Similarity Index Analysis of the Manuscript: A Viewpoint.

Clicks: 245
ID: 77942
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 #6 of 12 articles by views in The journal of contemporary dental practice

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
Abstract
Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism have been considered the major academic/scientific misconduct in writing the research.1 In recent decades, plagiarism detection has become relatively easy with the evolution of newer software.2,3 Undoubtedly, many scientific journals evaluate the received manuscripts for plagiarism/similarity index and strictly refuse to consider manuscripts with higher similarity index for further publication process. In addition, if plagiarism is reported in the published articles, authors may pose various academic, professional, and legal consequences. This is definitely fruitful in producing originality of the articles with newer ideas/concepts in research design.
Reference Key
gondivkar2019similaritythe Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Gondivkar, Shailesh M;Sarode, Sachin C;Gadbail, Amol R;Sarode, Gargi S;Patil, Shankargouda;
Journal The journal of contemporary dental practice
Year 2019
DOI
DOI not found
URL URL not found
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

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

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