THANK YOU FOR JOINING

ISMPP U TODAY

The program will begin promptly at 11:00 eastern

January 29, 2014

ISMPP ANNOUNCEMENTS

• Registration is now open for the 10th Annual Meeting of ISMPP 2014, Leading

Through Collaboration, taking place April 7 – 9, 2014 at the Hyatt Regency

Crystal City in Arlington, Virginia, USA

• Applications are now being accepted for the March 2014 ISMPP Certified

Medical Publication Professional™ (CMPP) exam

• This program qualifies for 1 credit towards recertification

3

NAVIGATING PLAGIARISM IN THE

MEDICAL PUBLISHING COMMUNITY

January 29, 2014

INTRODUCTIONS

• Faculty: Robert (Bob) Creutz is the Executive Director of iThenticate for the U.S.

division. Bob was a key contributor to the launch of CrossCheck in 2007, and has

focused on helping researchers, publishers and government agency officials to

prevent plagiarism, protect their reputations and maintain integrity via best

practices and the iThenticate plagiarism software.

• Moderator: Michael Platt is President of MedVal Scientific Information Services,

LLC and the current Secretary on the CMPP Board of ISMPP and he is an active

committee member and Past-Chair of the ISMPP U Committee and he has also

been involved for 2 years with ISMPP RD Committee. Michael has been involved

in Medical Communications for 15 years with a focus on adult-based education

and in the past 6 years he has focused on professional publication planning.

Michael is an ISMPP Certified Medical Publication Professional™ (CMPP).

5

DISCLOSURES

• Information presented reflects the personal knowledge and

opinion of the presenters and does not represent the position of

their current or past employers or the position of ISMPP

6

TODAY’S OBJECTIVES

• At the conclusion of this educational session, attendees should be able to:

– Define plagiarism and self-plagiarism

– Discuss the prevalence of plagiarism in medical publications

– Understand the tools and resources available to publishers,

manufacturers, and medical communication companies to avoid and

prevent plagiarism

– Identify the publication professional’s role in identifying and

“managing” plagiarism

7

WHAT’S ON THE AGENDA?

• Definitions

• Types of plagiarism

• Current climate

• Some examples

• Costs of misconduct

• Potential solutions

8

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

How do you define plagiarism?

A. The "use, without giving reasonable and appropriate credit to or acknowledging the author or source, of another person's original work, whether such work is made up of code, formulas, ideas, language, research, strategies, writing or other form.”

B. Plagiarism is the "...use of another's work, words, or ideas without attribution," which includes "...using a source's language without quoting, using information from a source without attribution, and paraphrasing a source in a form that stays too close to the original.”

C. Plagiarism is the "deliberate" use of "someone else's language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source.”

D. Plagiarism as the use of "a writer's ideas or phraseology without giving due credit.”

E. Plagiarism as "...appropriating another person's ideas or words (spoken or written) without attributing those word or ideas to their true source.”

F. All of the above

9

WHAT IS PLAGIARISM?

According to Merriam-Webster Online:

“the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving

credit to that person”

10

WAIT, I’M CONFUSED.…

• Stanford sees plagiarism as the "use, without giving reasonable and appropriate credit to or

acknowledging the author or source, of another person's original work, whether such work is

made up of code, formulas, ideas, language, research, strategies, writing or other form.”

• Yale views plagiarism as the "...use of another's work, words, or ideas without attribution,"

which includes "...using a source's language without quoting, using information from a

source without attribution, and paraphrasing a source in a form that stays too close to the

original.”

• Princeton perceives plagiarism as the "deliberate" use of "someone else's language, ideas,

or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source.”

• Oxford characterizes plagiarism as the use of "a writer's ideas or phraseology without giving

due credit.”

• Brown defines plagiarism as "...appropriating another person's ideas or words (spoken or

written) without attributing those word or ideas to their true source.”

11 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

DECODING PLAGIARISM AND ATTRIBUTION

12

CURRENT CLIMATE

• Growing scrutiny of published work

• Rising number of misconduct allegations & investigations

• Increased number of retractions

• Media attention

• Grant fraud

Rise of the Retractions

Van Noorden. “Science publishing: The trouble with retractions” October 5, 2011. Nature. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a.html

13

PLAGIARISM CANNOT BE THAT COMMON!

Unpublished vs. Published

Fun Fact: 1 in 3 scientists admits to questionable research practices

14 Source: http://www.ithenticate.com/resources/infographics/research-misconduct

NO SEASONED RESEARCHER WOULD

PLAGIARIZE, RIGHT?

15

C’MON, NO BIG DEAL

Costs of deceptive research

16 Source: http://www.ithenticate.com/resources/infographics/research-misconduct

WHAT’S UP WITH ALL THE PLAGIARISM?

