CrossRef's Carol Anne Meyer provides an update on the CrossCheck Plagiarism Screening Service to the Editorial Manager User Group Meeting (EMUG) in Cambrige, MA, June 2010
6. 3080 41 million
PUBLISHERS AND SOCIETIES DOIS REGISTERED
Text
22,000 125,000
JOURNAL TITLES BOOKS
7. ● AB SVENSK PAPPERSTIDNING ● ACADEMY OF TRAUMATOLOGY ● ACTA DERMATO-VENEREOLOGICA ● ACTA PRESS ● AGRICULTURAL HISTORY SOCIETY ● AHRC RESEARCH CENTRE ● AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION ●
AIS EDUCATOR ASSOCIATION ● AKADEMIAI KIADO RT ● ALEXANDRINE PRESS ● ALLERTON PRESS ● ALPHAMED PRESS ● AMERICAN ACADEMY OF IMPLANT DENTISTRY ● AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS ● AMERICAN ACADEMY
OF PERIODONTOLOGY ● AMERICAN ACCOUNTING ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER RESEARCH ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CLINICAL CHEMISTRY ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
SCIENCE (AAAS) (the publisher of SCIENCE) ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS (AAPG/DATAPAGES) ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENTISTS ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION ON MENTAL
RETARDATION ● AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY MEDICINE ● AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY (ACS) ● AMERICAN CLEFT PALATE ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CHEST PHYSICIANS ● AMERICAN COLLEGE OF MEDICAL PHYSICS
(ACMP) ● AMERICAN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE ● AMERICAN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY PATHOLOGISTS ● AMERICAN DAIRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN DENTAL SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGY ●
AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY ● AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION (AGU) ● AMERICAN INSTITUTE
OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS (AIAA) ● AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS (AIP) ● AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY ● AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE ● AMERICAN MARKETING ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN
MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY (AMS) ● AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY ● AMERICAN PEANUT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY ● AMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN
PHYSICAL SOCIETY (APS) ● AMERICAN PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSOCIATION (APTA) ● AMERICAN PHYSIOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING ● AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (APA) ● AMERICAN PUBLIC
HEALTH ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN ROENTGEN RAY SOCIETY ● AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS ● AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHERS ● AMERICAN SCIENTIST ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BIOCHEMISTRY &
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY (ASBMB) ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL BIOLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CLINICAL INVESTIGATION (ASCI) ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CLINICAL
PATHOLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR EXPERIMENTAL NEUROTHERAPEUTICS ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INVESTIGATIVE PATHOLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOLOGY AND
EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANDROLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL SCIENCE ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
CLINICAL ONCOLOGY (ASCO) ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEALTH SYSTEM PHARMACISTS ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEMATOLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY ● AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT BIOLOGISTS (ASPB) ●
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT TAXONOMISTS ● AMERICAN SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION ● AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY ● AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ●
AMMONS SCIENTIFIC ● THE ANGLE ORTHODONTIST ● ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE ● ANNUAL REVIEWS ● ARNOLD PUBLISHERS ● ASM INTERNATIONAL ● ASME INTERNATIONAL ● ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS ●
ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING MACHINERY (ACM) ● ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN VISION AND OPHTHALMOLOGY (ARVO) ● ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION ● ASSOCIATION FOR VASCULAR
ACCESS ● ASSOCIATION OF LEARNED AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY PUBLISHERS (ALPSP) ● ASTM INTERNATIONAL ● ATLANTIS PRESS ● AUSTRALIAN ACADEMIC PRESS ● AUSTRALIAN COMPUTER SOCIETY ● BAYWOOD PUBLISHING
COMPANY INC. ● BC DECKER INC. ● BEECH TREE PUBLISHING ● BEGELL HOUSE ● BELLWETHER PUBLISHING ● BENTHAM SCIENCE ● BERGHAHN BOOKS ● BERKELEY ELECTRONIC PRESS ● BIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES ONLINE ●
BIOMED CENTRAL LTD. ● BIOONE ● BIOPHYSICAL SOCIETY ● BIOSCIENTIFICA ● BLACKHORSE PUBLISHING ● BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP ● BRILL ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS ● BRITISH EDITORIAL SOCIETY OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY ●
BRITISH INSTITUTE OF NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING ● BRITISH INSTITUTE OF RADIOLOGY ● BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS ● CABI PUBLISHING ● CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN
SCIENCE ● CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS (CUP) ● CANADIAN ACADEMIC ACCOUNTING ASSOCIATION ● CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS ● CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ● CANADIAN
METEOROLOGICAL AND OCEANOGRAPHIC SOCIETY ● CANADIAN OPTHALMOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● CARDEN JENNINGS PUBLISHING CO. ● CARL HANSER VERLAG ● CARTOGRAPHY AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SOCIETY ● CELL
STRESS SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL ● CENTER FOR PSYCHIATRIC REHABILITATION ● CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION ● CENTRAALBUREAU VOOR SCHIMMELCULTURES ● CENTRE FOR BIOSCIENCE, UNIVERSITY
