CrossCheck检测平台及信息核实在学术不端防治中的作用
|
摘要
采用Cross Check检测平台(http://www.ithenticate.com/)对英文科技论文进行比对,通过分析查重比对结果可初步判断该论文是否涉嫌学术不端,进而判断该论文的新颖性和研究热门程度。查重比对可为编辑处理稿件提供有力的支持,为审者审稿提供必要的参考,以便给出公正的审理意见。另外,讨论了审者信息及作者信息的核实对干预学术不端行为的作用。
The similarity rate of English scientific papers was checked via Cross Check. From the similarity rate of the article,the academic misconduct can be discovered. And then we can judge the novelty of the paper and the popularity of the research. The results of check can provide strong support for editing and handling the manuscripts,and can give necessary reference for the review,so as to give a fair trial opinion. In addition,checking reviewers' information and verifying the author's information play an important role in the intervention of academic misconduct.
The similarity rate of English scientific papers was checked via Cross Check. From the similarity rate of the article,the academic misconduct can be discovered. And then we can judge the novelty of the paper and the popularity of the research. The results of check can provide strong support for editing and handling the manuscripts,and can give necessary reference for the review,so as to give a fair trial opinion. In addition,checking reviewers' information and verifying the author's information play an important role in the intervention of academic misconduct.
引文
[1]刘清海.科技期刊编辑在防范学术造假论文中的作用[J].编辑学报,2014,26(3):258
[2]付晓霞,李贵存.对Bio Med Central撤销中国论文的思考[J].编辑学报,2015,27(6):514
[3]BARBASH F.Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal[EB/OL].[2017-05-18].http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviewsprompt-scientificjournal-to-retract-43-papers-systematicscheme-may-affectother-journals/?tid=hp_mm&hpid=z5
[4]晏妮,冷怀明.科技期刊论文署名不端的法律意义及风险防范[J].编辑学报,2014,26(4):325
[5]吴昔昔,贾建敏,吴健敏,等.低重复率稿件中的学术不端行为检测与防范[J].编辑学报,2016,28(3):266
[6]张旻浩,高国龙,钱俊龙.国内外学术不端文献检测系统平台的比较研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2011,22(4):514
[7]张儒祥,唐萌.对某医学杂志一期已发表论文再查重的分析[J].出版科学,2013(2):45
[8]赵丽莹,杨波,张荣丽,等.对专家审稿的分析和思考[J].编辑学报,2010,22(2):146
[9]詹燕平,游滨,陈移峰,等.论科技期刊审稿专家的选择与管理及其审稿积极性的调动[J].编辑学报,2014,26(6):572
[10]朱岩,陈培颖,欧彦,等.外审专家信息的更新与维护[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(9):951
[11]赵艳静,王新英,何静菁.防止同行评议造假的可行性措施[J].编辑学报,2017,29(2):142
[12]刘春林.期刊出版中的审稿不端行为与应对策略[J].编辑学报,2016,28(4):346
[2]付晓霞,李贵存.对Bio Med Central撤销中国论文的思考[J].编辑学报,2015,27(6):514
[3]BARBASH F.Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal[EB/OL].[2017-05-18].http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviewsprompt-scientificjournal-to-retract-43-papers-systematicscheme-may-affectother-journals/?tid=hp_mm&hpid=z5
[4]晏妮,冷怀明.科技期刊论文署名不端的法律意义及风险防范[J].编辑学报,2014,26(4):325
[5]吴昔昔,贾建敏,吴健敏,等.低重复率稿件中的学术不端行为检测与防范[J].编辑学报,2016,28(3):266
[6]张旻浩,高国龙,钱俊龙.国内外学术不端文献检测系统平台的比较研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2011,22(4):514
[7]张儒祥,唐萌.对某医学杂志一期已发表论文再查重的分析[J].出版科学,2013(2):45
[8]赵丽莹,杨波,张荣丽,等.对专家审稿的分析和思考[J].编辑学报,2010,22(2):146
[9]詹燕平,游滨,陈移峰,等.论科技期刊审稿专家的选择与管理及其审稿积极性的调动[J].编辑学报,2014,26(6):572
[10]朱岩,陈培颖,欧彦,等.外审专家信息的更新与维护[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(9):951
[11]赵艳静,王新英,何静菁.防止同行评议造假的可行性措施[J].编辑学报,2017,29(2):142
[12]刘春林.期刊出版中的审稿不端行为与应对策略[J].编辑学报,2016,28(4):346