CrossCheck Update US Cope Seminar 2010

2,150 views
2,040 views

Published on

Carol Anne Meyer provides an update of the CrossCheck plagiarism screening service to attendees of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) US seminar.

Published in: Business, Technology
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • To view the most current CrossCheck presentation please use the following url: www.slideshare.net/CrossRef/introduction-to-crosscheck-webinar
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,150
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • I’m going to talk about plagiarism and the more practical aspects of plagiarism detection, and specifically the CrossCheck initiative that aims to help publishers and editors tackle this type of misconduct. I’ll give a little background on the project but also an update on how publishers are using CrossCheck and what they are finding.
  • We’re the DOI people. Our main business is making reference links from your journal articles (or books or other content types) work to an access point for the full text of the reference.
  • Ian
  • Ian
  • Reputation: Photos--integrity street sign Trust granite Trust stones Author: woman thinking, shakespeare charactature (jeremkin), judge in a wig, home worker, thinking, love books. publication:
  • Damage to reputation, career
  • Time and money defending against authors and publishers who believe they have been plagiarized
  • Staff costs following paper trails
  • Add cover of a proceedings paper and journal Working paper and final paper in economics or social sciences.
  • So CrossCheck is more than two years old - it was launched in June 2008. I know that quite a few of you here are already CrossCheck participants and will be familiar with how the system works, but for those who aren’t I’ll give a brief explanation. There are two parts to CrossCheck. One is a piece of software called iThenticate which does sophisticated text analysis to identify passages of text that are similar to other passages of text. The other piece is the database of content against which text is checked.
  • I’ll talk about the latter of these two first, as the database that you screen content against is extremely important and one of the distinguishing features of CrossCheck. You can put text into a search engine and compare it against whatever that engine can find out there on the web, but if you’re screening a research manuscript that probably isn’t going to be especially helpful.
  • To effectively screen research material you need to compare it with other research material, and most of that is in publications that are on many different publisher platforms and often behind access control. So even if you find a match using Google Scholar you will still need to go to the publisher’s website to see the abstract, which may or may not contain the matching text. If it doesn’t, you need to get access to the full text, which may or may not involve paying, and so on and so forth. CrossCheck changes this, by giving you access to a large and growing database of scholarly publications to screen manuscripts against.
  • CrossCheck has grown steadily this year and we’ve now got 128 publishers participating - that’s up from 72 at this time last year. you can see this list properly on our website. So that’s 128 publishers and societies who have added their full text content to the CrossCheck database and are checking incoming manuscripts against that database. For those of you who aren’t using CrossCheck I hope that some of the detail I’m going to cover won’t be entirely irrelevant and might give you an idea of how the system is really quite sophisticated and can pick up issues that your editors or reviewers might otherwise miss.
  • DON’T CLICK You can screen a manuscript at any point in the editorial process - it doesn’t have to be done immediately on submission, for example, although many publishers are opting to do this. It might be that you prefer to check just prior to acceptance, or it could be that you use the system to back up or refute suspicions that are raised by reviewers. We have publishers taking all of these approaches as I’ll explain in a moment. We also have one or two publishers who are having their authors do the check ahead of submitting their manuscripts, although this approach is the least common.
  • The main manuscript tracking systems have all integrated or are in the process of integrating iThenticate so that you can submit manuscripts directly as part of your existing workflow... ...Important to note that none of these systems are dictating when in the process you do the check - they have all left it very open and up to the publisher or user to decide at which point the checking should be done.
  • This is the screen that you see when you’ve uploaded one or more manuscripts to iThenticate. You can see the article titles on the left, author and date processed on the right. The Report column with the square buttons beneath tells you what percentage of text within the manuscript has been found to match text in other documents. The percentages are usually made up of a number of smaller matches, and the different coloured buttons indicate which manuscripts have got matches above or below the threshold that I’ve set for my account - this can of course be varied for each user. If you see a high percentage match that you want to look at more closely you click on the button
  • Firstly the similarity score that you see when you first upload a document to iThenticate. For those of you who aren’t in CrossCheck yet, this screen is the homepage and dashboard if you like of iThenticate, and it gives you a quick summary of the manuscripts you’ve uploaded most recently. And what you see on this page is the Similarity Score for a document. This is the total amount of text in the document you’re screening that matches text in other sources - usually several sources rather than a single match of 59%. Unless this is a very low number you’re probably going to want to at least glance at one of the more detailed reports for a bit more information. The question I always get asked is “what is low?” and the answer is that it varies - some publishers are only looking at report with similarity scores over 15%, others are higher at 20, 25 or 30%. Although some publishers are recommending a certain threshold, others are leaving it up to individual editors as it’s quite often the case that the appropriate level varies by discipline or by the type of article - I’ve heard that similarity scores of 60% can be quite common for review articles for example, and won’t be problematic, but 60% for a research article almost certainly would be. SO there’s no magic number that can tell you whether a manuscript might have problems - it does take editorial expertise.
