Plagiarism and misconduct in research

Sir, the article on "plagiarism and misconduct in research"⁽¹⁾ is very interesting. Chamon reported the use of the computational tool for help detect the plagiarism⁽¹⁾. In fact, the detection of plagiarism in submitted manuscript should be the requirement for all biomedical journals. The pre-submission screening should be encouraged for all contributors⁽²⁾. Of interest, although there are several attempts the problems can still be detected. The use of computational tool might be a solution but it still has the limitations. First, the computational program might not be possible to detect the problem of figure plagiarism as well as conceptual plagiarism⁽³⁾, which are also common problems in the present day. Second, when the problem is detected and reported, the response and action from the plagiarist's institute might not appropriate⁽⁴⁾. As Chamon mentioned for "where we are and what we can do"⁽¹⁾, it seems that it is still a long way to successfully manage the problem. Re-evaluation on the success of the implementation of the computation tool for detection of plagiarism should be continuously done.

• Funding: No specific financial support was available for this study.

REFERENCES

• ¹
  Chamon W. Plagiarism and misconduct in research: where we are and what we can do. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2013;76(6):V-VI.
• ²
  Wiwanitkit V. Plagiarism: pre-submission screening. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(4):149-50.
• ³
  Wiwanitkit V. Plagiarism, beyond crosscheck, figure and conceptual theft. Sci Eng Ethics. 2013 Sep 18. [Epub ahead of print]
• ⁴
  Wiwanitkit V. Plagiarism, management, journal retraction and response by author's institute. Saudi J Anaesth. 2013;7(2):223.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Mar-Apr 2014

History

• Received
  18 Feb 2014
• Accepted
  18 Feb 2014