2014 CrossRef Workshops: Boot Camp: CrossCheck
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
1 gostou•768 visualizações
2014 CrossRef Workshops: Boot Camp: CrossCheck by Susan Collins.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a 2014 CrossRef Workshops: Boot Camp: CrossCheck
Semelhante a 2014 CrossRef Workshops: Boot Camp: CrossCheck (20)
Mais de Crossref
Mais de Crossref (20)
Último
Último (20)
2014 CrossRef Workshops: Boot Camp: CrossCheck
- 4. Photo: `R4cH3L on Flickr
- 5. ctrl c+ ctrl v+
- 6. 2006: CrossRef board raises plagiarism as area of concern Late 2007/ early 2008: pilot with seven publishers and technology partner iParadigms June 2008: CrossCheck launched
- 7. What is it? •Not plagiarism detection! •iThenticate text comparison software from iParadigms •Software that analyses and compares text •Database of content to check against
- 8. http://www.answers.com/plagiaris m plagiarism [play‐jă‐rizm], the theft of ideas... or of written passages or works, where these are passed off as one's own work without acknowledgement of their true origin... Plagiarism is not always easily separable from imitation, adaptation, or pastiche, but is usually distinguished by its dishonest intention.
- 11. Getting Started • Signed license agreement with iParadigms • Set-up content to be indexed and included in the CrossCheck database • iThenticate software crawls publisher website • Other iParadigms users can detect if someone is plagiarizing ‘your’ content, even if you haven’t started checking documents
- 12. 610 publishers Over 41 million content items indexed 118,000+ titles 170,000+ manuscripts checked each month
- 13. Documents uploaded to iThenticate by all CrossCheck Publishers
- 16. Triage Acceptance Yes No Manuscript Submission On Submission? Triage? Prior to acceptance?
- 18. Why join? Increase trust in your content by validating its originality Deter would-be plagiarists from submitting to your publications Deter would-be plagiarists from plagiarizing your publications Protect your reputation Promote the value of the publishing process
- 19. Why CrossCheck? Only service with a database of relevant scholarly publications to check against Discounted pricing as compared to using iThenticate directly CrossCheck community and CrossRef support
- 20. Cost Two part fee: CrossRef: Annual administrative fee - 20% of CrossRef annual membership fee iParadigms: Per-document checking fee ($0.75 - $0.25) http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck_fees.html
- 21. For more information… • http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html • scollins@crossref.org • Attend a CrossCheck webinar
- 22. Dealing with Plagiarism Office of Research Integrity http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/index.shtml Committee on Publication Ethics http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowchar ts Council of Science Editors http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial _policies/white_paper.cfm
Notas do Editor
- Welcome to the CrossRef Workshops & Intro. CrossRef publisher members have the opportunity to add additional services to their existing membership accounts; one of those services is our plagiarism screening tool, CrossCheck; will be giving a brief intro to that service this morning.
- But before I do that I’d like to give you a little bit of background on CrossRef - what CrossRef is, and why we are running an originality screening service for our members
- CrossRef was founded fourteen years ago to solve the problem of broken links. The web is all about links, but links break. This is annoying if you’re browsing the web and want to follow an interesting link, but in the context of scholarly publishing if you can’t follow a citation from one paper to another you’re being hampered in your research. CItation linking is one of the greatest benefits of online publishing, but it really does need to be reliable
- CrossRef was started a multi-publisher initiative to solve this problem of broken links. This is done using the DOI - the Digital Object Identifier, which I’m sure many of you are familiar with. A CrossRef DOI is simply a unique identifier for a piece of content. Once assigned, it doesn’t change. It is to all intents and purposes a meaningless number, but it allows that piece of content to be located on the web.
- A few numbers for you to give some idea of how CrossRef has grown in the fourteen years since its launch... Books are the fastest growing at the moment - most publishers have assigned DOIs to their journals and journal archives, but more and more are now starting to assign them to their books, and to register their book metadata with CrossRef. Publishers are also registering components - 274,000 so far.
