, Volume 106, Issue 1, pp 457–459 | Cite as

High time for a common plagiarism detection system

  • Ivan Jarić


Plagiarism represents a serious and growing problem in science, with only a fraction of such publications detected and retracted. Any initiative to deal efficiently with the problem of plagiarism would require a joint effort of academic publishers and editors. The most effective measure would be to establish a common plagiarism detection system, adopted by all peer-reviewed journals and major publishers, with automatic uploading and cross-checking of each newly submitted manuscript with both published material and all further and ongoing submissions. If adequately implemented, such system would fully resolve the problem of multiple submissions, and detect instances of plagiarism of unpublished material. Significant portion of scientific misconduct cases would be resolved, in most cases much before the publishing stage. This would greatly benefit the scientific community and science in general. The need for publishing retraction notices would be also diminished, thereby reducing the publishing costs. Lastly, the system would probably act as a deterrent, passively contributing to plagiarism frequency reduction.


Scientific misconduct Intellectual theft Self-plagiarism Plagiarism checker Retraction 



The author acknowledges the sponsorship provided by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Federal German Ministry for Education and Research, as well as the support by the Project No. 173045, funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. The author would like to thank Dr David L. Roberts for useful discussion and helpful comments.


  1. Amos, K. A. (2014). The ethics of scholarly publishing: Exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 102(2), 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. da Silva, A. A. T. (2014). Postpublication peer review in plant science. Science Editor, 37(2), 57–59.Google Scholar
  3. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(42), 17028–17033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kannan, S., & Gowri, S. (2014). Anti-plagiarism software in biomedical literature. Journal of Scientometric Research, 3(2), 93–94.Google Scholar
  5. Marusic, A., Katavic, V., & Marusic, M. (2007). Role of editors and journals in detecting and preventing scientific misconduct: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Medicine and Law, 26, 545–566.Google Scholar
  6. Roberts, D. L., & St. John, F. A. V. (2014). Estimating the prevalence of researcher misconduct: A study of UK academics within biological sciences. PeerJ, 2, e562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Sheth, B. P., & Thaker, V. S. (2014). Scientific retraction: A synonym for pseudoscience? Acta Bioethica, 20(1), 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Stern, A. M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. eLife, 3, e02956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Ecology of FishesLeibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland FisheriesBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Multidisciplinary ResearchUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations