Text-Based Plagiarism in Scientific Writing: What Chinese Supervisors Think About Copying and How to Reduce it in Students' Writing

Text-based plagiarism, or textual copying, typically in the form of replicating or patchwriting sentences in a row from sources, seems to be an issue of growing concern among scientific journal editors. Editors have emphasized that senior authors (typically supervisors of science students) should take the responsibility for educating novices against text-based plagiarism. To address a research gap in the literature as to how scientist supervisors perceive the issue of textual copying and what they do in educating their students, this paper reports an interview study with 14 supervisors at a research-oriented Chinese university. The study throws light on the potentiality of senior authors mentoring novices in English as an Additional Language (EAL) contexts and has implications for the efforts that can be made in the wider scientific community to support scientists in writing against text-based plagiarism. © 2011 The Author(s).published_or_final_versionSpringer Open Choice, 28 May 201

Text-Based Plagiarism in Scientific Publishing: Issues, Developments and Education

Text-based plagiarism, or copying language from sources, has recently become an issue of growing concern in scientific publishing. Use of CrossCheck (a computational text-matching tool) by journals has sometimes exposed an unexpected amount of textual similarity between submissions and databases of scholarly literature. In this paper I provide an overview of the relevant literature, to examine how journal gatekeepers perceive textual appropriation, and how automated plagiarism-screening tools have been developed to detect text matching, with the technique now available for self-check of manuscripts before submission; I also discuss issues around English as an additional language (EAL) authors and in particular EAL novices being the typical offenders of textual borrowing. The final section of the paper proposes a few educational directions to take in tackling text-based plagiarism, highlighting the roles of the publishing industry, senior authors and English for academic purposes professionals. © 2012 The Author(s).published_or_final_versionSpringer Open Choice, 28 May 201

Chinese academics writing for publication:English teachers as text mediators

This paper discusses a key aspect of Chinese scholars writing for publication in English: the role played by local English teachers as literacy brokers or “text mediators”. Increasingly, academics in China are required to publish their research in prestigious international journals to progress their careers, and are turning to local English teaching colleagues for assistance. The expense, uncertain competence and sometimes dubious ethical practices of professional editing services, combined with the co-present contact and personal relationships formed with local colleagues, mean that Chinese English teachers are rapidly becoming a valuable resource for turning the massive number of Chinese submissions into publishable papers. This relationship, however, is complicated by the lack of institutional funding for language mediation of this kind and by the uncertainties of appropriate reward for this work. This paper examines the kinds of cooperation and difficulties experienced between local English teachers and scientists in some Chinese universities

An Empirical Analysis of Overlap Publication in Chinese Language and English Research Manuscripts

BACKGROUND: There are a number of sound justifications for publishing nearly identical information in Chinese and English medical journals, assuming several conditions are met. Although overlap publication is perceived as undesirable and ethically questionable in Europe and North America, it may serve an important function in some regions where English is not the native tongue. There is no empirical data on the nature and degree of overlap publication in English and Chinese language journals. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A random sample of 100 English manuscripts from Chinese institutions was selected from PubMed. Key words and institutions were searched in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, a comprehensive Chinese language research database. Unacknowledged overlap was a priori defined according to International Committee of Medical Journal Editor (ICMJE) guidelines following examination by two individuals. 19% (95% CI 11-27) of English manuscripts from Chinese institutions were found to have substantial overlap with Chinese published work based on full text examination. None of the manuscripts met all of the criteria established by the ICMJE for an acknowledged overlap publication. Individual-level, journal-level, and institutional factors seem to influence overlap publication. Manuscripts associated with an institution outside of China and with more than one institution were significantly less likely to have substantial overlap (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Overlap publication was common in this context, but instances of standard ICMJE notations to acknowledge this practice were rare. This research did not cite the identified overlap manuscripts with the hope that these empirical data will inform journal policy changes and structural initiatives to promote clearer policies and manuscripts

Applying Rational Choice Theory to Authors' Behaviors in Unethical Publishing in China

Much have been discussed about unethical scholarly publishing in the learned community from the perspective of publishers, particularly commercial ones, while few have tried to seek an understanding of the actions taken by individual authors in the practice. This paper attempts to adopt an economic principle, the rational choice theory, in the examination of exploitative publishing using China as a case study. It argues that it is human's inclination to make prudent decisions for their highest self-interest while trying to minimize personal losses that drives some researchers to take advantage of an eroding system of scholarly communication. It has also attempted to pinpoint a possible solution

