Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic has caused drastic changes in the publishing framework in order to quickly review and publish vital information during this public health emergency. The quality of the academic work being published may have been compromised. One area of concern is plagiarism, where the work of others is directly copied and represented as one’s own. The purpose of this study is to determine the presence of plagiarism in infection journals in papers relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods Consecutively occurring original research or reviews relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, published in infection journals as ranked by SCOPUS Journal finder were collected. Each manuscript was optimized and uploaded to the Turnitin program. Similarity reports were then manually checked for true plagiarism within the text, where any sentence with more than 80% copying was deemed plagiarised.
Results A total of 310 papers were analyzed in this cross-sectional study. Papers from a total of 23 journals among 4 quartiles were examined. Of the papers we examined, 41.6% were deemed plagiarised (n=129). Among the plagiarised papers, the average number of copied sentences was 5.42±9.18. The highest recorded similarity report was 60%, and the highest number of copied sentences was 85. Plagiarism was higher in papers published in the year 2020. The most problematic area in the manuscripts was the discussion section. Self plagiarism was identified in 31 papers. Average time to judge all manuscripts was 2.45±3.09. Among all the plagiarized papers 72% belonged to papers where the similarity report was ≤15% (n=93). Papers published from core anglosphere speaking countries were not associated with higher rates of plagiarism. No significant differences were found with regards to plagiarism events among the quartiles.
Conclusion Plagiarism is prevalent in COVID19 related publications in infection journals among various quartiles. It is not enough to rely only on similarity reports. Such reports must be accompanied by manual curation of the results with an appropriate threshold to be able to appropriately determine if plagiarism is occurring. The majority of plagiarism is occurring in reports of less than 15% similarity, and this is a blind spot. Incorporating a manual judge could save future time in avoiding retractions and improving the quality of papers in these journals.
“A poor original is better than a good imitation.”
— Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
1 Typos and 1 sentence with grammatical error
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