  • And you get to this, which is the first of four different report manipulations available - this one is called the Similarity Report: Manuscript on left, matches on right from highest to lowest. You may not be able to see on this screen shot but for every match you are given a link on the right hand side to a web page or an article, depending on where the match has been found. Scroll up and down to compare, and you can exclude a match if it’s not relevant. If one of the matches does look suspicious and you want to look at it more closely, you click on the passage of text in the left hand window...
  • ...and you can see the two matching pieces of content side by side. On the left is the manuscript I uploaded, and on the right is the matching article. Importantly you can see the entire article or piece of content on the right, rather than just the matching passage and snippets surrounding it. We feel that it’s important with the kind of specialist content that our members publish that editors are able to see more than that in order to establish context. You can scroll up and down in both screens and start to get a pretty good idea of whether the overlap is legitimate or otherwise.
  • You might have spotted in the previous examples that the technology isn’t just looking for word for word matches. The way that it breaks the text down allows it to spot passages of text with word substitutions, so it is looking for similar as well as identical text. In this example you can see that some of the words have been very subtly substituted or moved but iThenticate still picks them up.
  • The last step of this process - having an editor look at the report - is critical. iThenticate is an extremely helpful tool, but it is only a tool and in and of itself it can’t detect plagiarism. The technology is excellent at spotting overlapping or similar text, but it’s not always the case that matching text equals plagiarised content. There are legitimate reasons why the same text might appear in two pieces of content - reasons that may be very obvious to a human being but too subtle for a computer. So the use of tools such as iThenticate must always be combined with the domain expertise of an editor who can interpret the results and make a call on the authors intent.
  • Methodology section.
  • The progress of CrossCheck to date. 128 publishers of all sizes and covering all disciplines - not restricted to STM in any way. Most of the large publishers are on board. 51000 titles - journals, books and conference proceedings. Very comprehensive database - can download a list of titles that are in the database from our website, where you can also see the list of participating publishers.
  • And you can see that usage of the iThenticate system is on the up - from under 4000 documents checked in November last year, to over 11,000 in October this year. We’ve still to see quite a few publishers roll the system out across their titles so these numbers should continue to rise in the coming months.
  • So now I’d like to share with you some of the results and feedback that we’ve been getting from those using CrossCheck. I’ve drawn this from three sources - a survey that I sent to CrossCheck members in October last year, results from several pilot projects that some of our publishers were kind enough to share with me, and finally feedback from publishers who are up and running and using the system as part of their editorial process.
  • We did a short survey of CrossCheck members last October, to which 24 organisations responded. Obviously with a relatively low response rate the results aren’t necessarily representative, but I think that they are interesting because they do show that different organisations - at least in the early days of the project - were all taking quite different approaches. We asked when in the editorial process manuscripts were being checked, the responses were evenly split between on submission and prior to acceptance, with a further 25% unable to say because they hadn’t started using iThenticate at that point.
  • Similarly, when asked how many manuscripts they were checking the answers varied - 25% checking all submissions, 20% checking only those that aroused editors’ or reviewers’ suspicions, and others spot-checking a percentage. So we didn’t see any patterns emerging back in October, but this was perhaps to be expected at such an early stage, and I’m hoping that a repeat of the exercise later this year will be quite different.
  • One result that was encouraging - or discouraging, depending on how you look at it - was that 45% of those who responded reported that they had detected plagiarised content as a result of using CrossCheck.
  • By comparison, a couple of publisher pilots that were run towards the end of the year show more of a trend. For these two sizable publishers, 63 and 66 percent of their pilot journals were checking manuscripts on submission, although they weren’t necessarily checking all manuscripts and in many cases were looking at a percentage. I should explain also that although I’m talking about pilots here, these are fully-signed up members, and the pilot projects were to help them work out their plans for wider rollout across many more titles.
  • CrossCheck publishers making authors aware that they are screening - and one editor I spoke to recently said that since her journal has put CrossCheck information on its submission pages they have been receiving fewer suspicious manuscripts. I would encourage you to make use of the logos and sample text - feel free of course to use your own. How many in audience publicise their CC membership? Submission pages? Other places?
  • - they've all had issues regarding manuscripts containing unattributed copying in the past - we run the journal administration in-house here at T&F so it means we could run the checks ourselves and then pass any papers requiring further analysis to the journal editors as needs be
  • - they've all had issues regarding manuscripts containing unattributed copying in the past - we run the journal administration in-house here at T&F so it means we could run the checks ourselves and then pass any papers requiring further analysis to the journal editors as needs be
  • One of the publishers asked their testers how they found the iThenticate interface, and the feedback echoed previous comments that I’ve heard about how it’s very user-friendly, with almost half of the users being comfortable with it after a single use, and a further
  • Again, another encouraging and discouraging result. At two large publishers, 50% of testers discovered cases of plagiarism using CrossCheck and iThenticate. I don’t have a breakdown of percentages and it’s only anecdotal, but talking to several members recently I’ve been hearing that they are actually uncovering more cases of self-plagiarism, salami-slicing and duplicate submission than they are outright plagiarism.