OF LEEDS ● CFA INSTITUTE ● CLAY MINERALS SOCIETY ● COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY PRESS (CSHL) ● COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION ● COMMON GROUND ● COMMONWEALTH FORESTRY ASSOCIATION ● THE COMPANY OF
BIOLOGISTS ● COMPARATIVE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH CENTER ● COMPETENCE NETWORK PEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY & HEMATOLOGY ● CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL ● CORNELL LABORATORY OF ORNITHOLOGY ● CROP SCIENCE
SOCIETY OF AMERICA ● CSIRO PUBLISHING ● CURRENT BIODATA ● CZECH GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● CZECH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ● DAAAM INTERNATIONAL ● DARTMOUTH COLLEGE LIBRARY ● DATA TRACE PUBLISHING COMPANY ●
DEPARTMENT OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING, UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA ● DEPARTMENT OF POLYMER ENGINEERING, SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, (BME) ● DIETITIANS OF CANADA ● DOVE MEDICAL PRESS ● DOWN
SYNDROME EDUCATIONAL TRUST ● DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS ● E-MED LTD. ● ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA ● ECOMED PUBLISHERS ● EDICIONES DOYMA ● EDP SCIENCES ● THE ELECTROMAGNETICS ACADEMY ●
ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY ● ELSEVIER ● EMERALD (formerly MCB UP) ● EMW PUBLISHING ● THE ENDOCRINE SOCIETY ● ENGLISH LITERATURE IN TRANSITION ● ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES ● EPI
SCP (EL PROFESIONAL DE LA INFORMACION) ● EPP PUBLICATIONS LTD. ● EQUINE VETERINARY JOURNAL LTD. ● EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD. ● ERDKUNDE ● ESTONIAN ACADEMY PUBLISHERS ● EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF AQUATIC
MAMMALS ● EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF CARDIOTHORACIC SURGERY ● EUROPEAN OPTICAL SOCIETY ● EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOCIETY ● FACULTY OF FAMILY PLANNING AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE ● FDI WORLD
DENTAL PRESS LTD. ● FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY (FASEB) ● THE FEINSTEIN INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH ● FIBRE DIFFRACTION REVIEW ● FISHERIES SCIENCES.COM ● FORUM
FOR GLOBAL HEALTH PROTECTION ● FRAUNHOFER-INSTITUT FUR MATERIALFLUSS UND LOGISTIK ● FRONTIERS IN BIOSCIENCE ● FUNDACION INFANCIA Y APRENDIZAJE ● FUTURE DRUGS ● FUTURE MEDICINE LTD ● GAZI
UNIVERSITY - TECHNICAL EDUCATION FACULTY ● THE GENETICS SOCIETY OF AMERICA ● GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA (GSA) ● GEOPHYSICAL CENTER OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ● GEOSCIENCEWORLD ●
GUILFORD PUBLICATIONS ● GUNTHER EYSENBACH, JMIR PUBLICATIONS ● GWV FACHVERLAGE GmbH/VIEWEG PUBLISHING ● THE ALAN GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE ● HARVEY WHITNEY BOOKS CO. ● THE HAWORTH PRESS, INC. ●
HEALTH AFFAIRS (PROJECT HOPE) ● HELDREF PUBLICATIONS ● THE HIGHER EDUCATION ELECTRONIC & AUDIO-VIDEO PRESS ● HINDAWI PUBLISHING CORPORATION ● THE HISTOCHEMICAL SOCIETY ● THE HISTORIC BRASS
SOCIETY ● HOGREFE & HUBER PUBLISHING GROUP ● HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY ● HUMANA PRESS ● IFIS PUBLISHING ● ILLUMINATING ENGINEERING SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA (IESNA) ● IM PUBLICATIONS ●
IMPROBABLE RESEARCH INC. ● INDERSCIENCE ENTERPRISES ● INDIANA UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR GENOMICS AND BIOINFORMATICS ● INDIANA UNIVERSITY MATHEMATICS JOURNAL ● INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS ● INFORMA UK
LIMITED ● INSTITUTE FOR OPERATIONS RESEARCH AND THE MANAGEMENT SCIENCES (INFORMS) ● INSTITUTION OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS ● INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IET) ● THE INSTITUTE OF
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS (IEEE) ● INSTITUTE OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY AND BIOCHEMISTRY, ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC ● INSTITUTE OF PHYSICAL OPTICS ● INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS (IOP) ●
INSTITUTE OF PURE AND APPLIED PHYSICS (IPAP) ● INSTITUTE OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES ● INTEGRATED OCEAN DRILLING PROGRAM- MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL ● INTEL CORPORATION ● INTELLECT ● INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION FOR BRIDGE AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING (IABSE) ● INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES ● INTERNATIONAL BONE AND MINERAL SOCIETY ● INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AUTOMATIC
CONTROL ● INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE ● INTERNATIONAL GLACIOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● INTERNATIONAL HORMESIS SOCIETY ● INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOANALYSIS, LONDON ● INTERNATIONAL
LIFE SCIENCES INSTITUTE ● INTERNATIONAL PHYCOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIATION ● INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ENDOVASCULAR SPECIALISTS ● INTERNATIONAL UNION OF CRYSTALLOGRAPHY (IUCr)
● INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY (IUPAC) ● IWA PUBLISHING ● JAPAN LASER PROCESSING SOCIETY ● JAPAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AGENCY (JST) ● JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY ●
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS (Project Muse) ● JOHNSON GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, CORNELL UNIVERSITY ● JOHNSON MATTHEY ● JORNAL DE PEDIATRIA ● JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY ● JOURNAL OF
NEUROSURGERY PUBLISHING GROUP (JNSPG) ● JOURNAL OF MARINE RESEARCH/YALE UNIVERSITY ● JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC & SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY ● JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
(JRRD) ● JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY SCIENCE ● JSTOR ● S. KARGER AG ● LAMAZE INTERNATIONAL ● LANDSCAPE ONLINE ● LASER PAGES PUBLISHING LTD. ● LAVOISIER ● LIBRAPHARM ● LOGICAL METHODS IN COMPUTER
SCIENCE ● LOGOS INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING EDUCATION FOUNDATION ● M.E. SHARPE INC. ● MANEY PUBLISHING ● MARS INFORMATICS ● MARSHFIELD CLINIC ● MARY ANN LIEBERT ● MATERIALS RESEARCH SOCIETY ●
