This study analyzes Plagiarism research worldwide. This study period is selected from 2015 to 2019. Totally 867 data were mainly collected from the web of science database. These data were downloaded and analyzed by using MS Office Excel 2010 as per the objective of the study. Research has been done to discover the development and properties of large data research output is the global level. A total of 867 records were collected from the Plagiarism research database in the study by searching with the document wise distribution of publications. Articles cover the most preferred type is 630(72.66%) as Editorial Material, 110(12.69%) as Letter, Review and other publications followed by other forms. Author wise distribution of records, the highly productive author is Wiwanitkit V with 16(1.85%) papers was published. The second highly productive author is Rosso P with 11(1.27%) papers was published. The third, fourth and fifth position authors were 9(1.04%) papers published. The year-wise contribution of plagiarism research in scientometric analysis. The highly productive year is 2019 with 215(24.80%) of papers published in the article. The second position of 2018 with 167(19.26%) of papers published.The publication's years of others are as follows.This research Productivity plagiarismresearch is increasing.

1. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339643185
Quantitative Analysis of Plagiarism Research Literature: A Scientometric
Approach through Web of Science
Conference Paper · February 2020
CITATIONS
0
READS
909
3 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Special Focus on Author Productivity of Scleroderma Research Publication: A Global Perspective View project
Focused on Author Productivity of Arthropathy Research Publication: A Scient metric Analysis View project
M. Mercy Clarance
Alagappa University
13 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Rathika .N
Alagappa University
12 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Ayyanar .K
Alagappa University
34 PUBLICATIONS 50 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ayyanar .K on 03 March 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2. Quantitative Analysis of Plagiarism Research Literature: A Scientometric
Approach through Web of Science
M. Mercy Clarance1, N. Rathika2, K. Ayyanar3
1, 2, 3
Research Scholar, DLIS, Alagappa University, Karaikudi, Tamil Nadu, India
Email ID: mercymani2015@gmail.com and ayyanar.k1992@gmail.com
Abstract
This study analyzes Plagiarism research worldwide. This study period is selected
from 2015 to 2019. Totally 867 data were mainly collected from the web of science database.
These data were downloaded and analyzed by using MS Office Excel 2010 as per the objective of
the study. Research has been done to discover the development and properties of large data
research output is the global level. A total of 867 records were collected from the Plagiarism
research database in the study by searching with the document wise distribution of publications.
Articles cover the most preferred type is 630(72.66%) as Editorial Material, 110(12.69%) as
Letter, Review and other publications followed by other forms. Author wise distribution of
records, the highly productive author is Wiwanitkit V with 16(1.85%) papers was published. The
second highly productive author is Rosso P with 11(1.27%) papers was published. The third,
fourth and fifth position authors were 9(1.04%) papers published. The year-wise contribution of
plagiarism research in scientometric analysis. The highly productive year is 2019 with
215(24.80%) of papers published in the article. The second position of 2018 with 167(19.26%)
of papers published.The publication's years of others are as follows.This research Productivity
plagiarismresearch is increasing.
Keywords: Scientometric, Plagiarism, Document Types, Web of Science,Relative Growth Rate.
Introduction:
Plagiarism is one of the contemporary debates and serious issues among the scholastic
community such as students, faculty members, and research scientists1
.Plagiarism is your own
way of linking someone else's work or ideas to your work, with or without their consent. All
materials published and published in manuscript, printed or electronic form are under this
definition. Plagiarism can be intentional or reckless or accidental. Under the terms of the
examinations, intentional or reckless theft is a moral offense2
.If schools want to impress their
students on how serious crime theft is, they can start with a description of the word history.
Plagiarism (and plagiarism comes from the Latin stealth "smuggler." The word originated from
the Latin plaga ("the web of hunters used to catch the game"), expanding its meaning in Latin to
include someone who steals words. More than children, someone else's. When it first entered
English in the form of piracy, it retains its original reference to trafficking, which is now
obsolete.3
Tescientometric study can be beneficial to understand the development of literature or
inclination within specific fields or geographical areas. The scientometric study is a quantitative
method for studying different aspects of the subjects. A quotation table is a tool for measuring
the quantity and quality of publications, whether printed or online. Several tools have been
provided to measure the quality and quantity of outputs4
. Scientometric analysis of the literature