- For a bit more background have a look at the CrossRef mission statement. We’re a not-for profit membership association here to support the scholarly communications industry. As you can see our mission is about more than just reference linking, even though linking is still the main thing that we do for publishers. And as such we have developed other services to meet the needs of our membership - originality screening being one of them.
- So lets look at how much of a problem plagiarism is in scholarly publishing. Plagiarism is certainly not a new problem in scholarly publishing but is it one that’s becoming worse? It has never been easier to search across large amounts of content in online publications and databases. And with more online content being produced than ever before it’s much more difficult for reviewers to have thoroughly read everything in their field.
- To address the issue of plagiarism for publisher members CrossRef developed CrossCheck at the start of 2008, in conjunction with technology partner iParadigms, and so it’s been running now for around 7 years.
- People often erroneously refer to CC as a plagiarism detection service, however, it is is not. CC is rather a plagiarism or originality screening service that uses the iThenticate text comparison software that was developed by iParadigms. CC publishers are able to check and compare their documents against database of full text articles.
- Looking at the definition of plagiarism, seen here from an online dictionary. I won’t read this one out to you, but the last sentence is where I would ask you to focus - plagiarism is usually distinguished from imitation by its dishonest intention.
- Software cannot detect plagiarism or intention. Software can look at written text and tell you where it matches other written text, but it cannot tell you why that text matches, and this is critical. It takes a human being with a certain amount of domain expertise to analyse the results in order to determine the intent of the author or authors.
- There are legitimate reasons why text might be the same in two documents. Here’s a bibliography section which will almost-certainly be repeated in numerous places. A mathematical proof might be repeated in order to be extended, and so on... a human can spot some of these examples very easily whereas a piece of softwareitself cannot.
- The CC service can assist publishers with the issue of duplication and plagiarism screening. Publishers must join CrossRef or be an existing CR publisher member to sign up for CC. The first step is for members sign a license agreement with iParadigms to use their system. The next step is for the publisher to enable their content to be crawled by iParadigms; CR will tell iParadigms precisely what to crawl by providing a list of DOIs which point only to the DOI-indentified content. iParadigms is immediately informed of new content when DOIs are added. Even you aren’t ready to start checking documents, once your content is listed in the DB, other users can scan their documents and compare them to your content and detect if someone is plagiarizing ‘your’ content.
- The progress of CrossCheck to date. Very comprehensive database - can see list of titles on our website.
- This graph shows how many documents have been run through iThenticate month on month.
- So let’s take a look at how CrossCheck actually works by starting with a simple overview. You have a manuscript or document that you want to check for originality. You submit it to the CrossCheck system, where it is broken down and analysed, then compared against a database of other scholarly publications. Wherever overlapping or similar passages of text are found, they are highlighted in a report for an editor to take a look at.
- Also copy and paste
- Three common places where a publisher might want to do plagiarism screening 1) On submission 2) At some defined point in the review and editorial process - - varies widely form publisher to publisher 3) Just prior to acceptance And we have CrossCheck members taking each of these approaches - trend moving towards screening on submission.
- The main manuscript tracking systems have all integrated or are in the process of integrating iThenticate so that you can submit manuscripts directly as part of your existing workflow... ...Important to note that none of these systems are dictating when in the process you do the check - they have all left it very open and up to the publisher or user to decide at which point the checking should be done.
- There are a number of reasons why a publisher would wish to use a plagiarism screening tool. List above.
- Why CrossCheck – list reasons. For a more detailed tour of the iThenticate document checking software that is central to CrossCheck, please join one of our upcoming demos. This hour long session will guide you through the iThenticate interface and is ideal if you are considering the service, or if you have already signed up and want to know more about the features available to you. Upcoming dates available on CR website.
- Volume discounts, full pricing lists are available on our website.
- Cr webpage, my email; webinar
- When you are fairly certain you’ve got a case of plagiarism on your hands, there are a number of places that offer advice on how to deal with it. The Office of Research integrity has advice on handling misconduct. The committee on publication ethics - COPE - has some very useful flowcharts addresing similar topics. And the CSE white paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publishing has a section on Responding to Research Misconduct.