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCE PUBLISHERS ● MBLWHOI LIBRARY "WOODS HOLE OPEN ACCESS SERVER" ● MCFARLAND & COMPANY INC., PUBLISHERS ● MCON INC. ● MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION ● MEN'S STUDIES PRESS LLC ●
MILBANK MEMORIAL FUND ● THE MINERALOGICAL SOCIETY ● MIT PRESS ● MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ● MOHR SIEBECK e.k. ● MONASH UNIVERSITY EPRESS ● MORGAN & CLAYPOOL PUBLISHERS LLC ● MTT
AGRIFOOD RESEARCH FINLAND ● MULTILINGUAL MATTERS LTD ● MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO LTD. ● NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BUSINESS ECONOMICS ● NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL NURSES ● NATIONAL INQUIRY
SERVICES CENTRE/AFRICAN JOURNALS ONLINE (NISC/AJOL) ● NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE (NIDA) ● NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATICS ● NATIONAL LIBRARY OF SERBIA ● NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA
(NRCC) ● NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION ● NATIONAL STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION ● NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP ● NEPAL JOURNALS ONLINE ● NEOPLASIA PRESS ● NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF
MEDICINE ● NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ● NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES ORGANIZATION ● NOW PUBLISHERS INC. ● NUCLEAR RECEPTOR SIGNALING ATLAS ● OCEANSIDE PUBLICATIONS INC. ● OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC
AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION ● OLDENBOURG WISSENSCHAFTSVERLAG GMBH ● ONCOLOGY NURSING SOCIETY ● OPERATIVE DENTISTRY ● OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA ● OSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN,
VERLAG ● OXFORD INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS ● OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS (OUP) ● PACIFIC NORTHWEST FUNGI PROJECT ● PATRICIA SEYBOLD GROUP ● PEETERS PUBLISHERS ● PHARMACEUTICAL PRESS ●
PHARMACOTHERAPY PUBLICATIONS, INC. ● PHORTE EDITORA ● PIERS ENTERPRISE ● PION, LTD ● PLEIADES PUBLISHING ● THE POLICY PRESS, UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL ● PORTLAND PRESS ● PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (PNAS) ● PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING PUBLISHING ● PROJECT EUCLID ● PROTEIN DATA BANK, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY ● PROUS SCIENCE ● THE PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE ● QUESTIONS PUBLISHING ●
RADIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA ● RADIOLOGY CASE REPORTS ● RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF THE CFA INSTITUTE ● RESEARCH INFORMATION LTD. ● RILEM PUBLICATIONS SARL ● THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY
PRESS ● ROYAL COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNAECOLOGISTS ● ROYAL COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS ● THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND ● THE ROYAL SOCIETY ● THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CHEMISTRY (RSC)
● THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE ● RURAL SOCIOLOGICAL SOCIETY ● SAGE PUBLICATIONS ● SCHATTAUER GMBH ● SCHWEIZERBART ● SCIDEA LTD. ● SCIELO/PAHO/WHO ● SCIENCE IN CHINA PRESS ● SCIENCE REVIEWS 2000
LTD. ● SCIENCE SOCIETY OF THAILAND ● SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL PUBLISHERS LTD ● SEISMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA ● SHERBORNE GIBBS LTD ● SOCIAL SCIENCE ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, INC ● SOCIEDADE PORTUGUESA DE
VIDA SELVAGEM ● SOCIETE DE PATHOLOGIE EXOTIQUE ● SOCIETY FOR APPLIED SPECTROSCOPY ● SOCIETY FOR BIOMEDICAL DIABETES RESEARCH ● SOCIETY FOR ENDOCRINOLOGY ● SOCIETY FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS
OF BEHAVIOR ● SOCIETY FOR GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY ● SOCIETY FOR IMAGING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ● SOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS ● SOCIETY FOR LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY ● SOCIETY FOR
NEUROSCIENCE ● SOCIETY FOR PEDIATRIC PATHOLOGY ● THE SOCIETY FOR SEDIMENTARY GEOLOGY ● SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF REPRODUCTION ● THE SOCIETY OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY ●
SOCIETY OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE ● SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS ● SOCIETY OF RHEOLOGY ● SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION SOCIETY ● SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA ● SPIE - THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR
OPTICAL ENGINEERING ● SPRINGER PUBLISHING COMPANY ● SPRINGER SCIENCE + BUSINESS MEDIA (Kluwer Academic Publishers) ● STEWART POSTHARVEST SOLUTIONS ● SWISS CHEMICAL SOCIETY ● SWISS FORESTRY SOCIETY ●
SYMPOSIUM JOURNALS ● TASH ● TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ● THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE NETWORK ● THIEME PUBLISHING GROUP ● THOMAS LAND PUBLISHERS ● THOMAS TELFORD LTD. ● TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH BOARD ● TURPION ● UBC PRESS ● UITGEVERIJ BOOM ● UNITED KINGDOM SERIALS GROUP (UKSG) ● UNIVERSITE DU QUEBEC A CHICOUTIMI ● UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA ● UNIVERSITY OF BATH ● UNIVERSITY OF CADIZ
LIBRARY ● UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS ● THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS ● UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS INC. ● UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY AND PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES ● UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB -
UNIVERSITY COMPUTING CENTRE ● US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) ● USDA FOREST SERVICE ● VATHEK PUBLISHING ● VERSITA ● VIETICA INC. ● VIETNAM JOURNALS ONLINE ● VITTORIO KLOSTERMANN GMBH ● WALTER DE
GRUYTER GMBH & CO. KG ● WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION ● WESTBURN PUBLISHERS LTD ● WILDERNESS MEDICAL SOCIETY ● WHO PRESS ● JOHN WILEY & SONS ● WHITE HORSE PRESS ● WITPRESS LTD. ● WOLTERS
KLUWER HEALTH ● WOODHEAD PUBLISHING LTD. ● WORLD ADVERTISING RESEARCH CENTER ● THE WORLD BANK ● THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN) ● WORLD SCIENTIFIC ●
8. To enable easy identi cation and use of
trustworthy electronic content
by promoting the
cooperative development
and application of a sustainable
infrastructure.
