Addressing plagiarism through formal and informal requirements in scientific journals: empirical findings from journals published in Lithuania

• ENAI: leidinio tekstas

ENScientific journals are primary resources where specific forms of academic misconduct (e.g. (self-)plagiarism, “salami slicing” etc.) are defined and which maintain the control function of misconduct by review procedures. However, there is little empirical research how scientific journals actually work to prevent academic misconduct and, particularly, plagiarism. Therefore, this paper attempts to make a contribution at the discussion of academic community’s control and self-control reducing plagiarism through (international) scientific journals published in Lithuania. Empirically, the paper is based on quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the data collected in autumn 2014: (a) Lithuanian scientific journals’ (N = 266) requirements for authors (n = 219 found available at journals’ websites); (b) semi-structured interviews with chief editors of the journals (n = 25). More specifically, the analysis is focused on the topic of plagiarism as it is presented in the journal requirements and as it is discussed by the editors. Quantitative content analysis of the requirements shows that most journals specify the rules for citation but just few (i.e. 6 or 3 % of all analysed) mention plagiarism; self-plagiarism is mentioned just by one journal.Meanwhile qualitative content analysis of the interviews reveals different attitudes and practices among the editors: plagiarism detection systems are used by some journals but others have no resources for buying them; plagiarism-related questions are discussed in some editorial boards informally but some journals keep the position “there is no problem”; some editors insist that detection systems are a perfect instrument for disclosing cases of plagiarism, meanwhile others are sceptical about efficiency of electronic systems and claim that “a good reviewer is the best detector of plagiarism”. In general, the editors suggest that the “number of plagiarism is decreasing” and it “appears because of the lack of knowledge”. The paper concludes with a discussion of the role of scientific journals in plagiarism prevention, considering the tools which can address the gaps left by journal requirements and editors’ attitudes. Key words: editors; journal requirements for authors; plagiarism; science culture. [From the publication]