Writing for publication- implications of text recycling and cut and paste writing.

Clicks: 335
ID: 46455
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #20 of 74 articles by views in journal of nursing management

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Increased use and availability of electronic text matching software (such as ithenticate ) to screen submissions to peer reviewed journals, means that Editors are increasingly being made aware of potential cases of plagiarism (Debnath 2016). While there are no true figures for academic plagiarism within submissions to peer-reviewed journals (Gasparyan et al 2017), anecdotally upwards of 25% of all submissions require some level of follow up and investigation. The text matching details provided by software such as ithenticate supports Editor decision-making, and assists Editors to explore all incidences of text matching fully.
Reference Key
timmins2019writingjournal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Timmins, Fiona;
Journal journal of nursing management
Year 2019
DOI
10.1111/jonm.12868
URL
Keywords
placebo tidier placebo controlled reporting standards sham trial

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.