  • This was from another publisher: over 70% found the CrossCheck service and iThenticate interface useful enough to want to continue using it, with a further 20% undecided. Only 8% said no.
  • A few quotes from participating publishers....
  • I do want to give a balanced view of course, and there are some issues that we’re encountering - one of the main complaints I hear is one of information overload. The matching is quite sensitive, and can bring back a lot of results and can be quite daunting at first, with people unsure about how to decide which matches are significant and which aren’t. For the most part we’re finding that the solution to this is experience and that people do start to get a feel for what constitutes a significant match fairly quickly - and also the definition of a “significant match” varies between disciplines and between titles. There are also some features that iThenticate have introduced to help filter out background noise such as the ability to exlude matches below a certain percentage or number of words, and to exclude reference sections. We’ve also had some feedback that the overall similarity score you see on the iThenticate homepage is misleading as it’s a total of all matches - and it’s true you do have to look at the reports that go with the overall score, but again familiarity with the system makes this easier.
  • We are starting to hear feedback about the savings that publishers are making. The obvious one here is that the service is saving time for editors when compared to alternative ways of investigating suspect papers. The quote here reflects this but does also acknowledge the issue I mentioned on the last slide - that there is an initial investment to get used to the system and the reports. After the initial training it does save time.
  • And finally some interesting feedback that I got from one journal just recently. I’ll read from the email: For us, Cross Check is a game changer... We're mostly using it to identify self-plagiarism and repetition, rather than plagiarism of other people's work. Although that happens too. This has allowed us to really implement pre-refereeing, with the effect that acceptance rates fell from 39% in 2008 to 27% in 2009, and in fact 23% for the second half of 2009 when we started pre-refereeing seriously. The author community cannot have it both ways. They cannot publish multiple papers from one piece of research and still publish in high impact factor journals . The two things are incompatible. And Cross Check lets us find them out.
  • So to summarise, we’re really pleased with the progress that this initiative is making two years on. I think it’s fair to say that it has taken a little longer than we expected for things to get up and running and for publishers to start routinely screening documents, but now we’ve really got some momentum going and some results coming in. We hope that as more and more publishers join and use the service we’ll see a rising awareness amongst authors and something of a deterrence factor emerging, and to this end we’re encouraging members to use CrossCheck logos on their websites and content. And of course we welcome new members - the more organisations that join and add their content to the database, the more useful the service becomes for everyone involved in the project.
  • CrossCheck Update US Cope Seminar 2010

    1. 1. Carol Anne Meyer, CrossRef US COPE Seminar November 30, 2010
    2. 2. 10.1038/457240a
    3. 4. Text PUBLISHERS AND SOCIETIES 3237 44 million DOIS REGISTERED JOURNAL TITLES 22,883 BOOKS 136,952
    4. 5. ● AB SVENSK PAPPERSTIDNING ● ACADEMY OF TRAUMATOLOGY ● ACTA DERMATO-VENEREOLOGICA ● ACTA PRESS ● AGRICULTURAL HISTORY SOCIETY ● AHRC RESEARCH CENTRE ● AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION ● AIS EDUCATOR ASSOCIATION ● AKADEMIAI KIADO RT ● ALEXANDRINE PRESS ● ALLERTON PRESS ● ALPHAMED PRESS ● AMERICAN ACADEMY OF IMPLANT DENTISTRY ● AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS ● AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PERIODONTOLOGY ● AMERICAN ACCOUNTING ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER RESEARCH ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CLINICAL CHEMISTRY ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (AAAS) (the publisher of SCIENCE) ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS (AAPG/DATAPAGES) ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENTISTS ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION ON MENTAL RETARDATION ● AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY MEDICINE ● AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY (ACS) ● AMERICAN CLEFT PALATE ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CHEST PHYSICIANS ● AMERICAN COLLEGE OF MEDICAL PHYSICS (ACMP) ● AMERICAN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE ● AMERICAN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY PATHOLOGISTS ● AMERICAN DAIRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN DENTAL SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGY ● AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY ● AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION (AGU) ● AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS (AIAA) ● AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS (AIP) ● AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY ● AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE ● AMERICAN MARKETING ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY (AMS) ● AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY ● AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY ● AMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (APS) ● AMERICAN PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSOCIATION (APTA) ● AMERICAN PHYSIOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING ● AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (APA) ● AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN ROENTGEN RAY SOCIETY ● AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS ● AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHERS ● AMERICAN SCIENTIST ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY (ASBMB) ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL BIOLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CLINICAL INVESTIGATION (ASCI) ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CLINICAL PATHOLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR EXPERIMENTAL NEUROTHERAPEUTICS ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INVESTIGATIVE PATHOLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANDROLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL SCIENCE ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY (ASCO) ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEALTH SYSTEM PHARMACISTS ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEMATOLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT BIOLOGISTS (ASPB) ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT TAXONOMISTS ● AMERICAN SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY ● AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ● AMMONS SCIENTIFIC ● THE ANGLE ORTHODONTIST ● ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE ● ANNUAL REVIEWS ● ARNOLD PUBLISHERS ● ASM INTERNATIONAL ● ASME INTERNATIONAL ● ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS ● ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING MACHINERY (ACM) ● ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN VISION AND OPHTHALMOLOGY (ARVO) ● ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION ● ASSOCIATION FOR VASCULAR ACCESS ● ASSOCIATION OF LEARNED AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY PUBLISHERS (ALPSP) ● ASTM INTERNATIONAL ● ATLANTIS PRESS ● AUSTRALIAN ACADEMIC PRESS ● AUSTRALIAN COMPUTER SOCIETY ● BAYWOOD PUBLISHING COMPANY INC. ● BC DECKER INC. ● BEECH TREE PUBLISHING ● BEGELL HOUSE ● BELLWETHER PUBLISHING ● BENTHAM SCIENCE ● BERGHAHN BOOKS ● BERKELEY ELECTRONIC PRESS ● BIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES ONLINE ● BIOMED CENTRAL LTD. ● BIOONE ● BIOPHYSICAL SOCIETY ● BIOSCIENTIFICA ● BLACKHORSE PUBLISHING ● BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP ● BRILL ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS ● BRITISH EDITORIAL SOCIETY OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY ● BRITISH INSTITUTE OF NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING ● BRITISH INSTITUTE OF RADIOLOGY ● BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS ● CABI PUBLISHING ● CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN SCIENCE ● CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS (CUP) ● CANADIAN ACADEMIC ACCOUNTING ASSOCIATION ● CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS ● CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ● CANADIAN METEOROLOGICAL AND OCEANOGRAPHIC SOCIETY ● CANADIAN OPTHALMOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● CARDEN JENNINGS PUBLISHING CO. ● CARL HANSER VERLAG ● CARTOGRAPHY AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SOCIETY ● CELL STRESS SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL ● CENTER FOR PSYCHIATRIC REHABILITATION ● CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION ● CENTRAALBUREAU VOOR SCHIMMELCULTURES ● CENTRE FOR BIOSCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS ● CFA INSTITUTE ● CLAY MINERALS SOCIETY ● COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY PRESS (CSHL) ● COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION ● COMMON GROUND ● COMMONWEALTH FORESTRY ASSOCIATION ● THE COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS ● COMPARATIVE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH CENTER ● COMPETENCE NETWORK PEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY & HEMATOLOGY ● CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL ● CORNELL LABORATORY OF ORNITHOLOGY ● CROP SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA ● CSIRO PUBLISHING ● CURRENT BIODATA ● CZECH GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● CZECH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ● DAAAM INTERNATIONAL ● DARTMOUTH COLLEGE LIBRARY ● DATA TRACE PUBLISHING COMPANY ● DEPARTMENT OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING, UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA ● DEPARTMENT OF POLYMER ENGINEERING, SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, (BME) ● DIETITIANS OF CANADA ● DOVE MEDICAL PRESS ● DOWN SYNDROME EDUCATIONAL TRUST ● DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS ● E-MED LTD. ● ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA ● ECOMED PUBLISHERS ● EDICIONES DOYMA ● EDP SCIENCES ● THE ELECTROMAGNETICS ACADEMY ● ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY ● ELSEVIER ● EMERALD (formerly MCB UP) ● EMW PUBLISHING ● THE ENDOCRINE SOCIETY ● ENGLISH LITERATURE IN TRANSITION ● ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES ● EPI SCP (EL PROFESIONAL DE LA INFORMACION) ● EPP PUBLICATIONS LTD. ● EQUINE VETERINARY JOURNAL LTD. ● EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD. ● ERDKUNDE ● ESTONIAN ACADEMY PUBLISHERS ● EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF