Plagiarism – It’s Just Not On

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

This is an Editorial I should not have to write but it is being written because this has been the worst year for the Australian Dental Journal with cases of detected plagiarism. Plagiarism is defined as ‘to appropriate and give out as one’s own the writings, inventions or ideas of another’ (Concise English Dictionary). It is unfortunate to report that hardly a month goes by when I do not have a case of suspected plagiarism to deal with. Two of the more notable cases were blatant and deserve comment. The first instance was where one of our readers was reading an article in another journal when they found themselves thinking that the article they were reading was familiar. So familiar because it was an almost verbatim copy of an article they had published in the Australian Dental Journal some 18 months earlier. This required intervention on my part with the journal in question and after a protracted discussion it was agreed that indeed the Australian Dental Journal article had been plagiarised and a retraction was recorded by the offending journal. The author was reprimanded not only by the journal editors but also his academic institution. This was obviously disappointing to the editors of the journal in which the plagiarised article had been published as they had no idea of the problem. Fortunately, for the Australian Dental Journal, we have the services of a commercial web-based, electronic, plagiarism checker (iThenticate; http://www.ithenticate.com) through which I run all manuscripts prior to sending them out for peer review. It never ceases to amaze me how much material is picked up by this process. It is not uncommon for submitted manuscripts to have paragraphs and even sections copied directly from other sources without due reference. The worst cases to date are an ‘original’ case report which was 75% identical to a previously published case report by different authors and an ‘original’ scientific paper claiming to be investigating a novel treatment for oral cancer which was 89% identical to a previously published paper by different authors. Of course this is not a new problem but I do think it is an increasing problem. In this day and age where competition for jobs and promotion is great, the temptation for individuals to succumb to such activities is clearly too much. While such activity is unacceptable in any journal, I fear that the Australian Dental Journal is becoming targeted due to its rising standing in the field of international dental journals. Our impact factor is now 1.496 (up from 1.22 last year) and our ISI ranking is 31 out of 74 dentistry journals compared to 41 last year. This increased ranking carries with it increased interest in publishing in our journal. To date (September 2011) we have had 505 manuscripts from 42 countries submitted to our editorial office to be considered for publication (compared to 447 at the same time last year). In the past I have written about professionalism and the need for our profession to adhere to certain standards of behaviour. By belonging to the profession of dentistry we should not forget that a standard of behaviour is needed which is not solely focused on personal best interests. The same should apply to those who choose to submit a paper for publication in a reputable journal. Personal best interests have to be put aside for the advancement of science and clinical practice. For those who choose to not play by these rules, I guarantee you will be found out and the consequences can be professionally devastating. P Mark Bartold Editor