Wednesday, 14 December 2011
Saturday, 26 November 2011
Two years with PUBMED by Joshua E.
Two years with PUBMED
Dear Colleagues,
Seasons greetings to one and all
It is about two years since our journal has been listed with PubMed and various other International indexing agencies. In the year 2011, the academic climate in the Indian Dental field has undergone rapid changes. These changes have provoked an unprecedented interest and an increased volume of article submission to our journal. Consequently, we have responded by increasing the frequency as well as the number of manuscripts published per issue by at least four-fold, without compromising on the quality.
With an increase in the volume of articles, the responsibilities of the editorial team as well as the peer reviewers increase all the more. In spite of several check points, mistakes are liable to take place at many stages. Inadvertent or 'Intentional' errors committed by authors of several submissions have been identified and rectified. Notwithstanding these attempts, few errors might have crept in. The Journal publishes the accepted manuscripts in good faith, trusting that the article submitted is original, including the script, and not borrowed from any other source. I, therefore, urge the authors to read and revise their manuscripts several times before submission and abide by the guidelines provided for manuscript submission. I would like to bring to your kind attention that issues with plagiarism and text copying will be viewed seriously and may even warrant blacklisting for three years, if found in the earlier stage, and retraction even after publication. Soliciting in any form for publications shall not be entertained. I request all the authors to keep the high standards set for academic publications.
To increase the quality of the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology (JOMFP) as well as to increase the citation rate, it has been decided that only original research articles of contemporary interest will be published from the next issue. However, interesting cases and series that are novel, which open up the understanding of a disease process will be considered. The number of case reports will be restricted to less than 25% of all manuscripts. I request all the members and potential authors to consider these facts while preparing their manuscripts. Submission of high quality photographs with sharp images, in focus, with a clear background and appropriate lighting is mandatory. Markings (arrow / bullets) can be incorporated inside the image itself. Only histopathological images with high resolution and clarity will be considered.
The reviewers have been the backbone of JOMFP. I take this opportunity to thank each one of them personally, especially for sparing their valuable time, and look forward for their continued support and dedication in the years to come.
I am confident that with support from all of you, JOMFP will be a much sought after Journal in our field.
Looking forward to meeting you all in Hyderabad.
Dear Colleagues,
Seasons greetings to one and all
It is about two years since our journal has been listed with PubMed and various other International indexing agencies. In the year 2011, the academic climate in the Indian Dental field has undergone rapid changes. These changes have provoked an unprecedented interest and an increased volume of article submission to our journal. Consequently, we have responded by increasing the frequency as well as the number of manuscripts published per issue by at least four-fold, without compromising on the quality.
With an increase in the volume of articles, the responsibilities of the editorial team as well as the peer reviewers increase all the more. In spite of several check points, mistakes are liable to take place at many stages. Inadvertent or 'Intentional' errors committed by authors of several submissions have been identified and rectified. Notwithstanding these attempts, few errors might have crept in. The Journal publishes the accepted manuscripts in good faith, trusting that the article submitted is original, including the script, and not borrowed from any other source. I, therefore, urge the authors to read and revise their manuscripts several times before submission and abide by the guidelines provided for manuscript submission. I would like to bring to your kind attention that issues with plagiarism and text copying will be viewed seriously and may even warrant blacklisting for three years, if found in the earlier stage, and retraction even after publication. Soliciting in any form for publications shall not be entertained. I request all the authors to keep the high standards set for academic publications.
To increase the quality of the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology (JOMFP) as well as to increase the citation rate, it has been decided that only original research articles of contemporary interest will be published from the next issue. However, interesting cases and series that are novel, which open up the understanding of a disease process will be considered. The number of case reports will be restricted to less than 25% of all manuscripts. I request all the members and potential authors to consider these facts while preparing their manuscripts. Submission of high quality photographs with sharp images, in focus, with a clear background and appropriate lighting is mandatory. Markings (arrow / bullets) can be incorporated inside the image itself. Only histopathological images with high resolution and clarity will be considered.
The reviewers have been the backbone of JOMFP. I take this opportunity to thank each one of them personally, especially for sparing their valuable time, and look forward for their continued support and dedication in the years to come.
I am confident that with support from all of you, JOMFP will be a much sought after Journal in our field.
Looking forward to meeting you all in Hyderabad.
Two Years with PUBMED by Joshua E.
Dear Colleagues,
Seasons greetings to one and all
It is about two years since our journal has been listed with PubMed and various other International indexing agencies. In the year 2011, the academic climate in the Indian Dental field has undergone rapid changes. These changes have provoked an unprecedented interest and an increased volume of article submission to our journal. Consequently, we have responded by increasing the frequency as well as the number of manuscripts published per issue by at least four-fold, without compromising on the quality.
With an increase in the volume of articles, the responsibilities of the editorial team as well as the peer reviewers increase all the more. In spite of several check points, mistakes are liable to take place at many stages. Inadvertent or 'Intentional' errors committed by authors of several submissions have been identified and rectified. Notwithstanding these attempts, few errors might have crept in. The Journal publishes the accepted manuscripts in good faith, trusting that the article submitted is original, including the script, and not borrowed from any other source. I, therefore, urge the authors to read and revise their manuscripts several times before submission and abide by the guidelines provided for manuscript submission. I would like to bring to your kind attention that issues with plagiarism and text copying will be viewed seriously and may even warrant blacklisting for three years, if found in the earlier stage, and retraction even after publication. Soliciting in any form for publications shall not be entertained. I request all the authors to keep the high standards set for academic publications.
To increase the quality of the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology (JOMFP) as well as to increase the citation rate, it has been decided that only original research articles of contemporary interest will be published from the next issue. However, interesting cases and series that are novel, which open up the understanding of a disease process will be considered. The number of case reports will be restricted to less than 25% of all manuscripts. I request all the members and potential authors to consider these facts while preparing their manuscripts. Submission of high quality photographs with sharp images, in focus, with a clear background and appropriate lighting is mandatory. Markings (arrow / bullets) can be incorporated inside the image itself. Only histopathological images with high resolution and clarity will be considered.
The reviewers have been the backbone of JOMFP. I take this opportunity to thank each one of them personally, especially for sparing their valuable time, and look forward for their continued support and dedication in the years to come.
I am confident that with support from all of you, JOMFP will be a much sought after Journal in our field.
Looking forward to meeting you all in Hyderabad.
Two years with PUBMED
Monday, 10 October 2011
Friday, 16 September 2011
Plagiarism and scientific writing: a personal commentary
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2041-1626.2011.00099.x/full
Irulandy Ponniah
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hopsital, Chennai, India.
Abstract There have been a number of papers that have addressed the issue of plagiarism. Nevertheless, the charges of plagiarism usually merit little attention with experts, because it is still not clear what sort of copying actually constitutes plagiarism. Another problem that eludes consensus is whether plagiarism was committed with or without intention. This paper discusses certain issues relating to plagiarism and differentiates between intentional and unintentional forms of plagiarism.
Irulandy Ponniah
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hopsital, Chennai, India.
Abstract There have been a number of papers that have addressed the issue of plagiarism. Nevertheless, the charges of plagiarism usually merit little attention with experts, because it is still not clear what sort of copying actually constitutes plagiarism. Another problem that eludes consensus is whether plagiarism was committed with or without intention. This paper discusses certain issues relating to plagiarism and differentiates between intentional and unintentional forms of plagiarism.
Writing is an art that develops with practice, and it can be further enhanced by repetition. However, writing a publishable paper is not an easy task. Reading articles to understand the use of lexis and syntax in science writing and the nature of citations can nevertheless help to a great extent. Further, when the subject matters are clear, the thought process will emerge and the synthesis of language will become spontaneous. However, plagiarism is inevitable when one resorts to reproducing the language of others. Butler reports that the detection of plagiarism becomes easier with software to scan manuscripts submitted to journals.1 According to Butler, plagiarism can range from copying a few paragraphs to the outright copying of others. Even so, what constitutes plagiarism is an issue where there is no consensus due to the subjective nature of assessment. This is one reason why experts who deal with plagiarism conclude that it is unintentional, without being explicit about intentional copying.
According to the Office for Research Integrity, the word “plagiarism” describes theft or misappropriation of others works, including ideas and language.2 The use of others’ language involves substantial textual copying (word for word) of another’s work, with or without attribution.2,3 However, limited use of same or closely-matching phrases does not amount to textual copying when it is pertinent to the paper.2 It is prudent to discuss the nature of citations in the published articles to determine whether plagiarism was intentional or due to an inadvertent error.
