Yuehong Zhang

A survey on the use of CrossCheck for detecting plagiarism in journal articles

The purpose of this survey was to investigate journal editors use of CrossCheck, powered by iThenticate, to detect plagiarism, and their attitude to potential plagiarism once discovered. A 22‐question survey was sent to 3,305 recipients, primarily scholarly journal editors from Anglophone countries, and a reduced 10‐question version to 607 editors from non‐Anglophone countries. The response rate was 5.6%. 42% of all respondents had used CrossCheck in their work. The main findings are as follows: (1) the plagiarism detection tool and its similarity report are extremely useful and effective and can assist editors in screening documents suspected of plagiarism; (2) responses show the journal editors attitude and level of tolerance towards different kinds of plagiarism in different disciplines; (3) the survey results underscore a clear consensus on editorial standards on plagiarism, but there were small variations between different disciplines and countries, as well as between Anglophone and non‐Anglophone. The study also suggests that further work is needed to establish a universal principle and practical approaches to prevent plagiarism and duplicate publication.

Republication of conference papers in journals

Conference proceedings are one of the most important forms of communication for computer scientists. This study investigated the policies of a large number of computer science journals with regard to the republication of papers which had already appeared in conference proceedings. Nearly one‐quarter of journal editors would not republish such papers other than in special circumstances (such as a special conference issue), and almost all of the remainder would do so only after substantial updating and expansion of the original paper. Many specified the amount of content that should be new: 30% was the proportion most frequently mentioned. Thus, many sections of text may be identical to the original paper. However, some journal editors do not appear to consider this self‐plagiarism provided the original publication is properly cited. Nevertheless, such (re)publication is likely to lead to high similarity scores in CrossCheck; in this field, therefore, journal editors need to exercise particular discretion when evaluating CrossCheck results.

Replication of the methods section in biosciences papers: is it plagiarism?

To find out whether replication of methods section in biosciences papers is a kind of plagiarism, the authors firstly surveyed the behavior of authors when writing the methods section in their published papers. Then the descriptions of one well-established method in randomly selected papers published in eight top journals were analyzed using CrossCheck to identify the extent of duplication. Finally, suggestions on preparing the methods sections were given. The survey results show that an author may employ different approaches to writing the methods section within a paper, repeating published methods is more often than give citation only or rewrite complete using one’s own words. Authors are more likely to repeat the description of a method than simply to provide a citation. From the samples of the eight leading journals, plagiarize is very rare in such journals; Learning from Science, attachment may be a considerable choice for papers with common methods.

Detecting and (not) dealing with plagiarism in an engineering paper: beyond CrossCheck-a case study.

In papers in areas such as engineering and the physical sciences, figures, tables and formulae are the basic elements to communicate the authors’ core ideas, workings and results. As a computational text-matching tool, CrossCheck cannot work on these non-textual elements to detect plagiarism. Consequently, when comparing engineering or physical sciences papers, CrossCheck may return a low similarity index even when plagiarism has in fact taken place. A case of demonstrated plagiarism involving engineering papers with a low similarity index is discussed, and editor’s experiences and suggestions are given on how to tackle this problem. The case shows a lack of understanding of plagiarism by some authors or editors, and illustrates the difficulty of getting some editors and publishers to take appropriate action. Consequently, authors, journal editors, and reviewers, as well as research institutions all are duty-bound not only to recognize the differences between ethical and unethical behavior in order to protect a healthy research environment, and also to maintain consistent ethical publishing standards.

The English-language academic journals of China: trends and developments

. 4. Katz, P. C. Characteristics of a world-class journal. Engineering Information. New York, Elsevier, 2001, p. 10. Zhang Yuehong (Helen) Journal of Zhejiang University (SCIENCE), Hangzhou 310027,China Email: jzu_s@ mail.hz.zj.cn Wang Sen Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, Qingdao 266071, China Li Jiang ISSN China Centre, Beijing, 100081 Announcing the ALPSP/Charlesworth Awards 2002 To recognize significant achievement in the field of learned and professional

An international peer-review system for a Chinese scientific journal

The characteristics and requirements of a world‐class journal were considered in establishing a rigid peer‐review system for scientific papers submitted for publication in the English‐language Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE [JZU(S)] from 2002 onward. Four hundred and thirty‐five contributions were received between January and December 2002, and these were sent for pre‐publication review to appropriate leading scientists in the USA, the UK, Ireland, France, Canada, Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Finland, Poland, Portugal, Italy, Israel, Spain, Greece, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Singapore, Slovakia, India, Greece, the Czech Republic, Mexico, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. Our experience showed that such an international peer‐review system plays an important part in ensuring the high quality of a journals contents and in helping it achieve an international reputation.The characteristics and requirements of a world-class journal were considered in establishing a rigid peer-review system for scientific papers submitted for publication in the English-language Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE [JZU(S)] from 2002 onward. Four hundred and thirty-five contributions were received between January and December 2002, and these were sent for pre-publication review to appropriate leading scientists in the USA, the UK, Ireland, France, Canada, Australia, Austria, German, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Finland, Poland, Portugal, Italy, Israel, Spain, Greece, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Singapore, Slovakia, India, Greece, the Czech Republic, Mexico, Hung Kong, Macao and Taiwan. Our experience showed that such an international peer-review system plays an important part in ensuring the high quality of a journals contents and in helping it achieve an international reputation.

Journal of Zhejiang University (SCIENCE):a new journal for the 21st century

The first issue of a quarterly international scientific journal published in English by Zhejiang University, in the People’s Republic of China, appeared early in 2000. The background to its establishment, its aims and objectives, and its progress to date are described. Learned Publishing (2002)15, 59–62 Zhang Yuehong Journal of Zhejiang University (SCIENCE): a new journal for the 21st century 59 L E A R N E D P U B L I S H I N G V O L . 1 5 N O . 1 J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 2The first issue of a quarterly international scientific journal published in English by Zhejiang University, in the Peoples Republic of China, appeared early in 2000. The background to its establishment, its aims and objectives, and its progress to date are described.