3. is relevant to research in this field. The present study analyzes publication trends in Plagiarism
research, using scientific indicators.
Review of Literature:
Few quantitative studies have been accepted in the previous analyzing Liver Disorders
research. According to Alvi and Vinitha (2014), based on this study, the analyses have been done
hepatitis research on the period of 2004-2013, these data were collected 45991 records are
retrieved from the Pubmed database. In that published articles are 70% and continued by the
published journals are 98% followed by out of 45991 articles 88% joint author contributed in this
analysis and 11% articles are contributed by single author5
. Arora et al. (1996) examined the
research undertaken in Indian medical colleges and concluded that the high position of the 88
Indian medical colleges receiving research grants from ICMR did not produce any research
paper in 1991. This paper is only 10% of the projects funded to Indian medical colleges on the
publications in indexed journals6
. Bansal (2017) Studied to the author this paper analysis of
14317 world papers in celiac disease research. This study collects the data from was Scopus
database for the period 2005-2014. This data was facing an annual average growth rate of 5.20%
and citation impact of 12.53. The records were most productive countries 83.89% share in world
output, with the biggest share (21.40%) coming from the U.S.A, followed by Italy (12.61%), and
least one is neurosciences (2.26%), etc7
. Baskaran and Sivakasi (2014) consist of this swine flu
study attempts to analyze the performance of researchers working in the field of the terms of
relative growth rate, authorship pattern, scattering of articles in different sources and country-
wise distribution. This study duration was 2001 to 2012. A total of 50627 records were obtained
from the MEDLINE database. This study was the highest publication resources in the year 2010
& 2011. Collaborative authors’ productivity is more than a single contribution8
. Bayoumy et al.,
(2016) examine the author has the musculoskeletal disorders, which are the 10th and 6th highest
contributors of disability-adjusted life years (DALY) of all ages and ages 30–59 respectively9
.
Gupta (2012) analyzed the study is heredity blood disorder research output carried out during
2002-11. This data was collected; the SCOPUS Citation Database has been used to retrieve the
data for ten years (2002-11). Conclude this study is a need to create comprehensive care services,
with diagnosis and management of the heredity blood disorders in Indian context10
. Gupta, et al.,
(2014) according to his Analyses the Indian publication outputs in liver disorder research for the
duration of 2003-2012, in his view the contribution and citation impact of the most productive
countries is India from the overall contribution. Finally, he concludes with Keeping in view on
the severity of liver disorders in India; there is a need to increase the investment in Research and
Development to bring about improvements in supportive care and a need to set up a Hepatitis
Registry11
.
The objective of the study:
➢ To study the author's wise distribution of Plagiarismresearch output of the study from
2015-2019.
➢ To identify the country-wise distribution of Plagiarismresearch output.
➢ To find out the relative growth rate and doubling time of year-wise distribution
➢ To identify the journal- wise distribution of Plagiarism research.
➢ To find out the language-wise distribution of records.

4. Methodology:
This study has assumed with the purpose of finding out the Plagiarism research in
scientometrics. It is also focused on the past area Plagiarism research publications in
scientometrics based on the sample data. In this study, collect the data downloaded from the Web
of Science database. The study period is selected from 2015 to 2019. A total of 867records were
downloaded and analyzed by using the Web of Science database. Based on the string, 867
records tabulated by MS office Excel 2010 format using this study.
Data Analysis and interpretation:
Research output on PlagiarismResearch:
Table 1Year-wise distribution of Records
Publication Years Records % of 867
2019 215 24.80
2018 167 19.26
2017 165 19.03
2016 151 17.42
2015 169 19.49
Total 867 100.00
Table 1 shows that the year wise contribution of plagiarism in the scientometric analysis. The
highly productive year is 2019 with 215(24.80%) of papers published in the article. The second
position of 2018 with 167(19.26%) of papers published.The publication's years of others are as
follows.
Figure: 1
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 2 3 4 5
Publication Years
Records
% of 867