AQUATIC MAMMALS ● EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF CARDIOTHORACIC SURGERY ● EUROPEAN OPTICAL SOCIETY ● EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOCIETY ● FACULTY OF FAMILY PLANNING AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE ● FDI WORLD DENTAL PRESS LTD. ● FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY (FASEB) ● THE FEINSTEIN INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH ● FIBRE DIFFRACTION REVIEW ● FISHERIES SCIENCES.COM ● FORUM FOR GLOBAL HEALTH PROTECTION ● FRAUNHOFER-INSTITUT FUR MATERIALFLUSS UND LOGISTIK ● FRONTIERS IN BIOSCIENCE ● FUNDACION INFANCIA Y APRENDIZAJE ● FUTURE DRUGS ● FUTURE MEDICINE LTD ● GAZI UNIVERSITY - TECHNICAL EDUCATION FACULTY ● THE GENETICS SOCIETY OF AMERICA ● GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA (GSA) ● GEOPHYSICAL CENTER OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ● GEOSCIENCEWORLD ● GUILFORD PUBLICATIONS ● GUNTHER EYSENBACH, JMIR PUBLICATIONS ● GWV FACHVERLAGE GmbH/VIEWEG PUBLISHING ● THE ALAN GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE ● HARVEY WHITNEY BOOKS CO. ● THE HAWORTH PRESS, INC. ● HEALTH AFFAIRS (PROJECT HOPE) ● HELDREF PUBLICATIONS ● THE HIGHER EDUCATION ELECTRONIC & AUDIO-VIDEO PRESS ● HINDAWI PUBLISHING CORPORATION ● THE HISTOCHEMICAL SOCIETY ● THE HISTORIC BRASS SOCIETY ● HOGREFE & HUBER PUBLISHING GROUP ● HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY ● HUMANA PRESS ● IFIS PUBLISHING ● ILLUMINATING ENGINEERING SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA (IESNA) ● IM PUBLICATIONS ● IMPROBABLE RESEARCH INC. ● INDERSCIENCE ENTERPRISES ● INDIANA UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR GENOMICS AND BIOINFORMATICS ● INDIANA UNIVERSITY MATHEMATICS JOURNAL ● INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS ● INFORMA UK LIMITED ● INSTITUTE FOR OPERATIONS RESEARCH AND THE MANAGEMENT SCIENCES (INFORMS) ● INSTITUTION OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS ● INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IET) ● THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS (IEEE) ● INSTITUTE OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY AND BIOCHEMISTRY, ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC ● INSTITUTE OF PHYSICAL OPTICS ● INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS (IOP) ● INSTITUTE OF PURE AND APPLIED PHYSICS (IPAP) ● INSTITUTE OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES ● INTEGRATED OCEAN DRILLING PROGRAM- MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL ● INTEL CORPORATION ● INTELLECT ● INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BRIDGE AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING (IABSE) ● INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES ● INTERNATIONAL BONE AND MINERAL SOCIETY ● INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL ● INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE ● INTERNATIONAL GLACIOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● INTERNATIONAL HORMESIS SOCIETY ● INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOANALYSIS, LONDON ● INTERNATIONAL LIFE SCIENCES INSTITUTE ● INTERNATIONAL PHYCOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIATION ● INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ENDOVASCULAR SPECIALISTS ● INTERNATIONAL UNION OF CRYSTALLOGRAPHY (IUCr) ● INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY (IUPAC) ● IWA PUBLISHING ● JAPAN LASER PROCESSING SOCIETY ● JAPAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AGENCY (JST) ● JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY ● JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS (Project Muse) ● JOHNSON GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, CORNELL UNIVERSITY ● JOHNSON MATTHEY ● JORNAL DE PEDIATRIA ● JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY ● JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY PUBLISHING GROUP (JNSPG) ● JOURNAL OF MARINE RESEARCH/YALE UNIVERSITY ● JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC & SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY ● JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (JRRD) ● JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY SCIENCE ● JSTOR ● S. KARGER AG ● LAMAZE INTERNATIONAL ● LANDSCAPE ONLINE ● LASER PAGES PUBLISHING LTD. ● LAVOISIER ● LIBRAPHARM ● LOGICAL METHODS IN COMPUTER SCIENCE ● LOGOS INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING EDUCATION FOUNDATION ● M.E. SHARPE INC. ● MANEY PUBLISHING ● MARS INFORMATICS ● MARSHFIELD CLINIC ● MARY ANN LIEBERT ● MATERIALS RESEARCH SOCIETY ● MATHEMATICAL SCIENCE PUBLISHERS ● MBLWHOI LIBRARY "WOODS HOLE OPEN ACCESS SERVER" ● MCFARLAND & COMPANY INC., PUBLISHERS ● MCON INC. ● MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION ● MEN'S STUDIES PRESS LLC ● MILBANK MEMORIAL FUND ● THE MINERALOGICAL SOCIETY ● MIT PRESS ● MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ● MOHR SIEBECK e.k. ● MONASH UNIVERSITY EPRESS ● MORGAN & CLAYPOOL PUBLISHERS LLC ● MTT AGRIFOOD RESEARCH FINLAND ● MULTILINGUAL MATTERS LTD ● MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO LTD. ● NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BUSINESS ECONOMICS ● NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL NURSES ● NATIONAL INQUIRY SERVICES CENTRE/AFRICAN JOURNALS ONLINE (NISC/AJOL) ● NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE (NIDA) ● NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATICS ● NATIONAL LIBRARY OF SERBIA ● NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA (NRCC) ● NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION ● NATIONAL STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION ● NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP ● NEPAL JOURNALS ONLINE ● NEOPLASIA PRESS ● NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE ● NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ● NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES ORGANIZATION ● NOW PUBLISHERS INC. ● NUCLEAR RECEPTOR SIGNALING ATLAS ● OCEANSIDE PUBLICATIONS INC. ● OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION ● OLDENBOURG WISSENSCHAFTSVERLAG GMBH ● ONCOLOGY NURSING SOCIETY ● OPERATIVE DENTISTRY ● OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA ● OSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN, VERLAG ● OXFORD INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS ● OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS (OUP) ● PACIFIC NORTHWEST FUNGI PROJECT ● PATRICIA SEYBOLD GROUP ● PEETERS PUBLISHERS ● PHARMACEUTICAL PRESS ● PHARMACOTHERAPY PUBLICATIONS, INC. ● PHORTE EDITORA ● PIERS ENTERPRISE ● PION, LTD ● PLEIADES PUBLISHING ● THE POLICY PRESS, UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL ● PORTLAND PRESS ● PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (PNAS) ● PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING PUBLISHING ● PROJECT EUCLID ● PROTEIN DATA BANK, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY ● PROUS SCIENCE ● THE PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE ● QUESTIONS PUBLISHING ● RADIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA ● RADIOLOGY CASE REPORTS ● RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF THE CFA INSTITUTE ● RESEARCH INFORMATION LTD. ● RILEM PUBLICATIONS SARL ● THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY PRESS ● ROYAL COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNAECOLOGISTS ● ROYAL COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS ● THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND ● THE ROYAL SOCIETY ● THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CHEMISTRY (RSC) ● THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE ● RURAL SOCIOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● SAGE PUBLICATIONS ● SCHATTAUER GMBH ● SCHWEIZERBART ● SCIDEA LTD. ● SCIELO/PAHO/WHO ● SCIENCE IN CHINA PRESS ● SCIENCE REVIEWS 2000 LTD. ● SCIENCE SOCIETY OF THAILAND ● SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL PUBLISHERS LTD ● SEISMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA ● SHERBORNE GIBBS LTD ● SOCIAL SCIENCE ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, INC ● SOCIEDADE PORTUGUESA DE VIDA SELVAGEM ● SOCIETE DE PATHOLOGIE EXOTIQUE ● SOCIETY FOR APPLIED SPECTROSCOPY ● SOCIETY FOR BIOMEDICAL DIABETES RESEARCH ● SOCIETY FOR ENDOCRINOLOGY ● SOCIETY FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR ● SOCIETY FOR GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY ● SOCIETY FOR IMAGING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ● SOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS ● SOCIETY FOR LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY ● SOCIETY FOR NEUROSCIENCE ● SOCIETY FOR PEDIATRIC PATHOLOGY ● THE SOCIETY FOR SEDIMENTARY GEOLOGY ● SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF REPRODUCTION ● THE SOCIETY OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY ● SOCIETY OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE ● SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS ● SOCIETY OF RHEOLOGY ● SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION SOCIETY ● SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA ● SPIE - THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR OPTICAL ENGINEERING ● SPRINGER PUBLISHING COMPANY ● SPRINGER SCIENCE + BUSINESS MEDIA (Kluwer Academic Publishers) ● STEWART POSTHARVEST SOLUTIONS ● SWISS CHEMICAL SOCIETY ● SWISS FORESTRY SOCIETY ● SYMPOSIUM JOURNALS ● TASH ● TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ● THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE NETWORK ● THIEME PUBLISHING GROUP ● THOMAS LAND PUBLISHERS ● THOMAS TELFORD LTD. ● TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD ● TURPION ● UBC PRESS ● UITGEVERIJ BOOM ● UNITED KINGDOM SERIALS GROUP (UKSG) ● UNIVERSITE DU QUEBEC A CHICOUTIMI ● UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA ● UNIVERSITY OF BATH ● UNIVERSITY OF CADIZ LIBRARY ● UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS ● THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS ● UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS INC. ● UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY AND PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES ● UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB - UNIVERSITY COMPUTING CENTRE ● US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) ● USDA FOREST SERVICE ● VATHEK PUBLISHING ● VERSITA ● VIETICA INC. ● VIETNAM JOURNALS ONLINE ● VITTORIO KLOSTERMANN GMBH ● WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH & CO. KG ● WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION ● WESTBURN PUBLISHERS LTD ● WILDERNESS MEDICAL SOCIETY ● WHO PRESS ● JOHN WILEY & SONS ● WHITE HORSE PRESS ● WITPRESS LTD. ● WOLTERS KLUWER HEALTH ● WOODHEAD PUBLISHING LTD. ● WORLD ADVERTISING RESEARCH CENTER ● THE WORLD BANK ● THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN) ● WORLD SCIENTIFIC ●
    5. 6. CrossRef's goal is to be a trusted collaborative organization with broad community connections; authoritative and innovative in support of a persistant, sustainable infrastructure for scholarly communication.