• Pressure linked to Publish or Perish

• Growing number of researchers

• Amazing access to information (i.e. Internet)

• Related trend of eternal peer review

17

IS THERE ANY HOPE?

• Keep educating yourself (your doing it right now)

• Follow guidance (syllabi, publisher author pages,

correspondence with editors and referees)

• Editorial due diligence (organization, proper attribution, citation

styles, fact checking, communication with other authors)

• And of course … plagiarism detection software

18

TECHNOLOGY TO SUPPLEMENT

EDITORIAL REVIEW

19

DOES PLAGIARISM DETECTION HAVE

TRACTION? A growing need for plagiarism prevention

within the interconnecting scholarly publishing and research communities

Government &

Granting

Agencies are using iThenticate.

Scholarly

Publishers are

using iThenticate.

Universities &

Individual Researchers

Use iThenticate as part of their editorial

review before submitting to granting and

publishing bodies to mitigate the potential

risks of misconduct.

20

SAMPLE ITHENTICATE REPORT

MAKING SENSE OF SIMILARITY SCORES

• “What’s the Magic Number? -

http://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-

blog/bid/63534/CrossCheck-Plagiarism-Screening-

Understanding-the-Similarity-Score

• Four report classifications (scroll to end of PDF) -

http://www.ieee.org/documents/CrossCheck_User_Guide.pdf

ANY OTHER OPTIONS?

23

A CASE STUDY: WELL IT’S MY WORK……

• Appropriate “kick-off” procedures were completed to begin a

manuscript

• One of the authors, and expert in the therapeutic area, as well

as a recognized and respected expert volunteered to draft the

first draft of the manuscript

• The Med Com agency received the 1st draft from the author and

per the agencies SOP, put the draft through the plagiarism

software

• The report denoted a 40% overlap of content in the Introduction

and Discussion sections

24

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

What would you do?

A. Revise those sections of the manuscript and tell the author(s) that you

edited it

B. Let it ride and hope the manuscript is revised by other authors

C. Further investigate the 40% overlap in content and schedule a call with

the author to discuss the findings and provide an opportunity for revision

D. Other

25

A CASE STUDY: WELL IT’S MY WORK……

(RESOLUTION)

• Further investigated the 40% overlap in content and scheduled a call with the author to discuss the findings and provided recommended changes

– Note, the 40% was self plagiarized

• Discussed that it was well written but that we needed to have a combination of new thoughts effectively communicated and appropriate referencing

• Author acknowledged this was a good course of action but did not see self plagiarism as an issue

• Remainder of development and submission followed standard process and outcome with no further issue

26

A CASE STUDY: IT’S A SIGN OF RESPECT,

WE HAVE TO DO IT THAT WAY

• Appropriate “kick-off” procedures were completed to begin a

manuscript in Asia-Pacific region

• The authors drafted the first version of the manuscript

• The Med Com agency received the 1st draft from the authors and

per the agencies SOP, put the draft through the plagiarism

software

• The report denoted a 52% overlap of content within the

manuscript

27

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

What would you do?

A. Do nothing as this is a cultural norm and proceed with development and

submission

B. Revise those sections of the manuscript and tell the author(s) that you

edited it and would like their feedback

C. Disclose to the authors your findings and send it back to them to revise

D. Further investigate the content and schedule a call with the authors to

discuss the findings and provide an opportunity for revision

E. Other

28

A CASE STUDY: IT’S A SIGN OF RESPECT,

WE HAVE TO DO IT THAT WAY……(RESOLUTION)

• Further investigated the overlap in content and scheduled a call with the authors to discuss the findings and provided recommended changes

– Note, plagiarism was found to be direct lifted from 3 other primary publications

• Discussed the issue with plagiarism and noted, “…certain the direct copy was due to both English as a second language and that the authors appreciated the other authors’ way of communicating – a sign of respect

• Agency offered assistance in the revision to appropriately communicate the authors’ views and perspectives

• Authors agreed and the manuscript was finalized and submitted

29

HELPFUL RESOURCES

• www.plagiarism.org

• Center on Publication Ethics – www.cope.org

• Retraction Watch

• Center for Academic Integrity – www.academicintegrity.com

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME!

Robert (Bob) Creutz

Executive Director – iThenticate North America

(510) 764 – 7615

rcreutz@ithenticate.com

www.ithenticate.com

31

QUESTIONS......

To ask a question, please type your query into the

‘Q&A’ chat box at the bottom left of your screen.

Every attempt will be made to answer all questions.

UPCOMING ISMPP U TOPICS

• Stay tuned for the upcoming ISMPP U topics

– Copyrights (February 2014)

– Publishing negative study results (April 2014)

33

THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING!

We hope you enjoyed today's presentation.

We will be providing a link to the survey rather than the form

itself. Please take a moment to click on the link and fill out the

survey, so your valuable feedback can be used to develop future

educational offerings.

34