FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2022132855> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2022132855 endingPage "129" @default.
• W2022132855 startingPage "128" @default.
• W2022132855 abstract "It was a thought-provoking experience to read Dr Vinod Krishnan’s article entitled “Etiquette in scientific publishing” in the October 2013 issue (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:577-82). Having been in an academic position for more than 9 years, I was thoroughly impressed by its content. I commend the author for his efforts to highlight much-needed knowledge and perspective in scientific publishing.I believe that there are 2 worlds in scientific publishing. The author described the moral principles and foundation in scientific publishing in the outer world. Here, the regulatory bodies are taking an active role to make things better. I live in another world, with much uncertainty, and “profound plagiarism” is the mantra. The practice of “gift authorship” is the norm. There is a prevailing trend for quantity rather than quality in scientific publishing.Added to the surmounting problem is the launch of new local journals in print or digital open access. The rise of open-access journals has surely contributed to the existing unhealthy scenario in scientific publishing. Pressure on academics to publish leads to a culture of plagiarism. “Authors” find it easy to manipulate the content in open-access journals with no effective peer-review system. Recently, I received 2 manuscripts from 2 PubMed-indexed journals for review. To my dismay, I found that the articles had already been published elsewhere in open-access format. Since it was a blinded review, I was unaware of the details of authorship. Both fraudulence and plagiarism could have been possibilities.I feel I am in the same position today. My article, which can be accessed easily through the Internet, could be duplicated and published in another journal—without my knowledge or permission. Such an act discredits the merit of publishing and scientific advancement. The trend is fast growing and posing an alarming concern to the entire fraternity. I do fear where this will end. The ultimate purpose of scientific publishing in health care is to advance the fraternity and improve the quality of life of our patients. Can we stick to this? It was a thought-provoking experience to read Dr Vinod Krishnan’s article entitled “Etiquette in scientific publishing” in the October 2013 issue (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:577-82). Having been in an academic position for more than 9 years, I was thoroughly impressed by its content. I commend the author for his efforts to highlight much-needed knowledge and perspective in scientific publishing. I believe that there are 2 worlds in scientific publishing. The author described the moral principles and foundation in scientific publishing in the outer world. Here, the regulatory bodies are taking an active role to make things better. I live in another world, with much uncertainty, and “profound plagiarism” is the mantra. The practice of “gift authorship” is the norm. There is a prevailing trend for quantity rather than quality in scientific publishing. Added to the surmounting problem is the launch of new local journals in print or digital open access. The rise of open-access journals has surely contributed to the existing unhealthy scenario in scientific publishing. Pressure on academics to publish leads to a culture of plagiarism. “Authors” find it easy to manipulate the content in open-access journals with no effective peer-review system. Recently, I received 2 manuscripts from 2 PubMed-indexed journals for review. To my dismay, I found that the articles had already been published elsewhere in open-access format. Since it was a blinded review, I was unaware of the details of authorship. Both fraudulence and plagiarism could have been possibilities. I feel I am in the same position today. My article, which can be accessed easily through the Internet, could be duplicated and published in another journal—without my knowledge or permission. Such an act discredits the merit of publishing and scientific advancement. The trend is fast growing and posing an alarming concern to the entire fraternity. I do fear where this will end. The ultimate purpose of scientific publishing in health care is to advance the fraternity and improve the quality of life of our patients. Can we stick to this? Etiquette in scientific publishingAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 144Issue 4PreviewPublishing a scientific article in a journal with a high impact factor and a good reputation is considered prestigious among one's peer group and an essential achievement for career progression. In the drive to get their work published, researchers can forget, either intentionally or unintentionally, the ethics that should be followed in scientific publishing. In an environment where “publish or perish” rules the day, some authors might be tempted to bend or break rules. This special article is intended to raise awareness among orthodontic journal editors, authors, and readers about the types of scientific misconduct in the current publishing scenario and to provide insight into the ways these misconducts are managed by the Committee of Publishing Ethics. Full-Text PDF Editor-in-Chief’s responseAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 145Issue 2PreviewI was also pleased to see the article by Dr Vinod Krishnan in the October 2013 issue of the AJO-DO. Dr Sivakumar’s comments are supportive of the need for us all to be aware of ethical problems that can arise in the digital age of scientific publication. Our most effective line of defense has long been the 500 orthodontic referees who are familiar with the literature and occasionally draw our attention to potential violations. In addition to this group, I want you to be aware of several changes made recently by the AJO-DO and Elsevier. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2022132855 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2022132855 creator A5061906483 @default.
• W2022132855 date "2014-02-01" @default.
• W2022132855 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2022132855 title "The fear of scientific publishing" @default.
• W2022132855 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.12.006" @default.
• W2022132855 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24485723" @default.
• W2022132855 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2022132855 type Work @default.
• W2022132855 sameAs 2022132855 @default.
• W2022132855 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2022132855 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2022132855 hasAuthorship W2022132855A5061906483 @default.
• W2022132855 hasBestOaLocation W20221328551 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C151719136 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C2778171436 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C2984423262 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C41458344 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConcept C60083737 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C138885662 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C144024400 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C151719136 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C161191863 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C17744445 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C199539241 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C27206212 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C2778171436 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C29595303 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C2984423262 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C39549134 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C41008148 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C41458344 @default.
• W2022132855 hasConceptScore W2022132855C60083737 @default.
• W2022132855 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2022132855 hasLocation W20221328551 @default.
• W2022132855 hasLocation W20221328552 @default.
• W2022132855 hasOpenAccess W2022132855 @default.
• W2022132855 hasPrimaryLocation W20221328551 @default.
• W2022132855 hasRelatedWork W1559148724 @default.
• W2022132855 hasRelatedWork W177402721 @default.
• W2022132855 hasRelatedWork W2022132855 @default.
• W2022132855 hasRelatedWork W2023352812 @default.
• W2022132855 hasRelatedWork W2048972539 @default.
• W2022132855 hasRelatedWork W2357225874 @default.
• W2022132855 hasRelatedWork W2515990927 @default.
• W2022132855 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2022132855 hasRelatedWork W3122527313 @default.
• W2022132855 hasRelatedWork W2991033048 @default.
• W2022132855 hasVolume "145" @default.
• W2022132855 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2022132855 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2022132855 magId "2022132855" @default.
• W2022132855 workType "article" @default.