5. Table 2-Author wise distribution of Publications (Top 10)
Authors Records % of 867
Wiwanitkit V 16 1.85
Rosso P 11 1.27
Heideman KF 9 1.04
Joob B 9 1.04
Rauber RM 9 1.04
Schultz DM 9 1.04
Hu GW 7 0.81
Anonymous 6 0.69
Han ZY 5 0.58
Kong LL 5 0.58
Table 2 shows that the author wise distribution of records, the highly productive author is
Wiwanitkit V with 16(1.85%) papers were published. The second highly productive author is
Rosso P with 11(1.27%) papers were published. The third, fourth and fifth position authors were
9(1.04%) papers published. The publication's authors of others are as follows.
Table 3- Relative Growth Rate and Doubling Time of Year-Wise Distribution
Publication Years Records Cumulative W1 W2 RGR DT
2019 215 215 0 5.37 5.37 0.13
2018 167 382 5.37 5.12 -0.25 -2.74
2017 165 547 5.12 5.11 -0.01 -57.52
2016 151 698 5.11 5.02 -0.09 -7.82
2015 169 867 5.02 5.13 0.11 6.15
Total 867 1734 5.13 6.77 1.64 0.42
The relative growth rate and doubling time of articles were discussed in the table. The table
provides the value of the average RGR of publications, which decreased from 5.37 in 2019
to1.64 in 2015. At the same time, the value of doubling time (Dt) of publications increased from
0.13 (2019) to 0.42 (2015).
Table 4-Document wise distribution of Records
Document Types Records % of 867
Article 630 72.66
Editorial Material 110 12.69
Letter 45 5.19
Review 41 4.73
Early Access 21 2.42
Book Review 18 2.08
News Item 11 1.27

6. Proceedings Paper 9 1.04
Correction 6 0.69
Meeting Abstract 4 0.46
Retraction 2 0.23
Book Chapter 1 0.12
Table 3 shows that the document wise distribution of publications. Articles cover the most
preferred type is 630(72.66%) as Editorial Material, 110(12.69%) as Letter, Review and other
publications followed by other forms.
Table 5- Journal wise distribution of Publications (Top 10)
Source Titles Records % of 867
Science and Engineering Ethics 30 3.46
Accountability in Research Policies and Quality Assurance 24 2.77
Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education 18 2.08
Ethics Behavior 14 1.62
Journal of Second Language Writing 12 1.38
Studies in Higher Education 12 1.38
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 1.27
Journal of Korean Medical Science 10 1.15
Scientometrics 10 1.15
Plos One 9 1.04
Table 6 shows that the Journal wise distribution of publications in plagiarism research. The first
position of the journal isScience and Engineering Ethics records with 30(3.46%). The second
position of the journal is the Accountability in Research Policies and Quality Assurance records
with 24(2.77%). The records of other journals are as follows.
Table 6-Country-wise distribution of Plagiarism research output (Top 10)
Countries Records % of 867
USA 219 25.26
Peoples R China 91 10.50
England 83 9.57
Australia 52 6.00
Spain 49 5.65
India 35 4.04
Germany 34 3.92
Brazil 31 3.58
Canada 30 3.46
South Africa 21 2.42
The country-wise distribution of plagiarism research output is given in table 7. USA placed in
the topmost position with 219(25.26%) records and Peoples R China in the second position with