9. To enable easy identi cation and use of
trustworthy electronic content
by promoting the
cooperative development
and application of a sustainable
infrastructure.
10. To enable easy identi cation and use of
trustworthy electronic content
by promoting the
cooperative development
and application of a sustainable
infrastructure.
14. 9120 212
ARTICLES WITH "HIGH LEVELS OF PAIRS OF ARTICLES "WITH SIGNS OF
CITATION SIMILARITY POTENTIAL PLAGIARISM"
NO OVERLAPPING AUTHORS
Text
83 46
INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS RETRACTIONS
15. Between 1 & 2% used another’s ideas without
getting permission or giving credit.
27. plagiarism [play‐jă‐rizm] the theft of ideas (such
as the plots of narrative or dramatic works) or of
written passages or works, where these are passed
off as one's own work without acknowledgement
of their true origin; or a piece of writing thus stolen.
Plagiarism is not always easily separable from
imitation, adaptation, or pastiche, but is usually
distinguished by its dishonest intention.
http://www.answers.com/plagiarism
28. plagiarism [play‐jă‐rizm] the theft of ideas (such
as the plots of narrative or dramatic works) or of
written passages or works, where these are passed
off as one's own work without acknowledgement
of their true origin; or a piece of writing thus stolen.
Plagiarism is not always easily separable from
imitation, adaptation, or pastiche, but is usually
distinguished by its dishonest intention.
http://www.answers.com/plagiarism
43. ACTA Press ● American Academy of Pediatrics ● American Association for the Advancement of Science ● American Association on
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities ● American Diabetes Association ● American Geophysical Union ● American Institute
of Physics ● American Physical Society ● American Psychological Association ● American Roentgen Ray Society ● American
Statistical Association ● American Society for Microbiology ● American Society for Nutrition ● American Society of Neuroradiology
● American Society of Plant Biologists ● American Thoracic Society ● Ammons Scienti c ● Annual Reviews ● Association for
Computing Machinery ● Australian Academic Press ● BioMed Central ● BioScienti ca ● BMJ Publishing Group ● British Institute of
Non-Destructive Testing ● Cambridge University Press ● Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine ● Commonwealth Forestry
Association ● Croatian Medical Journal ● CSIRO ● Digital Science Press (Urotoday International Journal) ● EDP Sciences ● Elsevier ●
Environmental Health Perspectives ● European Respiratory Society Journals ● Expert Reviews Ltd ● Fundacion Infancia &
Aprendizaje ● Future Medicine Ltd ● Future Science Ltd ● Geological Society of America ● Hindawi Publishing Corporation ● IM
Publications ● IMAPS ● Inderscience ● INFORMS ● Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers ● International Union of
Crystallography ● IOP Publishing ● IWA Publishing ● Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery ● Journal of Histochemistry ● Journal of
Neurosurgery Publishing Group ● Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development ● Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE ●
King Abdulaziz University Scienti c Publishing Centre ● Korean Institute of Science and Technology Information ● Mary Ann
Liebert ● Nature Publishing Group ● New England Journal of Medicine ● Oncology Nursing Society ● Optical Society of America ●
Oxford University Press ● Palgrave Macmillan ● Poultry Science Association ● Professional Engineering Publishing ● RMIT
Publishing ● Rockefeller University Press ● Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh ● Royal Irish Academy ● Sage Publications ●
ScienceAsia Mahidol University ● Society for Endocrinology ● Society for General Microbiology ● Society for Industrial & Applied
Mathematics ● Society of Exploration Geophysicists ● Springer Science + Business Media ● Taylor & Francis (Informa) ● The Royal
Society ● TUBITAK ● Versita (CESJ) ● Vilnius Gediminas Technical University ● Wiley-Blackwell ● Wolters Kluwer Health
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53. So, you may ask yourself:
“How do I work this?”
