Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biosciences: Replication of Methods Sections

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Against Plagiarism

  • 871 Accesses

Abstract

In our first survey (see Chap. 2), we noticed some significant differences in the responses to some of the questions between the subject areas of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, and Computers and Electronics. We therefore decided to conduct a further investigation focusing on these key differences in approach in these disciplinary fields.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Jia, XY., XF. Tan, and YH. Zhang. 2014. Replication of the methods section in biosciences papers: Is it plagiarism?. Scientometrics 98: 337–345 (with permission of Springer).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang, YH., XY. Jia, HF. Lin, and XF. Tan. 2013 Editorial: be careful! avoiding duplication: A case study. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE B (Biomedicine & Biotechnology) 14(4): 355–358. (with permission of JZUS).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Zhang, YH., and XY. Jia. 2013. Republication of conference papers in journals?. Learned Publishing 26(3): 189–196(with permission of Springer).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Council of Science Editors (CSE). 2012. CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. 3.0 Identification of research misconduct and guidelines for action. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3643#313 (accessed Sept 18, 2012).

  5. Roig, M. 2012. Teach scientist to paraphrase. Nature 481: 23.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Roig, M. 2009. Plagiarism: Consider the context. Science 325: 813–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 2012. http://www.publicationethics.org (accessed September 20, 2012).

  8. Zhang, Y.H. 2010. CrossCheck: An effective tool for detecting plagiarism. Learned Publishing 23: 9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang, Y.H., and X.Y. Jia. 2012. A survey on the use of CrossCheck for detecting plagiarism in journal articles. Learned Publishing 25: 292–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE. 2012. International reviewers. http://www.zju.edu.cn/jzus/reviewer.php#B (accessed September 2, 2012).

  11. Zhang, Y.H. 2010. International, not ‘campus’, please. Nature 467: 789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Thomson Reuters. 2012. https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com.

  13. Miller, N.R. 2011. Checking for plagiarism, duplicate publication, and text recycling. Lancet 377: 1403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Burnette, W.N. 1981. “Western blotting”: Electrophoretic transfer of proteins from sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gels to unmodified nitrocellulose and radiographic detection with antibody and radioiodinated protein A. Analytical Biochemistry 112: 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Meddings K. 2012. CrossCheck plagiarism screening: What’s the magic number? http://www.ismte.org/File/Aug11CrossCheck.pdf (accessed June 3, 2012).

  16. Kallet, R.H. 2004. How to write the methods section of a research paper? Respiratory Care 49: 1229–1232.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wager E. 2012. How should editors respond to plagiarism? COPE discussion paper. http://publicationethics.org/files/COPE_plagiarism_discussion_%20doc_26%20Apr%2011.pdf (accessed on August 18, 2012).

  18. Wager, E., S. Fiack, C. Graf, A. Robinson, and I. Rowlands. 2009. Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: Results of an international survey. Journal of Medical Ethics 35: 348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sarwar, N., AS. Butterworth, and DF. Freitag et al., 2012. Interleukin-6 receptor pathways in coronary heart disease: A collaborative meta-analysis of 82 studies. The Lancet 379(9822): 1205–1213. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61931-4/fulltext.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zhejiang University Press, Hangzhou, China

    Yuehong (Helen) Zhang

Authors
  1. Yuehong (Helen) Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuehong (Helen) Zhang .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zhang, Y.(. (2016). Biosciences: Replication of Methods Sections. In: Against Plagiarism. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Scientific and Scholarly Communication. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24160-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation