FBE 5555

Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Class

Paragraph Plagiarism Homework
Emir Okucu
2022900055
Reference
• Bennett D.M., Taylor D.M. (2003), Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers,
Emergency Medicine (2003) 15, 263–270.

Paragraph 1

Original
Over the past few decades, there has been an increase in the number of multi-author papers
within scientific journals. This increase, in combination with the pressure to publish within academia,
has precipitated various unethical authorship practices within biomedical research. These include
dilution of authorship responsibility, ‘guest’, ‘pressured’ and ‘ghost’ authorship, and obfuscation of
authorship credit within by-lines. Other authorship irregularities include divided and duplicate
publication. This article discusses these problems and why the International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors guidelines are failing to control them.

Modified
In recent decades, the multi-author publications amount in scientific journals has gone up. This
increase, coupled with pressure on publication within the scientific community, has led to a variety of
unethical author practices in biomedical research. These include dilution of responsibility for authorship,
"guest", "pressure", and "ghost" authorship, and obscuring authorship within by lines. Other
irregularities in authorship include split submissions and duplicate submissions. This article discusses
these issues and why the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors do not
control them.

Paragraph 2
Original
Scientific paper authorship is an important form of academic currency for many research
professionals. This importance, and the changing nature of biomedical research over the last few
decades, has stimulated a rise of multi-author papers. In combination, these two factors have given rise
to abuses of authorship. Although these abuses rarely impact adversely upon the efficiency of science,
or seriously sap its resources, they do undermine the ethic of honesty expected within it.

Modified
Authorship of scientific research is an important academic currency for many researchers. This
importance, and the changing nature of biomedical research in recent decades, has led to an increasing
number of works by several authors. These two factors combine to lead to copyright abuse. These abuses
rarely undermine the efficiency of science or seriously waste its resources, but they certainly undermine
the expected ethics of integrity.

1
Paragraph 3
Original
The benefits of authorship are numerous and are described in Table 1. Firstly, authorship benefits
the progress of science because a published work creates opportunities for it to be replicated and built
upon.

Modified
The benefits of authorship are numerous and are listed in Table 1. First, authorship benefits
scientific progress. Because a published work creates an opportunity to reproduce it and build on it.

Paragraph 4
Original
The guidelines also require that an author should have participated sufficiently in a paper to take
public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. In addition, all authors who meet these
criteria should be listed.

Modified
The guidelines also state that the authors Participated in the paper sufficiently to publish it
Responsibility for Relevant Portions of Content. In addition, all authors meeting these criteria should
listed.

Paragraph 5
Original
The patterns of contribution of last authors of biomedical papers are like first and second
authors. Nevertheless, like middle pattern authors, the contributions of last authors may vary greatly
because, at times, the last author is simply the person who contributed the least. What is found with most
consistency among last authors is that they are the people most likely to have contributed resources and
the least likely to have collected data.

Modified
Contribution pattern of the last author of the biomedical paper is similar to the first and his
second author. However, as with medium-sized authors, Contributions of the last author can vary greatly
Because sometimes the final author is just a person who contributed the least. What do you find most
Consistency among past authors is who they are people Most Likely to Contribute to Resources Least
likely to collect data.

2
Paragraph 6
Original
Subtle clues may exist to help readers interpret whether a last author’s name has any importance.
For example, if the names that precede the last author in the by-line are less prominent, then the last
author is likely to have special significance. Another clue is the correspondence-line; if this person is
the last author, then he or she is more likely to be the senior author of the paper and, therefore, have a
higher likelihood of support staff to assist with correspondence.

Modified
There may be subtle clues that help the reader interpret whether the recent author's name is
meaningful. For example, when the name before the last author is included, the signature is less
prominent than the last author does it have a special meaning? Another clue is communication lines; if
this person is the last author, in that case, he or she is more likely to be the lead writer of paper and
therefore have a higher probability of support staff to assist with communications.

Paragraph 7
Original
The US National Library of Medicine has also adopted a policy on the number of authors it will
electronically list, printing only the first 24 authors of a paper, plus the last author when there are more
than 25.

Modified
Adopted by the US National Library of Medicine Policy regarding number of authors stored
electronically a list printing only his 24 authors at the beginning of the work, and last author if greater
than 25.

Paragraph 8
Original
Occasionally, researchers are unaware they are guest authors. A survey by Bhopal et al.
conducted within the faculty of a British university, revealed that almost one-third of authors had
experienced the situation of being unaware of their inclusion as a co-author of a paper at the time of its
publication.22 bestowing authorship to fellow researchers without their permission can cause
resentment if the individual believes their participation was not sufficient to warrant inclusion or because
the conclusions are incongruous with their scientific philosophies.

Modified
Occasionally, researchers are unaware that they exist. guest writer. A study by Bhopal et al. with
guide within a UK university department nearly a third of authors have experienced it situation where
inclusion is not recognized co-author of the paper at the time of publication22. Assigning author rights
to colleagues without their permission could cause resentment if the person: We believe their
participation was not enough to justify this because inclusion or conclusion do not match with their
scientific philosophy.

3
Paragraph 9
Original
Despite the perceived negativity of guest authorship, a study by Eastwood et al. 24 into ethical
issues related to biomedical research and publishing found that one-third of all respondents would list
an undeserving author on a paper. This is done to increase the chances of their work being published or
to benefit their research career. Paradoxically, this proportion increased to 75% among authors who had
experienced being unfairly denied authorship, had co-authored a paper with an undeserving author, or
who had been pressured to list an undeserving author on a paper.

Modified
Despite the perception that guest authorship is negative, a study by Eastwood et al.24 addresses
ethical issues. Discovered in the context of biomedical research and publishing suppose that his one-
third of all respondents cite unworthy authors in their papers. This is done to increase likelihood of my
work being published or of benefiting from it her research career. Paradoxically, this ratio is increased
to 75% for experienced authors he was wrongly denied authorship, he was a co-author articles by
Inappropriate authors pressured to publish worthless writers in journals.

Paragraph 10
Original
Paradoxical situations of ghost authorship have been known to occur. In one instance, a
researcher intentionally excluded his name from a manuscript that reported the poor performance of a
cholesterol analyser because the negative conclusion may have been perceived as being unfriendly to
industry and therefore have the potential to jeopardise future funding.

Modified
Having the paradoxical situation of ghost authorship known to occur. In some cases researchers
his name was deliberately omitted from the manuscript those who reported poor cholesterol performance
because of possible negative conclusions, the analyser seen as unfriendly to the industry, future funding
could be at risk.