↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence of Plagiarism in Recent Submissions to the Croatian Medical Journal

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
linkedin
1 LinkedIn user

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Prevalence of Plagiarism in Recent Submissions to the Croatian Medical Journal
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2011
DOI 10.1007/s11948-011-9347-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ksenija Baždarić, Lidija Bilić-Zulle, Gordana Brumini, Mladen Petrovečki

Abstract

To assess the prevalence of plagiarism in manuscripts submitted for publication in the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ). All manuscripts submitted in 2009-2010 were analyzed using plagiarism detection software: eTBLAST, CrossCheck, and WCopyfind. Plagiarism was suspected in manuscripts with more than 10% of the text derived from other sources. These manuscripts were checked against the Déjà vu database and manually verified by investigators. Of 754 submitted manuscripts, 105 (14%) were identified by the software as suspicious of plagiarism. Manual verification confirmed that 85 (11%) manuscripts were plagiarized: 63 (8%) were true plagiarism and 22 (3%) were self-plagiarism. Plagiarized manuscripts were mostly submitted from China (21%), Croatia (14%), and Turkey (19%). There was no significant difference in the text similarity rate between plagiarized and self-plagiarized manuscripts (25% [95% CI 22-27%] vs. 28% [95% CI 20-33%]; U = 645.50; P = 0.634). Differences in text similarity rate were found between various sections of self-plagiarized manuscripts (H = 12.65, P = 0.013). The plagiarism rate in the Materials and Methods (61% (95% CI 41-68%) was higher than in the Results (23% [95% CI 17-36%], U = 33.50; P = 0.009) or Discussion (25.5 [95% CI 15-35%]; U = 57.50; P < 0.001) sections. Three authors were identified in the Déjà vu database. Plagiarism detection software combined with manual verification may be used to detect plagiarized manuscripts and prevent their publication. The prevalence of plagiarized manuscripts submitted to the CMJ, a journal dedicated to promoting research integrity, was 11% in the 2-year period 2009-2010.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Lecturer 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Researcher 6 8%
Professor 5 6%
Other 26 33%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Social Sciences 10 13%
Computer Science 6 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 23 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2017.
All research outputs
#6,766,521
of 24,565,648 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#444
of 952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,924
of 252,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,565,648 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,523 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.