Scientific integrity in Information Science journals: content analysis of the guidelines for submission of articles
Keywords:
Good practices in research, Research ethics, Scientific misconduct, Plagiarism, Content similarity softwareAbstract
Investigate the guidelines related to scientific integrity in Brazilian Information Science journals. To this end, a content analysis of the guidelines for article submission was performed in all Brazilian digital journals registered in the UlrichsWeb database. The analysis intends to collect data related to scientific integrity policy, scientific similarity software and scientific originality analysis criteria. The results showed that 68% of the journals developed guidelines related to the topic, 44% indicate using content similarity software, but only 12% describe that they indicate the accepted percentage of similarity and 20% perform critical human analysis of similarity reports, and 40% of journals are signatories of the Committee on Publication Ethics. It is concluded that scientific policies need to be formulated by Information Science journals that emphasize the need for actions aimed at raising awareness of good practices in scientific research.
Downloads
References
Abad-García, M. F. El plagio y las revistas depredadoras como amenaza a la integridad científica. Anales de Pediatría, v. 90, n. 1, p. 57.e1-57.e8, 2019. Disponível em: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1695403318305265?via%3Dihub. Acesso em: 4 abr. 2022.
Alencar, G. P. et al. Reflexões sobre o plágio e a fraude em estudos brasileiros. Revista Bioética, v. 29, n. 3, p. 641-647, 2021. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/bioet/a/VCjsVMhYKsXhYqwLMHYQjMr/?lang=pt. Acesso em: 28 abr. 2022.
Almeida, R. M. V. R. et al. Plagiarism allegations account for most retractions in major Latin American/Caribbean databases. Science and Engineering Ethics, v. 22, n. 5, p. 1447-1456, 2015. Disponível em: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-015-9714-5. Acesso em: 31 mar. 2022.
Alves, A. P. M. et al. O papel do bibliotecário na construção da integridade científica. In: Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Informação, 19., 2018, Marília. Anais eletrônicos [...]. Marília: ENACIB, 2018. Disponível em: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11959/brapci/102756. Acesso em: 4 abr. 2022.
Araújo, P. C. Plágio acadêmico e a integridade da pesquisa. Ciência da Informação Express, v. 2, n. 2, 2021. Disponível em: https://www.cienciadainformacaoexpress.com/post/pl%C3%A1gio-acad%C3%AAmico-ea-integridade-da-pesquisa. Acesso em: 16 abr. 2022.
Brasil. Lei Nº 9.610, de 19 de fevereiro de 1998. Altera, atualiza e consolida a legislação sobre direitos autorais e dá outras providências. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 1998. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9610.htm. Acesso em: 31 mar. 2022.
Bruton, S. V. Self-plagiarism and textual recycling: legitimate forms of research misconduct. Accountability in Research, v. 21, n. 3, p. 176-197, 2014. Disponível em: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24325212/. Acesso em: 16 abr. 2022.
Checkforplagiarism.net. Home. CheckForPlagiarism.net, 2022. Disponível em: https://www.checkforplagiarism.net/. Acesso em: 30 abr. 2022.
Committee on Publication Ethics. Guidelines on good publication practices. [s.l.]: COPE, 2017. Disponível em: https://farname-inc.com/post-2/f53d32c/Committee-on-Publication-Ethics-COPE-GUIDELINES-ONGOOD-PUBLICATION-PRACTICE. Acesso em: 04 abr. 2022.
Copyspider. Sobre. [s.l.]: CopySpider, 2013. Disponível em: https://copyspider.com.br/main/. Acesso em: 30 abr. 2022.
Edinburgh Research Office. Research integrity. Scotland: The University of Edinburgh, 2022. Disponível em: https://www.ed.ac.uk/research-office/research-integrity. Accesso em: 16 abr. 2022.
Guraya, S. Y.; Guraya, S. S. The confounding factors leading to plagiarism in academic writing and some suggested remedies: a systematic review. Journal Of Pakistan Medical Association, Pakistan, v. 67, n. 5, p. 767-772, 2017. Disponível em: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28507368/. Acesso em: 04 abr. 2022.
Jones, N. L. et al. Developing a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum for professionalism and scientific integrity training for biomedical graduate students. Journal of Medical Ethics, v. 36, n. 10, p. 614-619, 2010. Disponível em: https://jme.bmj.com/content/36/10/614.long, Acesso em 04 abr, 2016.
Korenman, S. G. The Ethical Basis of RCRH. In: Korenman, S. G. Teaching the responsible conduct of research in humans (RCRH). [S.l.]: Office of Research Integrity: RCR Resource Development Program, 2006. Disponível em: https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/ucla/chapter1/Chapter1.pdf. Acesso em: 4 abr. 2022.
Krokoscz, M. Abordagem do plágio nas três melhores universidades de cada um dos cinco continentes e do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Educação, v. 16, n. 48, p.745-818, 2011. Disponível em: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbedu/v16n48/v16n48a11.pdf. Acesso em: 1 abr. 2022.
Krokoscz, M. Outras palavras sobre autoria e plágio. São Paulo: Atlas, 2015.
Liinc em Revista. Sobre a Revista. Brasília, DF: Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia (Ibict), [2022?]. Disponível em: http://revista.ibict.br/liinc/about. Acesso em: 16 abr. 2022.
Melero, R.; Abad García, M. F. Revistas open access: características, modelos económicos y tendencias. BID: Textos Universitaris de Biblioteconomia Documentació, v. 20, 2008. Disponível em: http://bid.ub.edu/20meler2.htm. Acesso em: 5 abr. 2022.
Merton, R. Teoria social y estructura social. México: FCE, 1964.
Pupovac, V.; Fanelli, D. Scientists admitting to plagiarism: a meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, v. 21, n. 5, p. 1331-1352, 2015. Disponível em: https://philpapers.org/rec/PUPSAT. Acesso em: 04 abr. 2022.
Rohwer, A. et al. Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers. BMJ Open, v. 7, n. 11, p. 1-10, 2017. Disponível em: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/11/e018467.long. Acesso em: 16 abr. 2022.
Roig, M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism and other questionable writing practices: a guide to ethical writing. United States: Office of Research Integrity, 2015. Disponível em: https://ori.hhs.gov/avoiding-plagiarism-selfplagiarism-and-other-questionable-writing-practices-guide-ethical-writing. Acesso em: 4 abr. 2022.
Similarity Check. Similarity Check. [s.l.]: Crossref, 2020. Disponível em: https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/. Acesso em: 16 abr. 2022.
Singh, S.; Remenyi, D. Plagiarism and ghostwriting: the rise in academic misconduct. Suth African Journal of Science, Pretoria, v. 112, n. 5, p. 1-7, 2016. Disponível em: https://sajs.co.za/article/view/4078. Acesso em: 4 abr. 2022
Rocha, E. S. S. et al. Ética e integridade na produção do conhecimento científico. Alexandría: Revista de Ciencias de la Información, n. 9, p. 58-76, 2012. Disponível em: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11959/brapci/62079. Acesso em: 12 abr. 2022.
Turnitin. Turnitin. São Paulo: : LCC, 2022. Disponível em: https://www.turnitin.com/pt. Acesso em: 30 abr. 2022.
United States. Departament of Health and Human Services. ORI Policy on Plagiarism. United States: Office of Research Integrity, 1994. Disponível em: https://ori.hhs.gov/ori-policy-plagiarism. Acesso em: 4 abr. 2022.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Transinformação
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
