectetur ornare velit, non mattis diam mollis non. Etiam sed dui quam, vitae sollicitudin enim. Nullam id nibh neque, sit amet semper quam. Nulla facilisi. Pellentesque tortor tortor, pellentesque a viverra eu, tincidunt et risus. Nam metus lectus, pulvinar id fermentum a, pretium at ligula. Pellentesque risus lorem, congue a pulvinar sed, consectetur nec odio. Ut porta ornare blandit. Match 1, Source A Nullam posuere bibendum sem vitae dapibus. Etiam convallis, neque vel pretium elementum, lectus orci posuere ligula, in rutrum nibh lacus sed erat. Mauris mollis massa sed odio sollicitudin sed convallis mauris interdum. Sed pellentesque eros ac purus hendrerit gravida. Aliquam erat volutpat. Maecenas sit amet tristique turpis. Donec id lacus nibh. Donec tempor euismod urna, sit amet consectetur enim placerat id. Morbi nec mauris lacus. Fusce consectetur, nibh vitae pretium luctus, dolor Match 3, Source C augue porttitor mi, id facilisis eros neque et sem. Cras porttitor sagittis placerat. Integer mauris diam, consequat nec fermentum in, congue et libero. Maecenas pulvinar tincidunt dapibus. Sed gravida fermentum eros, id euismod massa ultrices nec. Proin ut porttitor lorem. Phasellus convallis sagittis varius. Proin laoreet arcu sed sapien mattis congue. Mauris risus dolor, ornare feugiat ullamcorper a, sollicitudin id lorem. Mauris cursus commodo lectus a vulputate. Donec rhoncus velit vitae tortor tincidunt rutrum. Duis id iaculis metus. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Suspendisse eu turpis sit amet augue pretium gravida a at nibh. Proin vulputate sapien eget est placerat pretium. Proin vel dolor sed enim gravida molestie. In non lectus sed justo placerat laoreet vitae nec odio. Match 2, Source B Nullam iaculis ipsum sed neque viverra bibendum. Mauris mollis tempor sem, et porta lectus consectetur et. Donec euismod mi sed enim pretium hendrerit et vitae leo. Vivamus aliquet libero in tortor euismod consectetur eget sed mi. Nunc iaculis dui et mi rutrum id commodo sem rhoncus. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Suspendisse orci risus, porta in semper eu, laoreet sit amet felis. Curabitur dapibus iaculis eros sit amet commodo. Mauris a libero in lacus bibendum auctor. Phasellus blandit pellentesque est, et porttitor felis ullamcorper nec.
  • 29. Content Tracking Report
  • 30. Content Tracking Report This source is partially hidden by one or more sources in the Similarity Report. This source is completely hidden by one or more sources in the Similarity Report.
  • 31. Manuscript Triage Acceptance Submission Yes No
  • 32. Manuscript Triage Acceptance Submission Yes No Prior to acceptance? Author? On Submission? Triage?
  • 33. Manuscript Triage Acceptance Submission Yes No Prior to acceptance Author On Submission Triage
  • 34. CrossCheck Survey October 2009
  • 35. CrossCheck Survey October 2009 For your particular publication(s), what percentage of manuscripts are you checking or planning to check? All submitted manuscripts A percentage of manuscripts Only those that arouse suspicion Only those that are accepted Other 0 2 4 6 8 10
  • 36. 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 O ct -0 9 N ov -0 9 D ec -0 9 Ja n- 10 Fe b- 10 M ar -1 0 Ap r- 1 0 M ay -1 0 Ju n- 10 Documents Checked Ju l-1 0 Au g- 10 Se p- 10
  • 37. CrossCheck Survey October 2009
  • 38. CrossCheck Survey October 2009 Have you detected any plagiarised content using CrossCheck? Yes No Not Sure No response 0 5 10 15
  • 39. Publisher Pilots 50% of testers found suspected plagiarism using iThenticate
  • 40. Learned Publishing, 23: 132-135
  • 41. Case Study Commercial Publisher, 3 STM Journals • Journal 1: 216 submissions: 21 (9.7%) rejected and returned by journal administrator • Journal 2: 56 ACCEPTED articles: 13 (23%) accept decision rescinded • Journal 3: 83  submissions: 6 (6%) rejected and returned by journal administrator.
  • 42. "Not so many years ago, we got one or two alleged cases a year. Now we are getting one or two a month." Bernard Rous, Director of Publications, Association for Computing Machinery
  • 43. “In the long run it has saved enormous amounts of time.”
  • 44. Positive Feedback
  • 45. Positive Feedback “This is an invaluable tool and much appreciated by our Editors.”
  • 46. Positive Feedback “This is an invaluable tool and much appreciated by our Editors.” “By far the most effective and nancially feasible software that I have found.”
  • 47. Positive Feedback “This is an invaluable tool and much appreciated by our Editors.” “By far the most effective and nancially feasible software that I have found.” “CrossCheck is a valuable tool... Previously I would use Google Scholar, then need to access the journal article to con rm suspicions of plagiarism, which was very time consuming.”
  • 48. http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck_plagiarism_resources.html
  • 49. Where Next? • Growing membership & database • Growing usage • Case studies, benchmark stats • Duplicate Submission Detection
  • 50. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5919/1293/DC1
  • 51. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5919/1293/DC1
  • 52. “We DID NOT give any permission to duplicate or publish our articles... I can't imagine how it is possible that people DO things like that.” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5919/1293/DC1
  • 53. “We DID NOT give any permission to duplicate or publish our articles... I can't imagine how it is possible that people DO things like that.” “The physicians in this instance were scoundrels.” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5919/1293/DC1
  • 54. “We DID NOT give any permission to duplicate or publish our articles... I can't imagine how it is possible that people DO things like that.” “The physicians in this instance were scoundrels.” “They simply stole our paper! They ought to go to jail or at least get out of the research business. But they are probably Full Professors by now and immune from any guilt. What a travesty!” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5919/1293/DC1
  • 55. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5919/1293/DC1
  • 56. “To be honest with you, I was not aware of the fact that I need to take prior permission of the authors of the original article.” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5919/1293/DC1
  • 57. “To be honest with you, I was not aware of the fact that I need to take prior permission of the authors of the original article.” “I had not intention to duplicate ideas, but only to divide previous experience of masters in [specialty area]… Some phrases were similar to that of the previous article written 4 years before... in fact that article inspired our work. I seize the opportunity to congratulate [the authors of the original publication] for their previous and fundamental paper. … It isn't a case of duplicate publication, because our work is based on our own cases.” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5919/1293/DC1
  • 58. “To be honest with you, I was not aware of the fact that I need to take prior permission of the authors of the original article.” “I had not intention to duplicate ideas, but only to divide previous experience of masters in [specialty area]… Some phrases were similar to that of the previous article written 4 years before... in fact that article inspired our work. I seize the opportunity to congratulate [the authors of the original publication] for their previous and fundamental paper. … It isn't a case of duplicate publication, because our work is based on our own cases.” [99% text similarity, 100% references shared] http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5919/1293/DC1
  • 59. Thank You www.crossref.org/crosscheck.html kmeddings@crossref.org

×