Talking Heads
54. Manuscript
Triage Acceptance
Submission
Yes
No
55. Manuscript
Triage Acceptance
Submission
Yes
No
Prior to acceptance?
Author? On Submission? Triage?
84. How do I sign up?
• Contact Kirsty Meddings:
kmeddings@crossref.org
85. How do I sign up?
• Contact Kirsty Meddings:
kmeddings@crossref.org
• Sign iThenticate agreement
86. How do I sign up?
• Contact Kirsty Meddings:
kmeddings@crossref.org
• Sign iThenticate agreement
• Provide data to allow crawling
87. How do I sign up?
• Contact Kirsty Meddings:
kmeddings@crossref.org
• Sign iThenticate agreement
• Provide data to allow crawling
• Receive username/password to CrossCheck
system
89. 83 45,000
PUBLISHERS DOCUMENTS CHECKED
Text
48,000 25.4 million
TITLES CONTENT ITEMS
90. 0
2000
4000
6000
M
ay 8000
-0
9
Ju
n-
09
Ju
l-0
9
Au
g-
09
Se
p-
09
O
ct
-0
9
N
ov
-0
9
D
ec
-0
9
Ja
n-
10
Documents Checked
Fe
b-
10
M
ar
-1
0
Ap
r-
1 0
93. CrossCheck Survey
October 2009
At what point in the editorial process are you
checking manuscripts?
Pre-submission (author checking)
On submission
Prior to acceptance
Not checking yet
Other
0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0
95. CrossCheck Survey
October 2009
For your particular publication(s), what percentage of manuscripts
are you checking or planning to check?
All submitted manuscripts
A percentage of manuscripts
Only those that arouse suspicion
Only those that are accepted
Other
0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0
97. CrossCheck Survey
October 2009
Have you detected any plagiarised content using CrossCheck?
Yes
No
Not Sure
No response
0 3.667 7.333 11.000
98. Publisher Pilots
At what stage of the editorial process are you using CrossCheck?
On submission
Publisher A
By reviewers
Acceptance Publisher B
Post-acceptance
Only if suspicious
More than one of these
0 3 6 9 12 15
On submission
After acceptance
Other
0 5 10 15 20
104. Positive Feedback
“This is an invaluable tool and much
appreciated by our Editors.”
“By far the most effective and nancially
feasible software that I have found.”
105. Positive Feedback
“This is an invaluable tool and much
appreciated by our Editors.”
“By far the most effective and nancially
feasible software that I have found.”
“CrossCheck is a valuable tool... Previously I would use Google
Scholar, then need to access the journal article to con rm
suspicions of plagiarism, which was very time consuming.”
106. Issues
Title: Example Article Number One
Authors: S. Smith
8,274 words - 163 matches - 38 sources
107. “In the long run it has saved
enormous amounts of time.”
118. Why CrossCheck?
• Only service with database of relevant
publications to check against
119. Why CrossCheck?
• Only service with database of relevant
publications to check against
• Discounted pricing as compared to using
iThenticate directly
120. Why CrossCheck?
• Only service with database of relevant
publications to check against
• Discounted pricing as compared to using
iThenticate directly
• CrossCheck community and CrossRef
support
121. Community
• Member listserv
• E-mail updates
• Webinars
Photo: Marc_Smith, flickr
• Web demos
122. Photo: dwhartwig from flickr
www.crossref.org/crosscheck.html
cmeyer@crossref.org
@meyercarol
123. Acknowledgements
• Geoff Bilder
Kirsty Meddings, CrossRef
• Ian Bannerman
Taylor & Francis
• Flickr
• iStockPhoto
• Ithenticate
• Aries
I’m going to talk about plagiarism and the more practical aspects of plagiarism detection, and specifically the CrossCheck initiative that aims to help publishers and editors tackle this type of misconduct. Over the next 15 minutes or so I’ll give a little background on the project but also an update on how publishers are using CrossCheck and what they are finding.
We’re the DOI people. Our main business is making reference links from your journal articles (or books or other content types) work to an access point for the full text of the reference.
Ian
Reputation: Photos--integrity street sign
Trust granite
Trust stones
Author: woman thinking, shakespeare charactature (jeremkin), judge in a wig, home worker, thinking, love books.
publication:
Damage to reputation, career
Time and money defending against authors and publishers who believe they have been plagiarized
Staff costs following paper trails
Add cover of a proceedings paper and journal
Working paper and final paper in economics or social sciences.
Add cover of a proceedings paper and journal
Working paper and final paper in economics or social sciences.
Add cover of a proceedings paper and journal
Working paper and final paper in economics or social sciences.
Add cover of a proceedings paper and journal
Working paper and final paper in economics or social sciences.
Add cover of a proceedings paper and journal
Working paper and final paper in economics or social sciences.
Add cover of a proceedings paper and journal
Working paper and final paper in economics or social sciences.
So CrossCheck is two years old this month - it was launched in June 2008. I know that quite a few of you here are already CrossCheck participants and will be familiar with how the system works, but for those who aren’t I’ll give a brief explanation. There are two parts to CrossCheck. One is a piece of software called iThenticate which does sophisticated text analysis to identify passages of text that are similar to other passages of text. The other piece is the database of content against which text is checked.
Every publisher that joins CrossCheck agrees to add the full text of their electronic publications to the database, making this the only service that lets you screen manuscripts against such a large repository of relevant material.
