CrossCheck Similarity Reports for Crossref Webinar
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•1,548 vues
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à CrossCheck Similarity Reports for Crossref Webinar
Similaire à CrossCheck Similarity Reports for Crossref Webinar (20)
Plus de Crossref
Plus de Crossref (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
CrossCheck Similarity Reports for Crossref Webinar
- 1. CrossCheck: Interpreting the Similarity Reports • Rachael Lammey: Product Manager, CrossRef • Sarah Robbie: Peer Review Manager, Taylor & Francis
- 2. What we’ll cover • • • • • • • Interpreting the iThenticate reports Common issues with papers Following up Implementation at the publisher Support Issues for discussion Open discussion/Q&A
- 3. The T&F CrossCheck Process Paper sent to Peer Review team Peer review contact gives recommendation Paper may be sent to editor for content decision PDF letter sent to author Any author response sent to T&F for further consideration
- 4. Interpreting the Report • T&F do not use % threshold – The similarity percentage can be misleading • Use All Sources view. • Check for standard description – Materials and Methods • Check where the match is from – Publisher site, university repository, author homepage? • Check references in the submitted paper – Is it referenced sufficiently?
- 5. Common Issues with Papers • Not referencing correctly • Unattributed copying of parts of another’s work • Submitting another’s work as your own • ‘Self-plagiarism’/reuse of own work (salamislicing) • Dual submission
- 6. Things to be Aware of in CrossCheck • PDF formatting – Some text formatting in PDFs is not picked up in CrossCheck – Can make some papers look passable when they might not be • Equations – Formatting can be different between papers – CrossCheck does not pick up on all formats – May need to read the papers at the source if possible
- 10. Example 3: Referencing and report views
- 11. Example 3: Referencing and report views
- 12. Example 4: Overlap in specific sections
- 13. Example 5: Potential Problems
- 14. Following up an Issue • Send a PDF letter requesting more information if necessary – Clarification on how their new work builds on previous research • If manuscript contains new results a revision may be appropriate – Correct referencing – Rewording • Editors should be reminded to keep each case confidential – Only those directly involved should be cc’d on correspondence • Submission bans for repeat offenders • Avoid using the word ‘plagiarism’
- 15. CrossCheck as a Deterrent • CrossCheck information on Journal Authors Site and journal homepages • CrossCheck warnings on peer review systems used by CrossCheck journals – Author homepage • CrossCheck question on submission form – Ensure author agrees to any necessary checks
- 16. Supporting Staff and Editors • T&F peer review team have created guides on CrossCheck and report interpretation – Shared with iThenticate for their forthcoming guide • Run in-house training course for colleagues • Training and documentation for editors using CrossCheck • Continuous support for editors when dealing with originality issues
- 17. Support from iParadigms • • • • • Free CrossCheck/iThenticate webinars – On CrossRef website: http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html – Can do publisher-specific sessions Documentation and webcasts – http://www.ithenticate.com/resources/customer-training/ Information on new functionality – http://www.ithenticate.com/products/whats-new/ User Groups – At CrossRef Annual Meeting (workshop day), COPE events, 6th International Integrity and Plagiarism Conference (June 14) and various conferences like CSE Email Support – ccsupport@ithenticate.com – Support team in UK and in the US
Notes de l'éditeur
- Rachael to give intro. Welcome: We’ll circulate slides afterwards and will record the sessionWe’ll run
- Rachael to explain structure of session including timings and when and how people can ask questions.
- PDF letter – COPE case
- Large amounts of the document have been published elsewhere. The top match is to the paper itself.
- The second source down shows a very high match to the document. Clicking on the 2nd source match takes me to where the document has been legally reproduced.
- A large amount of text is highlighted as matching the source.So you can see that the text is matching to an academic source, but it’s quoting a report which it references, so this isn’t problematic and explains the overlap in matching text.
- The Similarity Report in the text-only reports shows some text overlap.However, going to the Content Tracking Report mode (click), you can see the whole paper is matched. It’s important to choose the reports that show all the overlaps most clearly.
- It’s also important to look at whether a piece of work is being referenced correctly.You can see the text here is being referenced extensively and gives due credit to the work it derives from.
- This is a sample Materials & Methods document. Sarah says: I get a lot of concern about this section from many editors either worrying that we’re penalizing authors for repeating experiments/using standard notation or, the other extreme, that all authors should be re-wording their methods. Overlap is often apparent in Materials and Methods as the experiments are being described using standard, accepted phrases. There’s a high similarity percent, but this can be misleading. You may need to ask for advice from a subject specialist if this is not clear.
- So we’ve seen a lot of false positives. Here’s a paper that should prompt more investigation. Based on my colleague’s paper. I can seelarge matches to academic sources that aren’t referenced, and word substitutions, all of which should prompt you to look in more detail.
- This goes after Sarah’s ‘Supporting Staff and Editors’ slide