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.

CrossCheck Plagiarism Screening

3 993 vues

Publié le

Kirsty Meddings discusses CrossCheck plagiarism screening tool from CrossRef at the 2010 Society for Scholarly Publishing Annual Meeting in San Francisco on an ethics panel

Publié dans : Business, Technologie
  • To view the most current CrossCheck presentation please use the following url: www.slideshare.net/CrossRef/introduction-to-crosscheck-webinar
       Répondre 
    Voulez-vous vraiment ?  Oui  Non
    Votre message apparaîtra ici
  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

CrossCheck Plagiarism Screening

  1. 1. Kirsty Meddings, CrossRef SSP Annual Meeting, June 2010
  2. 2. "CrossRef is a not-for-pro t membership association whose mission is to enable easy identi cation and use of trustworthy electronic content by promoting the cooperative development and application of a sustainable infrastructure."
  3. 3. "CrossRef is a not-for-pro t membership association whose mission is to enable easy identi cation and use of trustworthy electronic content by promoting the cooperative development and application of a sustainable infrastructure."
  4. 4. "CrossRef is a not-for-pro t membership association whose mission is to enable easy identi cation and use of trustworthy electronic content by promoting the cooperative development and application of a sustainable infrastructure."
  5. 5. iThenticate software that analyses and compares text Database of content to check text against
  6. 6. ACTA Press ● American Academy of Pediatrics ● American Association for the Advancement of Science ● American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities ● American Diabetes Association ● American Geophysical Union ● American Institute of Physics ● American Physical Society ● American Psychological Association ● American Roentgen Ray Society ● American Statistical Association ● American Society for Microbiology ● American Society for Nutrition ● American Society of Neuroradiology ● American Society of Plant Biologists ● American Thoracic Society ● Ammons Scienti c ● Annual Reviews ● Association for Computing Machinery ● Australian Academic Press ● BioMed Central ● BioScienti ca ● BMJ Publishing Group ● British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing ● Cambridge University Press ● Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine ● Commonwealth Forestry Association ● Croatian Medical Journal ● CSIRO ● Digital Science Press (Urotoday International Journal) ● EDP Sciences ● Elsevier ● Environmental Health Perspectives ● European Respiratory Society Journals ● Expert Reviews Ltd ● Fundacion Infancia & Aprendizaje ● Future Medicine Ltd ● Future Science Ltd ● Geological Society of America ● Hindawi Publishing Corporation ● IM Publications ● IMAPS ● Inderscience ● INFORMS ● Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers ● International Union of Crystallography ● IOP Publishing ● IWA Publishing ● Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery ● Journal of Histochemistry ● Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group ● Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development ● Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE ● King Abdulaziz University Scienti c Publishing Centre ● Korean Institute of Science and Technology Information ● Mary Ann Liebert ● Nature Publishing Group ● New England Journal of Medicine ● Oncology Nursing Society ● Optical Society of America ● Oxford University Press ● Palgrave Macmillan ● Poultry Science Association ● Professional Engineering Publishing ● RMIT Publishing ● Rockefeller University Press ● Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh ● Royal Irish Academy ● Sage Publications ● ScienceAsia Mahidol University ● Society for Endocrinology ● Society for General Microbiology ● Society for Industrial & Applied Mathematics ● Society of Exploration Geophysicists ● Springer Science + Business Media ● Taylor & Francis (Informa) ● The Royal Society ● TUBITAK ● Versita (CESJ) ● Vilnius Gediminas Technical University ● Wiley-Blackwell ● Wolters Kluwer Health
  7. 7. Manuscript Triage Acceptance Submission Yes No
  8. 8. Manuscript Triage Acceptance Submission Yes No Prior to acceptance? Author? On Submission? Triage?
  9. 9. 83 publishers 25.4 million content items indexed 48,000 titles www.crossref.org/crosscheck.html
  10. 10. 0 2000 4000 6000 M ay 8000 -0 9 Ju n- 09 Ju l-0 9 Au g- 09 Se p- 09 O ct -0 9 N ov -0 9 D ec -0 9 Ja n- 10 Documents Checked Fe b- 10 M ar -1 0 Ap r- 1 0
  11. 11. CrossCheck Survey Publisher Pilots Publisher Feedback
  12. 12. CrossCheck Survey October 2009
  13. 13. CrossCheck Survey October 2009 At what point in the editorial process are you checking manuscripts? Pre-submission (author checking) On submission Prior to acceptance Not checking yet Other 0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0
  14. 14. CrossCheck Survey October 2009
  15. 15. CrossCheck Survey October 2009 For your particular publication(s), what percentage of manuscripts are you checking or planning to check? All submitted manuscripts A percentage of manuscripts Only those that arouse suspicion Only those that are accepted Other 0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0
  16. 16. CrossCheck Survey October 2009
  17. 17. CrossCheck Survey October 2009 Have you detected any plagiarised content using CrossCheck? Yes No Not Sure No response 0 3.667 7.333 11.000
  18. 18. Publisher Pilots At what stage of the editorial process are you using CrossCheck? On submission Publisher A By reviewers Acceptance Publisher B Post-acceptance Only if suspicious More than one of these 0 3 6 9 12 15 On submission After acceptance Other 0 5 10 15 20
  19. 19. Publisher Pilots 48% comfortable with iThenticate software after rst use Further 33% after two to ve uses
  20. 20. Publisher Pilots 50% of testers found suspected plagiarism using iThenticate
  21. 21. Publisher Pilots Based on testing, do you want to continue using iThenticate? 72% Yes 20% Maybe
  22. 22. Positive Feedback
  23. 23. Positive Feedback “This is an invaluable tool and much appreciated by our Editors.”
  24. 24. Positive Feedback “This is an invaluable tool and much appreciated by our Editors.” “By far the most effective and nancially feasible software that I have found.”
  25. 25. Positive Feedback “This is an invaluable tool and much appreciated by our Editors.” “By far the most effective and nancially feasible software that I have found.” “CrossCheck is a valuable tool... Previously I would use Google Scholar, then need to access the journal article to con rm suspicions of plagiarism, which was very time consuming.”
  26. 26. Issues Title: Example Article Number One Authors: S. Smith 8,274 words - 163 matches - 38 sources
  27. 27. “In the long run it has saved enormous amounts of time.”
  28. 28. “A game changer”
  29. 29. Deterrence factor Growing CrossCheck community New members welcome
  30. 30. Thank You www.crossref.org/crosscheck.html kmeddings@crossref.org

×