I’ll talk about the latter of these two first, as the database that you screen content against is extremely important and one of the distinguishing features of CrossCheck. You can put text into a search engine and compare it against whatever that engine can find out there on the web, but if you’re screening a research manuscript that probably isn’t going to be especially helpful.
To effectively screen research material you need to compare it with other research material, and most of that is in publications that are on many different publisher platforms and often behind access control. So even if you find a match using Google Scholar you will still need to go to the publisher’s website to see the abstract, which may or may not contain the matching text. If it doesn’t, you need to get access to the full text, which may or may not involve paying, and so on and so forth.
CrossCheck changes this, by giving you access to a large and growing database of scholarly publications to screen manuscripts against.
And just very briefly, this is how it works. You submit your manuscript to the iThenticate system, and it is by default checked against three databases. It is checked against web content - iThenticate indexes web pages in much the same way as a search engine, but with the added advantage that they keep an archive of web pages going back eight years.
The manuscript is checked against the CrossCheck database, which contains the content from all of the participating publishers.
And it’s also checked against a growing repository of online and offline content that iThenticate is gathering and indexing, including databases from Gale and Ebsco, and sites such as PubMed and Arxiv.org.
Matches retrieved by comparison with these databases are pulled into a report for an editor to examine in more detail, and the process usually takes two to three minutes for an average sized journal article.
And just very briefly, this is how it works. You submit your manuscript to the iThenticate system, and it is by default checked against three databases. It is checked against web content - iThenticate indexes web pages in much the same way as a search engine, but with the added advantage that they keep an archive of web pages going back eight years.
The manuscript is checked against the CrossCheck database, which contains the content from all of the participating publishers.
And it’s also checked against a growing repository of online and offline content that iThenticate is gathering and indexing, including databases from Gale and Ebsco, and sites such as PubMed and Arxiv.org.
Matches retrieved by comparison with these databases are pulled into a report for an editor to examine in more detail, and the process usually takes two to three minutes for an average sized journal article.
And just very briefly, this is how it works. You submit your manuscript to the iThenticate system, and it is by default checked against three databases. It is checked against web content - iThenticate indexes web pages in much the same way as a search engine, but with the added advantage that they keep an archive of web pages going back eight years.
The manuscript is checked against the CrossCheck database, which contains the content from all of the participating publishers.
And it’s also checked against a growing repository of online and offline content that iThenticate is gathering and indexing, including databases from Gale and Ebsco, and sites such as PubMed and Arxiv.org.
Matches retrieved by comparison with these databases are pulled into a report for an editor to examine in more detail, and the process usually takes two to three minutes for an average sized journal article.
And just very briefly, this is how it works. You submit your manuscript to the iThenticate system, and it is by default checked against three databases. It is checked against web content - iThenticate indexes web pages in much the same way as a search engine, but with the added advantage that they keep an archive of web pages going back eight years.
The manuscript is checked against the CrossCheck database, which contains the content from all of the participating publishers.
And it’s also checked against a growing repository of online and offline content that iThenticate is gathering and indexing, including databases from Gale and Ebsco, and sites such as PubMed and Arxiv.org.
Matches retrieved by comparison with these databases are pulled into a report for an editor to examine in more detail, and the process usually takes two to three minutes for an average sized journal article.
And just very briefly, this is how it works. You submit your manuscript to the iThenticate system, and it is by default checked against three databases. It is checked against web content - iThenticate indexes web pages in much the same way as a search engine, but with the added advantage that they keep an archive of web pages going back eight years.
The manuscript is checked against the CrossCheck database, which contains the content from all of the participating publishers.
And it’s also checked against a growing repository of online and offline content that iThenticate is gathering and indexing, including databases from Gale and Ebsco, and sites such as PubMed and Arxiv.org.
Matches retrieved by comparison with these databases are pulled into a report for an editor to examine in more detail, and the process usually takes two to three minutes for an average sized journal article.
And just very briefly, this is how it works. You submit your manuscript to the iThenticate system, and it is by default checked against three databases. It is checked against web content - iThenticate indexes web pages in much the same way as a search engine, but with the added advantage that they keep an archive of web pages going back eight years.
The manuscript is checked against the CrossCheck database, which contains the content from all of the participating publishers.
And it’s also checked against a growing repository of online and offline content that iThenticate is gathering and indexing, including databases from Gale and Ebsco, and sites such as PubMed and Arxiv.org.
Matches retrieved by comparison with these databases are pulled into a report for an editor to examine in more detail, and the process usually takes two to three minutes for an average sized journal article.
DON’T CLICK
You can screen a manuscript at any point in the editorial process - it doesn’t have to be done immediately on submission, for example, although many publishers are opting to do this. It might be that you prefer to check just prior to acceptance, or it could be that you use the system to back up or refute suspicions that are raised by reviewers. We have publishers taking all of these approaches as I’ll explain in a moment. We also have one or two publishers who are having their authors do the check ahead of submitting their manuscripts, although this approach is the least common.
DON’T CLICK
You can screen a manuscript at any point in the editorial process - it doesn’t have to be done immediately on submission, for example, although many publishers are opting to do this. It might be that you prefer to check just prior to acceptance, or it could be that you use the system to back up or refute suspicions that are raised by reviewers. We have publishers taking all of these approaches as I’ll explain in a moment. We also have one or two publishers who are having their authors do the check ahead of submitting their manuscripts, although this approach is the least common.
