Citation sentence reuse behavior of scientists: A case study on massive bibliographic text dataset of computer science

Our current knowledge of scholarly plagiarism is largely based on the similarity between full text research articles. In this paper, we propose an innovative and novel conceptualization of scholarly plagiarism in the form of reuse of explicit citation sentences in scientific research articles. Note that while full-text plagiarism is an indicator of a gross-level behavior, copying of citation sentences is a more nuanced micro-scale phenomenon observed even for well-known researchers. The current work poses several interesting questions and attempts to answer them by empirically investigating a large bibliographic text dataset from computer science containing millions of lines of citation sentences. In particular, we report evidences of massive copying behavior. We also present several striking real examples throughout the paper to showcase widespread adoption of this undesirable practice. In contrast to the popular perception, we find that copying tendency increases as an author matures. The copying behavior is reported to exist in all fields of computer science; however, the theoretical fields indicate more copying than the applied fields

The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics

Activity of modern scholarship creates online footprints galore. Along with traditional metrics of research quality, such as citation counts, online images of researchers and institutions increasingly matter in evaluating academic impact, decisions about grant allocation, and promotion. We examined 400 biographical Wikipedia articles on academics from four scientific fields to test if being featured in the world's largest online encyclopedia is correlated with higher academic notability (assessed through citation counts). We found no statistically significant correlation between Wikipedia articles metrics (length, number of edits, number of incoming links from other articles, etc.) and academic notability of the mentioned researchers. We also did not find any evidence that the scientists with better WP representation are necessarily more prominent in their fields. In addition, we inspected the Wikipedia coverage of notable scientists sampled from Thomson Reuters list of "highly cited researchers". In each of the examined fields, Wikipedia failed in covering notable scholars properly. Both findings imply that Wikipedia might be producing an inaccurate image of academics on the front end of science. By shedding light on how public perception of academic progress is formed, this study alerts that a subjective element might have been introduced into the hitherto structured system of academic evaluation.Comment: To appear in EPJ Data Science. To have the Additional Files and Datasets e-mail the corresponding autho