7. 91(10.50%). England is the third position with 83(9.57%), and other country publications are as
follows.
Table 7-Language wise distribution of documents
Languages Records % of 867
English 794 91.58
Spanish 24 2.77
Russian 10 1.15
French 8 0.92
Portuguese 8 0.92
German 7 0.81
Italian 7 0.81
Slovak 3 0.35
Afrikaans 1 0.12
Chinese 1 0.12
Table 8 shows that the language wise distributions of documents in plagiarism research in this
present study. The most productive language is English with 794(91.58%), and the last
productivity language is Chinese with 1(0.12%).
Table 8 - Top Ranked Institution (Top 10)
Institutions Records % of 867 Rank
University Politecn Valencia 11 1.27 1
Hainan Med University 10 1.15 2
Sanitat 1 Med Academic Centre 9 1.04 3
University Auckland 8 0.92 4
Monash University 7 0.81 5
NanyangTechnol University 7 0.81 5
University Manchester 7 0.81 5
University Washington 7 0.81 5
University Western Australia 7 0.81 5
Mcmaster University 6 0.69 6
In this table is institution-wide research productive. It is noted that University Politecn
Valenciaranks first position in order by contributing 11 publications. Hainan Med University
records the second rank with 10 publications. Sanitat 1 Med Academic Centre records the third
rank with 9 publications. The publications of other Institutions are as follows.
Conclusion:
The global level research over five years 2015 – 2019 was selected to find out the
scientometric study on Plagiarism research. For conduct, this above study, the data were
collected from web science. The tools applied for this research arescientometric tools and

8. techniques. After the collection of data and applying the scientometric tools and techniques, the
results were displayed in the form of tables for better understanding. A total of 867records were
collected from the Plagiarism researchdatabase in the study by searching with the document wise
distribution of publications. Articles cover the most preferred type is 630(72.66%) as Editorial
Material, 110(12.69%) as Letter, Review and other publications followed by other forms. Author
wise distribution of records, the highly productive author is Wiwanitkit V with 16(1.85%) papers
was published. The second highly productive author is Rosso P with 11(1.27%) papers was
published. The third, fourth and fifth position authors were 9(1.04%) papers published. The year-
wise contribution of plagiarism research in scientometric analysis. The highly productive year is
2019 with 215(24.80%) of papers published in the article. The second position of 2018 with
167(19.26%) of papers published. The publication's years of others are as follows. This research
Productivity plagiarism research is increasing.
Acknowledgment:
Reference:
1. Velmurugan, C., &Radhakrishnan, N. (2017). Application of Bradford’s Law on
Publication Analysis of Plagiarism: A Scientometric Profile. ABC Journal of Advanced
Research, 6(2), 129-140.
2. https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism?wssl=1
3. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
4. Saha, A. (2015). Scientometric analysis of Indian Citation Index (2009-2013): Profile of
the domain of library and information science. International Journal of Emerging
Research in Management &Technology, 4(7), 174-182.
5. Arora, M., Banerjee, J. K., Sahni, P., Pande, G. K., &Nundy. S. (1996) Which are the
best undergraduate medical colleges in India? Natl Med J India. 9, 135-40.
6. Alvi, K. S., &Vinitha, K. (2014). Hepatitis Research: A Scientometric Analysis of
Research Output During 2004-2013. Journal of Library Advancement, 4(1), 39-48.
7. Bansal, M., Gupta, R., &Bansal, J. (2016). Celiac Disease: A Scientometric Analysis of
World Publication Output, 2005-2014.
8. Baskaran, C., &Sivakami, N. (2014). Swine influenza research output: a bibliometric
analysis. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 51(1), 13-20.
9. Bayoumy, K., MacDonald, R., Dargham, S. R., &Arayssi, T. (2016).Bibliometric
analysis of rheumatology research in Arab countries. BMC research notes, 9(1), 393.
10. Gupta, B. M. (2012). Heredity Blood Disorders (HBD): A Scientometric Analysis of
Publications Output from India during 2002-2011. J Blood Disorder and Transfusion, 3,
126.
11. Gupta, B. M., Bala, A., KK, M. A., & Gupta, R. (2014). Liver disorders: A scientometric
study of publication outputs from India during 2003-2012. International Journal of
Medicine and Public Health, 4(1).
This article has been written with the financial support of RUSA – Phase 2.0
grant sanctioned vide Letter No. F.24-51 / 2014-U, Policy (TNMulti-Gen),
Dept.ofEdn. Govt. of India, Dt.09.10.2018
View publication stats