DON’T CLICK
You can screen a manuscript at any point in the editorial process - it doesn’t have to be done immediately on submission, for example, although many publishers are opting to do this. It might be that you prefer to check just prior to acceptance, or it could be that you use the system to back up or refute suspicions that are raised by reviewers. We have publishers taking all of these approaches as I’ll explain in a moment. We also have one or two publishers who are having their authors do the check ahead of submitting their manuscripts, although this approach is the least common.
DON’T CLICK
You can screen a manuscript at any point in the editorial process - it doesn’t have to be done immediately on submission, for example, although many publishers are opting to do this. It might be that you prefer to check just prior to acceptance, or it could be that you use the system to back up or refute suspicions that are raised by reviewers. We have publishers taking all of these approaches as I’ll explain in a moment. We also have one or two publishers who are having their authors do the check ahead of submitting their manuscripts, although this approach is the least common.
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.
TO CONFIGURE:
Ensure you have a valid CrossCheck account with CrossRef.
Contact your Aries Account Coordinator to enable CrossCheck Integration for your publication.
Enable the ability to initiate a CrossCheck session for selected Editor and Publisher Roles through the new 'Initiate CrossCheck' RoleManager permission.
This is the screen that you see when you’ve uploaded one or more manuscripts to iThenticate. You can see the article titles on the left, author and date processed on the right. The Report column with the square buttons beneath tells you what percentage of text within the manuscript has been found to match text in other documents. The percentages are usually made up of a number of smaller matches, and the different coloured buttons indicate which manuscripts have got matches above or below the threshold that I’ve set for my account - this can of course be varied for each user.
If you see a high percentage match that you want to look at more closely you click on the button
And you get to this, which is the first of four different report manipulations available - this one is called the Similarity Report: Manuscript on left, matches on right from highest to lowest. You may not be able to see on this screen shot but for every match you are given a link on the right hand side to a web page or an article, depending on where the match has been found. Scroll up and down to compare, and you can exclude a match if it’s not relevant. If one of the matches does look suspicious and you want to look at it more closely, you click on the passage of text in the left hand window...
...and you can see the two matching pieces of content side by side. On the left is the manuscript I uploaded, and on the right is the matching article. Importantly you can see the entire article or piece of content on the right, rather than just the matching passage and snippets surrounding it. We feel that it’s important with the kind of specialist content that our members publish that editors are able to see more than that in order to establish context. You can scroll up and down in both screens and start to get a pretty good idea of whether the overlap is legitimate or otherwise.
You might have spotted in the previous examples that the technology isn’t just looking for word for word matches. The way that it breaks the text down allows it to spot passages of text with word substitutions, so it is looking for similar as well as identical text. In this example you can see that some of the words have been very subtly substituted or moved but iThenticate still picks them up.
Methodology section.
The last step of this process - having an editor look at the report - is critical. iThenticate is an extremely helpful tool, but it is only a tool and in and of itself it can’t detect plagiarism. The technology is excellent at spotting overlapping or similar text, but it’s not always the case that matching text equals plagiarised content. There are legitimate reasons why the same text might appear in two pieces of content - reasons that may be very obvious to a human being but too subtle for a computer. So the use of tools such as iThenticate must always be combined with the domain expertise of an editor who can interpret the results and make a call on the authors intent.
The progress of CrossCheck to date. 82 publishers of all sizes and covering all disciplines - not restricted to STM in any way. Most of the large publishers are on board.
48000 titles - journals, books and conference proceedings.
Very comprehensive database - can download a list of titles that are in the database from our website, where you can also see the list of participating publishers.
The progress of CrossCheck to date. 82 publishers of all sizes and covering all disciplines - not restricted to STM in any way. Most of the large publishers are on board.
48000 titles - journals, books and conference proceedings.
Very comprehensive database - can download a list of titles that are in the database from our website, where you can also see the list of participating publishers.
The progress of CrossCheck to date. 82 publishers of all sizes and covering all disciplines - not restricted to STM in any way. Most of the large publishers are on board.
48000 titles - journals, books and conference proceedings.
Very comprehensive database - can download a list of titles that are in the database from our website, where you can also see the list of participating publishers.
The progress of CrossCheck to date. 82 publishers of all sizes and covering all disciplines - not restricted to STM in any way. Most of the large publishers are on board.
48000 titles - journals, books and conference proceedings.
Very comprehensive database - can download a list of titles that are in the database from our website, where you can also see the list of participating publishers.
The progress of CrossCheck to date. 82 publishers of all sizes and covering all disciplines - not restricted to STM in any way. Most of the large publishers are on board.
48000 titles - journals, books and conference proceedings.
Very comprehensive database - can download a list of titles that are in the database from our website, where you can also see the list of participating publishers.
The progress of CrossCheck to date. 82 publishers of all sizes and covering all disciplines - not restricted to STM in any way. Most of the large publishers are on board.
48000 titles - journals, books and conference proceedings.
Very comprehensive database - can download a list of titles that are in the database from our website, where you can also see the list of participating publishers.
The progress of CrossCheck to date. 82 publishers of all sizes and covering all disciplines - not restricted to STM in any way. Most of the large publishers are on board.
48000 titles - journals, books and conference proceedings.
Very comprehensive database - can download a list of titles that are in the database from our website, where you can also see the list of participating publishers.
