Anti-Plagiarism Statement - Medical scientific journal «Russian otorhinolaryngology»

When writing scientific articles, an intellectual conflict of interests may often arise which does not inherently preclude publication of a research paper but is subject to mandatory disclosure by all authors.

Duplicate publication of a paper is considered a deliberate breach, so the authors take responsibility stating that the paper or its parts were not previously published. If such breach is revealed, this will exclude further cooperation between the author and the journal.

More serious ethical issues include deliberate fraud: plagiarism, data falsification, and fabrication.

Plagiarism means copying text, data, ideas, drawings, methods without quotations, a reference to the source and their misrepresentation as authors’ unborrowed ideas. Plagiarism should be differentiated from quotation (copied text fragments are put between quotation marks, a reference to the source is provided). Plagiarism often results from inaccurate quotation which is allowed in the work but in restricted volume.

Russian Otorhinolaryngology journal is connected to Antiplagiat system which allows to determine the rate of borrowed and cited text with indication of the source. The editorial board has decided to approach each article individually with detailed study of Antiplagiat system report.

Most research papers need borrowings: authors rely on predecessors’ works, cite the studied materials, provide opinions of founders of the field of study, or criticize approaches of other scientists. So, borrowings themselves are not something objectionable. The main requirement to text originality shall be absence of inappropriate borrowings. Examples of clear definitions are provided below.

Appropriate borrowings — “usage of a part of another person’s text in own work of science reasoned by the purposes of quotation with mandatory giving credit (reference) to the original author and the source of borrowing executed according to the established quotation rules” . In case of appropriate borrowing, a reader clearly understands that this text is not author’s and may refer to the original source if necessary.

Misleading borrowings — “usage of a part of another person’s text in own work of science reasoned by the purposes of quotation with mandatory giving credit (reference) to the original author and the source of borrowing when such credit (reference) is provided in breach of the established quotation rules” . Usually, misleading incorporation of borrowings takes place because of lack of experience, inattention, carelessness of the author and indicates his or her inability to properly introduce references to the source. Misleading incorporation of borrowing is not an attempt to misappropriate the authorship of the work (part of the work): a reader understands that the text is borrowed but finding the source may be difficult.

Inappropriate borrowings — “borrowing of another person’s text (text part) not reasoned by the purposes of quotation without giving credit (reference) to the original author and the source of borrowing” . Inappropriate incorporation of borrowings, both deliberate and undeliberate, creates and illusion for a reader that this text is of author’s origin; this is an attempt to misrepresent another person’s text as one’s own.

Any research paper contains bibliography, references; appropriate terms and common expressions are used; names of companies, organizations, authorities, and local government agencies may be mentioned. Works in the field of law and economics contain fragments of regulations or court rulings being analyzed. There may be a lot of such examples, but the point is that Antiplagial.Expert system may identify such fragments as borrowings or quotations. For this purpose, the term “technical borrowings” is introduced.

Technical borrowing — usage of names of public authorities and local government agencies, institutions and organizations, usage of names and texts of regulations, legal or judicial acts, GOSTs, bibliography and references, common expressions, scientific terms, etc. Technical borrowings are appropriate.

Self-citing, i.e. repeated use by the author of his or her own texts, also provokes lots of controversy and even conflicts. To avoid this, it is necessary to establish relevant notions and restrictions on self-citing and rules of execution. An example is provided below.

Proper self-siting — “repeated use by the author of his/her own texts from previous works in the volume justified by the purpose of quotation with a reference to the original source executed according to the established quotation rules” .

Proper self-siting in incorrect form — “repeated use by the author of his/her own texts from previous works in the volume justified by the purpose of quotation with a reference to the original source executed in violation of the established quotation rules” . For example, the reference is to a wrong source, put in incorrect place, does not show boundaries of quotation.

Improper self-citing (self-plagiarism) — “repeated use by the author of his/her own texts from previous works without reference to the source or in the volume not justified by the purpose of quotation” .

A more complex issue is the issue of allowable volume of self-citing in research papers of different genres. When it comes to manuscripts, it is important to ensure scientific novelty. Wording may be the following: “Quotations from previously published author’s works are allowed in the volume justified by the purpose of quotation. All such quotations shall be correctly executed and supported with reference to the source. In research and R&D reports, it is allowed that text partially coincides with articles of the same team of authors published later. Final research or R&D report may include texts of interim reports.

Adherence to the listed ethical criteria ensures compliance of the article with the international requirements and undoubtedly increases its level as a scientific work.