IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v98y2014i1d10.1007_s11192-013-1033-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Replication of the methods section in biosciences papers: is it plagiarism?

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoyan Jia

    (Journal of Zhejiang University—SCIENCE A/B/C)

  • Xufei Tan

    (Journal of Zhejiang University—SCIENCE A/B/C)

  • Yuehong Zhang

    (Journal of Zhejiang University—SCIENCE A/B/C)

Abstract

To find out whether replication of methods section in biosciences papers is a kind of plagiarism, the authors firstly surveyed the behavior of authors when writing the methods section in their published papers. Then the descriptions of one well-established method in randomly selected papers published in eight top journals were analyzed using CrossCheck to identify the extent of duplication. Finally, suggestions on preparing the methods sections were given. The survey results show that an author may employ different approaches to writing the methods section within a paper, repeating published methods is more often than give citation only or rewrite complete using one’s own words. Authors are more likely to repeat the description of a method than simply to provide a citation. From the samples of the eight leading journals, plagiarize is very rare in such journals; Learning from Science, attachment may be a considerable choice for papers with common methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoyan Jia & Xufei Tan & Yuehong Zhang, 2014. "Replication of the methods section in biosciences papers: is it plagiarism?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 337-345, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:98:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1033-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1033-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-013-1033-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-013-1033-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcelo Alves Ramos & Joabe Gomes Melo & Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque, 2012. "Citation behavior in popular scientific papers: what is behind obscure citations? The case of ethnobotany," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 711-719, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vanja Pupovac, 2021. "The frequency of plagiarism identified by text-matching software in scientific articles: a systematic review and meta-analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8981-9003, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Ricker, 2017. "Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1851-1855, June.
    2. Juliana Loureiro Almeida Campos & André Sobral & Josivan Soares Silva & Thiago Antonio Sousa Araújo & Washington Soares Ferreira-Júnior & Flávia Rosa Santoro & Gilney Charll Santos & Ulysses Paulino A, 2016. "Insularity and citation behavior of scientific articles in young fields: the case of ethnobiology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1037-1055, November.
    3. Latefa Ali Dardas & Malik Sallam & Amanda Woodward & Nadia Sweis & Narjes Sweis & Faleh A. Sawair, 2023. "Evaluating Research Impact Based on Semantic Scholar Highly Influential Citations, Total Citations, and Altmetric Attention Scores: The Quest for Refined Measures Remains Illusive," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Maarten Wesel & Sally Wyatt & Jeroen Haaf, 2014. "What a difference a colon makes: how superficial factors influence subsequent citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1601-1615, March.
    5. Iman Tahamtan & Lutz Bornmann, 2019. "What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1635-1684, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Publication ethics; Duplication methods;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:98:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1033-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.