The progress of CrossCheck to date. 82 publishers of all sizes and covering all disciplines - not restricted to STM in any way. Most of the large publishers are on board.
48000 titles - journals, books and conference proceedings.
Very comprehensive database - can download a list of titles that are in the database from our website, where you can also see the list of participating publishers.
This graph shows how many documents have been run through iThenticate month on month. As you can see, early last year there were hardly any being screened, and it’s only really in the past six months that things have started to pick up,with the numbers almost doubling in the last couple of months. The slow start is because it took some time to get things up and running with the indexing in the first year or so of the project, and there was the issue of critical mass too - when the database was still quite small publishers weren’t getting as many matches. But as more publishers have run pilots with their titles and starting using iThenticate as a production service we’re seeing numbers really start to climb, and I expect these numbers to continue to rise quite significantly over the coming months.
So now I’d like to share with you some of the results and feedback that we’ve been getting from those using CrossCheck. I’ve drawn this from three sources - a survey that I sent to CrossCheck members in October last year, results from several pilot projects that some of our publishers were kind enough to share with me, and finally feedback from publishers who are up and running and using the system as part of their editorial process.
We did a short survey of CrossCheck members last October, to which 24 organisations responded. Obviously with a relatively low response rate the results aren’t necessarily representative, but I think that they are interesting because they do show that different organisations - at least in the early days of the project - were all taking quite different approaches.
We asked when in the editorial process manuscripts were being checked, the responses were evenly split between on submission and prior to acceptance, with a further 25% unable to say because they hadn’t started using iThenticate at that point.
Similarly, when asked how many manuscripts they were checking the answers varied - 25% checking all submissions, 20% checking only those that aroused editors’ or reviewers’ suspicions, and others spot-checking a percentage. So we didn’t see any patterns emerging back in October, but this was perhaps to be expected at such an early stage, and I’m hoping that a repeat of the exercise later this year will be quite different.
One result that was encouraging - or discouraging, depending on how you look at it - was that 45% of those who responded reported that they had detected plagiarised content as a result of using CrossCheck.
By comparison, a couple of publisher pilots that were run towards the end of the year show more of a trend. For these two sizable publishers, 63 and 66 percent of their pilot journals were checking manuscripts on submission, although they weren’t necessarily checking all manuscripts and in many cases were looking at a percentage.
I should explain also that although I’m talking about pilots here, these are fully-signed up members, and the pilot projects were to help them work out their plans for wider rollout across many more titles.
One of the publishers asked their testers how they found the iThenticate interface, and the feedback echoed previous comments that I’ve heard about how it’s very user-friendly, with almost half of the users being comfortable with it after a single use, and a further
Again, another encouraging and discouraging result. At two large publishers, 50% of testers discovered cases of plagiarism using CrossCheck and iThenticate.
I don’t have a breakdown of percentages and it’s only anecdotal, but talking to several members recently I’ve been hearing that they are actually uncovering more cases of self-plagiarism, salami-slicing and duplicate submission than they are outright plagiarism.
This was from another publisher: over 70% found the CrossCheck service and iThenticate interface useful enough to want to continue using it, with a further 20% undecided. Only 8% said no.
A few quotes from participating publishers....
A few quotes from participating publishers....
A few quotes from participating publishers....
I do want to give a balanced view of course, and there are some issues that we’re encountering - one of the main complaints I hear is one of information overload. The matching is quite sensitive, and can bring back a lot of results and can be quite daunting at first, with people unsure about how to decide which matches are significant and which aren’t. For the most part we’re finding that the solution to this is experience and that people do start to get a feel for what constitutes a significant match fairly quickly - and also the definition of a “significant match” varies between disciplines and between titles. There are also some features that iThenticate have introduced to help filter out background noise such as the ability to exlude matches below a certain percentage or number of words, and to exclude reference sections.
We’ve also had some feedback that the overall similarity score you see on the iThenticate homepage is misleading as it’s a total of all matches - and it’s true you do have to look at the reports that go with the overall score, but again familiarity with the system makes this easier.
We are starting to hear feedback about the savings that publishers are making. The obvious one here is that the service is saving time for editors when compared to alternative ways of investigating suspect papers. The quote here reflects this but does also acknowledge the issue I mentioned on the last slide - that there is an initial investment to get used to the system and the reports. After the initial training it does save time.
And finally some interesting feedback that I got from one journal just recently. I’ll read from the email:
For us, Cross Check is a game changer... We're mostly using it to identify self-plagiarism and repetition, rather than plagiarism of other people's work. Although that happens too.
This has allowed us to really implement pre-refereeing, with the effect that acceptance rates fell from 39% in 2008 to 27% in 2009, and in fact 23% for the second half of 2009 when we started pre-refereeing seriously.
The author community cannot have it both ways. They cannot publish multiple papers from one piece of research and still publish in high impact factor journals. The two things are incompatible. And Cross Check lets us find them out.
So to summarise, we’re really pleased with the progress that this initiative is making two years on. I think it’s fair to say that it has taken a little longer than we expected for things to get up and running and for publishers to start routinely screening documents, but now we’ve really got some momentum going and some results coming in. We hope that as more and more publishers join and use the service we’ll see a rising awareness amongst authors and something of a deterrence factor emerging, and to this end we’re encouraging members to use CrossCheck logos on their websites and content. And of course we welcome new members - the more organisations that join and add their content to the database, the more useful the service becomes for everyone involved in the project.