#DEJA VU SYNONYM FULL#

Each query is formed by a title and an abstract, from which eTBLAST removes the stopwords. For this study, eTBLAST was used to find the most similar citations using a selection of Medline titles and abstracts as the queries.

#DEJA VU SYNONYM FULL#

The text similarity-based information retrieval and search engine eTBLAST was originally developed as a web tool to enable users to input the partial or full text of a document as the query for comparisons to electronic literature databases such as Medline (Lewis et al., 2006). 2 METHODS 2.1 Identification of highly similar citations However, due to copyright issues, we cannot post the full-text of most duplicate articles, which users may want to consult to judge how representative the citation text is of the manuscript as a whole. Duplicate citations identified using Medline citations and our text-similarity search tool eTBLAST are publicly available in our web-accessible database DГ©jГ vu, at. Identifying potential duplicate publications, however, is frequently possible using only Medline citations since abstracts and titles conceptually distill the contents of the full text and it is difficult to describe that essence using significantly different terms. Because Medline citation records do not contain full text articles, detection of duplicate text is limited to titles and abstracts, which are only small fractions of the complete documents. The results are recorded in a web accessible database so that we and others may study individual cases or the collection as a whole to gauge the overall frequency, trends and characteristics of duplicate scientific publication. Here we report a statistically significant sampling of Medline citations using a text similarity algorithm to compile a set of highly similar citations. And in a comprehensive study of the full text of systematic reviews within the perioperative medicine field, von Elm found that 8.3% of papers cited within the reviews were duplicates and that the duplicates were cited as often as the original article and in journals with similar impact factors as the genuine original (Yank and Barnes, 2003). For example, Schein and Paladugu noted that, вЂAlmost 1 in every 6 original articles published in leading surgical journals represents some form of redundancyвЂ™ (Schein and Paladugu, 2001). Other studies in which the literature of a narrow biomedical discipline was studied in depth have arrived at similar conclusions (Bailey, 2002 Barnard and Overbeke, 1993 Blancett et al., 1995 Bloemenkamp et al., 1999 Chennagiri et al., 2004 Durani, 2006 Gotzsche, 1989 Kostoff et al., 2006 Mojon-Azzi et al., 2004 Roig, 2005 Rosenthal et al., 2003 Schein and Paladugu, 2001). There is a wide discrepancy between the rate of annotated duplicates found within the NLM tagged set (0.0011% = 171 duplicates/16 000 000 Medline records) and what one would anticipate based on the survey by Martinson et al. Although the finer data interpretation nuances of the Martinson study are in debate, the magnitude of the problem is striking (Grinnell, 2005).

In that survey 1.4% of the respondents admitted to plagiarism and 4.7% to multiple publications of the same data. compiled a table of frequencies of violations admitted to by those scientists (Martinson et al., 2005). In contrast to the NLM annotations, in a 2005 study of 3234 respondents to an anonymous survey directed at NIH funded researchers, Martinson et al. While some duplications may be justified, arguably to promote wider dissemination or to provide important updates to clinical trials, surreptitious duplications that are covert and do not properly acknowledge the original work are unethical. The remainder were errata, updates or comments. We manually inspected these 607 records and found that 409 included abstracts, enabling us to classify 171 (42%) as true duplicate publications. ( ) As of July 2006, NLM annotated 607 records in Medline with the publication type вЂDuplicate PublicationвЂ™. The National Library of Medicine (NLM) defines a duplicate publication as one that вЂsubstantially duplicates another article without acknowledgementвЂ™. These practices seek to give a false impression of one's scientific productivity (Lehmann et al., 2006). In the scientific research community, plagiarism and repeated publication of the same data are considered unacceptable practices, can result in misunderstanding, and are a waste of time and energy for authors, reviewers and readers. The Office of Science and Technology Policy defines research misconduct as вЂfabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research resultsвЂ™. Scientific misconduct comes in many forms.

Deja vu synonym