"Our goal was to measure how much and where in papers - for example, the introduction, methods or results sections - text is duplicated to establish the 'norm' in publishing. "Building upon our earlier work reported in Science and Nature, which uncovered ethically questionable journal articles by comparing their abstracts, we have now re-tuned our computer program, eTBLAST, to scan thousands of full-text articles in PubMed Central, a freely available repository of full-text biomedical literature," said Harold "Skip" Garner, author on the paper and executive director of the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute. The findings, published in PLoS ONE, offer hope for curbing unethical scientific publication practice, a growing problem throughout the world. The first step in the process is to find out what is restated before zeroing in on who may have crossed an ethically unacceptable threshold.
0 kommentar(er)