    6. 7. CrossRef's goal is to be a trusted collaborative organization with broad community connections; authoritative and innovative in support of a persistant, sustainable infrastructure for scholarly communication.
    7. 8. CrossRef's goal is to be a trusted collaborative organization with broad community connections; authoritative and innovative in support of a persistant, sustainable infrastructure for scholarly communication.
    8. 9. Plagiarism: A growing problem? ctrl+c ctrl+v
    9. 10. Garner and Errami compare Medline content using eTBLAST
    10. 11. Text ARTICLES WITH "HIGH LEVELS OF CITATION SIMILARITY NO OVERLAPPING AUTHORS 9120 212 PAIRS OF ARTICLES "WITH SIGNS OF POTENTIAL PLAGIARISM" INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS 83 RETRACTIONS 46
    11. 14. Plagiarism in Context
    12. 15. Between 1 & 2% used another’s ideas without getting permission or giving credit.
    13. 16. 4.7% published the same data or results in two or more publications Pyschoceramics Review Journal of Cracked Pots Photo: Lisle Boomer
    14. 17. 10% or more inappropriately assign authorship credit ; Carol Anne Meyer, MBA
    15. 18. Repercussions for Authors Pyschoceramics Review Journals Publishers Researchers
    16. 22. <ul><li>2006: CrossRef board raises plagiarism as area of concern </li></ul><ul><li>Late 2007/early 2008: pilot </li></ul><ul><li>June 2008: CrossCheck launched </li></ul>
    17. 23. Plagiarism Screening Detection
    18. 24. plagiarism [play‐jă‐rizm] the theft of ideas (such as the plots of narrative or dramatic works) or of written passages or works, where these are passed off as one's own work without acknowledgement of their true origin; or a piece of writing thus stolen. Plagiarism is not always easily separable from imitation, adaptation, or pastiche, but is usually distinguished by its dishonest intention. http://www.answers.com/plagiarism
    19. 25. plagiarism [play‐jă‐rizm] the theft of ideas (such as the plots of narrative or dramatic works) or of written passages or works, where these are passed off as one's own work without acknowledgement of their true origin; or a piece of writing thus stolen. Plagiarism is not always easily separable from imitation, adaptation, or pastiche, but is usually distinguished by its dishonest intention. http://www.answers.com/plagiarism
    20. 26. Was this event... <ul><li>An attempt at plagiarism? </li></ul><ul><li>An incorrect citation? </li></ul><ul><li>Coincidence? </li></ul><ul><li>Acceptable copying? </li></ul>
    21. 27. What about self plagiarism?
    22. 28. Legitimate Duplication
    23. 29. <ul><li>iThenticate software that analyses and compares text </li></ul><ul><li>Database of content to check text against </li></ul>
    24. 33. ACTA Press ● American Academy of Pediatrics ● American Association for the Advancement of Science ● American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities ● American Diabetes Association ● American Geophysical Union ● American Institute of Physics ● American Physical Society ● 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 ● American Society of Plant Biologists ● American Statistical Association ● American Thoracic Society ● Ammons Scientific ● Annual Reviews ● Association for Computing Machinery ● Australian Academic Press ● BioMed Central ● BioScientifica ● Bloomsbury Quatar Foundation Journals ● BMJ Publishing Group ● British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing ● Cambridge University Press ● CFA Institute ● Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine ● Co-Action Publishing ● Commonwealth Forestry Association ● Croatian Medical Journal ● CSIRO Publishing ● Digital Science Press ● Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea ● EDP Sciences ● Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute ● Elsevier ● Environmental Health Perspectives ● European Respiratory Society Journals ● Expert Reviews Ltd ● Fundacion Infancia & Aprendizaje ● 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 ● International Union of Crystallography ● 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 ● 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 ● 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 128
    25. 34. So, you may ask yourself: “How do I work this?” Talking Heads
    26. 35. “ Who should check?” Author? Subject Editor? Reviewer? Editoral Staff?