Listening to undergraduate Chinese students' perspectives on plagiarism

Chinese students represent a burgeoning international student population in Western higher education. The University of Illinois is no exception. In order to meet the needs of this new group, researchers are closely examining their educational culture and how it influences their ability to learn English for Academic Purposes (EAP). One issue that interests international educators is Chinese students' perceptions of plagiarism. Some scholars argue that as a Confucian heritage culture, Chinese students are more likely to plagiarize (Deckert 1992, Grimshaw 2007, Pennycook 1995, Sowden 2005). While others claim this characterization is reductionist and even racist (Liu 2005, Kubota 2004, Kumaravadivelu 2003). Many studies have focused on Chinese students' perceptions of plagiarism through surveys (Brennan & Durovic 2008, Maxwell et. al. 2008, Mohan & Lo 1985) or discussed individual anecdotal experiences (Pennycook 1995, Lund 2004, Sowden 2005), yet very few have included qualitative research. This study started by surveying 29 Chinese students in an ESL academic writing course during the Fall 2015 semester. Based on these survey results, 8 students were interviewed to discuss their experiences writing in English and Chinese and their opinions on cheating and plagiarism. This study's aim is to listen to Chinese students' voices through these interviews. As a result, this presents a case study of undergraduate Chinese students' perceptions of plagiarism at the University of Illinois. The case study found that Chinese students studying at the University of Illinois are highly motivated to not plagiarize and generally describe plagiarism as wrong. Moreover, most participants found language proficiency to be a bigger barrier to avoiding plagiarism. Although Chinese students found plagiarism to be wrong, they did not have a complete understanding of plagiarism as it is defined in Western academia. Equally important, although educational studies scholars frequently mention Chinese traditional culture's influence on Chinese students' perceptions of plagiarism, this was not explicitly mentioned by students and did not emerge during the interviews

A cross-sectional survey study to assess attitudes towards research misconduct among the community of the American University in Cairo

Background: Research misconduct is on the rise globally and it is jeopardizing scientific integrity by breaching the basis of responsible scientific conduct. Available data indicates rising levels of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism that are alarming despite the presence of guidelines in many of the high-income countries. High profile cases of misconduct in low and middle income countries are on the rise as well, yet data regarding the amount of misconduct taking place remain scarce. Objective: To assess investigators’ attitudes as well as the prevalence of research misconduct in an Egyptian University and identify possible factors that might account for our results. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional survey study at the American University in Cairo (AUC) that included undergraduates, post-graduates and faculty. The survey tool included the following sections: a) demographics, b) attitudes regarding the acceptability of certain practices in research conduct and c) frequency of observed and self-identified instances of scientific misconduct. The study was approved by the institutional review boards at AUC and at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. Data Analysis: We used descriptive analysis and a chi-square test for bivariate analysis. We entered data by the use of SPSS software. A p value of 0.05 was considered significant Results: We analyzed data from 191 participants 18 to 64 years of age. Of the respondents, 52.4% had received research ethics training. Regarding attitudes toward research misconduct: 1) 77.3% expressed concern about the occurrence of research misconduct, 2) 50.0% agreed that dishonesty and misrepresentation of data are common, 3) 64.5% regard pressures to publish to gain promotion is a major reason for engaging in misconduct. 4) 71.8% of participants confirmed their awareness of regulations that govern research involving humans, animals, or laboratory practices. Incidence of research misconduct observed at least once by participants included: plagiarism (43.8%), obtaining improper informed consents (34.6%), and eliminating data that contradicts one’s hypothesis (46.9%). Self-identified incidences for the same categories were 9.1%, 10.4%, and 26.0%; respectively. Conclusions: The results indicate that misconduct is related to level of education, work environment in addition to possible ineffectiveness of training. Results may be explained by a lack of understanding or awareness of the unethical nature of research misconducts. This study provides insights on the attitudes towards and prevalence of misconduct among researchers in the Egypt. Limitations: This study included self-reporting of self-identified practices, which could represent an underestimate of actual practice. Also, results from a single university may not be generalizable to other universities in Egypt and to other countries in the Middle East. Next steps: Data from other sites in Egypt and countries in the Middle-East are being gathered and will be pooled and analyzed with the data already collected. Further training in the responsible conduct of research is recommended. Further qualitative research (e.g., interview studies) is needed to further explore the reasons for our results