Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.
iThenticate/CrossCheck Usage and Case
Studies
November 17, 2015
Sales
Specific
Cases
33%
Sporadic
Checks
30%
Original
Only
18%
Original
and
Revised
19%
Usage
Data pulled from ScholarOne ...
Min Max Mean
1. Not Used 0 0 0
2. Specific Cases 1% 65% 28%
3. Sporadic Checks 8% 46% 22%
4. Original Only 8% 44% 20%
5. O...
% = high Process Exclusions Decision Type with
highest match
Journal A 40 Automated
for original
No Special Accept
(withou...
1. When should journals run their
reports?
2. How do I actually read/use the
reports?
3. How do I take forward with
author...
• How up to date is the database, and
what does it pull from?
• In some cases, we get a match in a
similarity report and t...
• Check for evidence
• Ask author for clarification
• If honest error then ask for
revisions.
• If plagiarism then reject....
• Social science title
• All manuscripts are run through at original
submission, pre-peer review
• Manuscript in question ...
• Social science title
• All original manuscripts are run
upon original submission
• Similarity score came in at 38% with
...
• Life Science Open Access title
• Auto-runs submissions
• CrossCheck report showed some
similarities to another article i...
• Wiley routinely advises using
CrossCheck as a standard part of
the peer review process, but we
advise editors to use it ...
Questions?
bhogan@wiley.com
Thanks!
Ben Hogan: iThenticate/CrossCheck Usage and Case Studies #crossref15
Ben Hogan: iThenticate/CrossCheck Usage and Case Studies #crossref15
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

Ben Hogan: iThenticate/CrossCheck Usage and Case Studies #crossref15

876 vues

Publié le

#Crossref15 Tech Workshops + Member Meeting
Boston, MA | Taj Boston
November 17, 2015

Ben Hogan from Wiley discussed CrossCheck Experiences

Publié dans : Technologie
  • I pasted a website that might be helpful to you: ⇒ www.HelpWriting.net ⇐ Good luck!
       Répondre 
    Voulez-vous vraiment ?  Oui  Non
    Votre message apparaîtra ici
  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Ben Hogan: iThenticate/CrossCheck Usage and Case Studies #crossref15

  1. 1. iThenticate/CrossCheck Usage and Case Studies November 17, 2015
  2. 2. Sales Specific Cases 33% Sporadic Checks 30% Original Only 18% Original and Revised 19% Usage Data pulled from ScholarOne Manuscripts, accurate to June 2015 Total number of titles (across all disciplines): 341 Specific Cases: 111 Sporadic Checks: 102 Original Only: 62 Original and Revised: 66 Wiley CrossCheck Usage
  3. 3. Min Max Mean 1. Not Used 0 0 0 2. Specific Cases 1% 65% 28% 3. Sporadic Checks 8% 46% 22% 4. Original Only 8% 44% 20% 5. Original & Revised 4% 39% 19% Average Percentage Match Across All Journals 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1. Not Used 2. Specific Cases 3. Sporadic Checks 4. Original Only 5. Original & Revised Min Max Mean
  4. 4. % = high Process Exclusions Decision Type with highest match Journal A 40 Automated for original No Special Accept (without external review) Journal B 30 Automated for original No Scope – Immediate Reject Journal C 40 Manual No Unsubmit Journal D 0 Automated for original No Reject – Similarity Index Over 50% Examples
  5. 5. 1. When should journals run their reports? 2. How do I actually read/use the reports? 3. How do I take forward with authors/institutions? 4. Do I run reports with or without references? Common questions from editors
  6. 6. • How up to date is the database, and what does it pull from? • In some cases, we get a match in a similarity report and the matched document has a broken URL. • Do these reports cover me if I need to approach an author or institution? • COPE More common questions/feedback
  7. 7. • Check for evidence • Ask author for clarification • If honest error then ask for revisions. • If plagiarism then reject. Main Points of COPE Guidelines
  8. 8. • Social science title • All manuscripts are run through at original submission, pre-peer review • Manuscript in question came through with a relatively low similarity score • Editorial office was contacted by reviewer about potential overlap with two of reviewer’s publications • Reviewer sent publications and visually, they looked similar. Publications were from major publishers and at least 2 years old • iThenticate report didn’t link to either of the reviewer’s publications, although there were similarities to other publications • Manuscript sent back to author Journal A
  9. 9. • Social science title • All original manuscripts are run upon original submission • Similarity score came in at 38% with references, 16% without • Reviewer noted a large passage. CrossCheck confirmed exact match of 200 words w/ no attribution • Action: Authors queried, article returned for revision Journal B
  10. 10. • Life Science Open Access title • Auto-runs submissions • CrossCheck report showed some similarities to another article in the field. • Direct passages weren’t copied over and articles were about slightly different topics, but sentence structure was a match. • Action: EIC approached authors. Still ongoing. Journal C
  11. 11. • Wiley routinely advises using CrossCheck as a standard part of the peer review process, but we advise editors to use it as a tool, not as a catch-all. Reports are great, but oversight is required. • Most editors see the value in the tool, but appreciate any/all education about using similarity reports to their best effect. Conclusions/Next Steps
  12. 12. Questions? bhogan@wiley.com Thanks!

×