    27. 36. Triage Acceptance Yes No Manuscript Submission On Submission? Triage? Prior to acceptance? Author?
    28. 40. Similarity Score = Total amount of text in manuscript that matches text in other sources
    29. 44. Computers are good at discovering duplicates
    30. 45. They’re not so good at discovering intentions...
    31. 46. Does not check duplicate photos...
    32. 47. ...charts or tables...
    33. 48. ...or equations
    34. 49. OK, I suspect plagiarism. Now what?
    35. 50. And you may ask yourself “ Am I right?...Am I wrong?” Talking Heads
    36. 51. http://publicationethics.org /
    37. 52. How much? <ul><li>Annual administrative fee (20% of CrossRef membership fee) </li></ul><ul><li>Per-document checking fee ($0.75– $0.25) </li></ul>
    38. 53. How do I sign up? <ul><li>Contact Kirsty Meddings: [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Sign iThenticate agreement </li></ul><ul><li>Provide data to allow crawling </li></ul><ul><li>Receive username/password to CrossCheck system </li></ul>
    39. 54. Text PUBLISHERS 128 28 million CONTENT ITEMS TITLES 51,287 DOCUMENTS CHECKED 45,000
    40. 55. Documents Checked
    41. 56. CrossCheck Survey Publisher Pilots Publisher Feedback
    42. 57. CrossCheck Survey October 2009 At what point in the editorial process are you checking manuscripts?
    43. 58. CrossCheck Survey October 2009 For your particular publication(s), what percentage of manuscripts are you checking or planning to check?
    44. 59. CrossCheck Survey October 2009 Have you detected any plagiarised content using CrossCheck?
    45. 60. Publisher Pilots At what stage of the editorial process are you using CrossCheck?
    46. 62. Case Studies <ul><li>Commercial Publisher </li></ul><ul><li>3 STM Journals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Journal 1: 216 submissions: 21 (9.7%) rejected and returned by journal administrator </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Journal 2: 56 accepted articles: 13 (23%) accept decision rescinded </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Journal 3: 83  submissions: 6 (6%) rejected and returned journal administrator. </li></ul></ul>
    47. 63. Case Studies <ul><li>Commercial Publisher </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use CrossCheck after acceptance, before publication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Have had several cases where they've had to go back for clarifications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A few cases they’ve rescinded the acceptance </li></ul></ul>
    48. 64. <ul><li>48% comfortable with iThenticate software after first use </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Further 33% after two to five uses </li></ul></ul></ul>Publisher Pilots
    49. 65. Publisher Pilots <ul><li>50% of testers found suspected plagiarism using iThenticate </li></ul>
    50. 66. Publisher Pilots <ul><li>Based on testing, do you want to continue using iThenticate? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>72% Yes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>20% Maybe </li></ul></ul>
    51. 67. Positive Feedback “ By far the most effective and financially feasible software that I have found.” “ This is an invaluable tool and much appreciated by our Editors.” “ CrossCheck is a valuable tool... Previously I would use Google Scholar, then need to access the journal article to confirm suspicions of plagiarism, which was very time consuming.”
    52. 68. Issues Title: Example Article Number One Authors: S. Smith 8,274 words - 163 matches - 38 sources
    53. 69. “ In the long run it has saved enormous amounts of time.”
    54. 70. “ A game changer”
    55. 71. Why join?
    56. 73. Deterrence Don’t submit plagiarized stuff! Don’t plagiarize our stuff!
    57. 74. Photo: Beinecke Flickr Laboratory Photo: dbking on flickr Photo: Gill Rickson, flickr Reputation Photo: autiscy, flickr
    58. 75. Photo: mike.benedetti flickr Photo: Beinecke Flickr Laboratory Photo: dbking on flickr Photo: Gill Rickson, flickr Value of the Publishing Process
    59. 76. Why CrossCheck? <ul><li>Only service with database of relevant publications to check against </li></ul><ul><li>Discounted pricing as compared to using iThenticate directly </li></ul><ul><li>CrossCheck community and CrossRef support </li></ul>
    60. 77. <ul><li>Member listserv </li></ul><ul><li>E-mail updates </li></ul><ul><li>Webinars </li></ul><ul><li>Web demos </li></ul>Photo: Marc_Smith, flickr Community
    61. 78. Photo: dwhartwig from flickr www.crossref.org/crosscheck.html [email_address] @meyercarol
    62. 79. Acknowledgements <ul><li>Geoff Bilder Kirsty Meddings, CrossRef </li></ul><ul><li>Ian Bannerman Taylor & Francis </li></ul><ul><li>Flickr </li></ul><ul><li>iStockPhoto </li></ul><ul><li>Ithenticate </li></ul><ul><li>COPE </li></ul><ul><li>Nature </li></ul><ul><li>Talking Heads </li></ul><ul><li>CBS </li></ul>

    ×