In an article by Pino-Neto et al.,4 the discussion section reads: “Ramon et al. described two sibs born to a consanguineous couple who presented with a previously undescribed syndrome of mental deficiency, epilepsy, cherubism, fibrous dysplasia of the mandible, gingival fibromatosis, and stunted growth”. The literature revealed that a similar description, subsequently published after Pino-Neto et al.,4 was also found in other articles.5–7 The same information can also be found at Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM ID 266270; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/266270).
A closer look at the above sentence is necessary to determine whether the interpretation and citation are appropriate. Unlike Ramon syndrome, mental retardation, epilepsy, hypertrichosis, and gingival fibromatosis represent idiopathic or hereditary gingival fibromatosis.8 Thus, the only denominator to distinguish Ramon syndrome and hereditary gingival fibromatosis is the presence or absence of cherubism.
In this context, a review of the report by Ramon et al.9 shows that of the two patients (9 and 12 years of age) reported, the 9-year-old boy presented with epilepsy, mental retardation, stunted growth, gingival fibromatosis, and cherubism, whereas the 12-year-old boy had only mild mental retardation and gingival fibromatosis. There was no mention of fibrous dysplasia of the mandible as part of the disease complex in the Ramon et al.9 article, as stated by Pino-Neto et al.4 Although the three articles have attributed the right source (i.e. Ramon et al.), two findings were inconsistent with the original report, that is, “two siblings” with Ramon syndrome and “fibrous dysplasia of the mandible”. It shows that the authors’ did not read the original source properly, which points to ignorance, rather than intention.
Scientific writing is a form of argumentation that requires substantiation of inference by citing existing facts, either for or against the conclusion.10 Therefore, citations are needed to verify the source, and to compare and establish the relationship between the source and the authors’ representation of it.11 Unsupported statements or sentences will be considered as the authors’ own.11 For example, “Unfortunately, some situations may occur that delay immediate replantation. Where such situations exist, the tooth should be stored in a medium that maintains periodontal ligament cell viability until definitive dental treatment can be accomplished”. This statement lacks an in-text citation, and as such, forms the authors’ own. However, with the exception of the underlined words, the passage was also found in another article. This raises the issue of whether a similar idea expressed in the same words by people at various points of time is textual copying. Having a unique idea is not unusual, but the overlap of words in a given sentence suggests that it is unlikely to be mere coincidence. This is based on the fact that a similar passage was also found in two other articles, but with proper source attribution (search the later part of the quoted statement “the tooth…can be accomplished” in Google).
It is clear from the above illustrations that unsupported texts need not necessarily be original. This form of writing has the potential to amount to textual plagiarism, especially when there is substantial overlap with other work.2,3 However, a search of the sentence “Apoptotic keratinocytes are no longer able to perform this function” from certain articles in Google will show that even with significant copying, authors are given benefit of doubt for plagiarism when the original source is credited or if the author is a novice. This writing genre, according to Abasi and Akbari,12 does not constitute intentional plagiarism, but can be termed “patch writing”. Writing a review article, however, requires critical analysis of relevant sources to advance an argument in order to seek new lines of enquiry, rather than to take recourse in transgressive textual appropriation of source.
As I alluded to earlier, the assessment of plagiarism is subjective, and readers should judge what constitutes intentional plagiarism by searching the sentences “Diagnosis in dentistry may be defined as the process whereby the data obtained” or “the replacement of lost or deficient tissues involves the use of prosthetic materials” in the Google search.
The purpose of scientific writing is to disseminate and contribute knowledge to the existing literature, but it is more important to refrain from plagiarism, and efforts should be directed to curb such practices at infancy.
References
- 1
- 2 ORI provides working definition of plagiarism. Office of Research Integrity, ORI Newsletter, Vol 3, Number 1, December 1994. Available from: http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/newsletters.shtml. (Assessed June 25, 2011).
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10 Writing guide: parts of an argument. Available from: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/documents/argueparts/printformat.cfm?printformat=yes. (Assessed June 25, 2011).
- 11
- 12 , . Are we encouraging patchwriting? Reconsidering the role of the pedagogy context in ESL student writers’ transgressive intertextuality. English for Specific Purposes 2008; 27: 267–84.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)