• Nu S-Au Găsit Rezultate

View of Plagiarism:A Scientometric Review of the World Literature between 2000 and 2019

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "View of Plagiarism:A Scientometric Review of the World Literature between 2000 and 2019"

Copied!
12
0
0

Text complet

(1)

Plagiarism:A Scientometric Review of the World Literature between 2000 and 2019

Sivankalai, S1Virumandi,A2Kaladevi, P3Sharmila, M4

1Librarian, PSN College of Engineering and Technology,Tirunelveli, Orcid: 0000-0002-1174-7594

2Service Delivery Manager, Precision Infomatic(M) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, Orcid: 0000-0003-1337-3714

3Library Assistant, Fatima College, Madurai. 625018, Orcid: 0000-0002-1759-9713

4Technical Assistant, Mother Teresa Women’s University, Kodaikanal, Orcid: 0000-0002-4010-7924

Abstract.

The purpose of this scientometric analysis is to measure the importance and impact of published literature within the field of plagiarism. The research has been showed with the intent of procurement the growth and features of the literature on plagiarism.This research used publications, total number of publications, citations count with total citations (TC), average article citations (AAC), corresponding author’s country (CAC), number of citing articles, journal sources, keywords, and the author-level metrics such as h-, g-, and m-, indices from the Web of Science database in R tools.The core findings are that the most productive year of publication was 2014, and highest total citation by Rosso P; the top source of journal is International journal for educational integrity and title in other (people's) words: plagiarism by university students-- literature and lessons. The outcome displays that the USA controls in the research output, with National Science Foundation funding agency the first position; the most productive author is Wiwanitkit V from Thailand. In the document type’s category, the most cited sources are research articles 38.59 % respectively. This paper has provides important suggestion to contributions and publisher. First of all, it presents a plagiarism policy, intellectual structure of educational responsibility as a discipline. This paper has provides important suggestion to contributions and publisher. First of all, it presents a plagiarism policy, of educational responsibility in the world for discipline plagiarism detection plagiarism, revision, quotation, accurately identifying copying.

Keywords: Scientometrics; plagiarism; Intellectual theft;Self-plagiarism;Plagiarism checker Retraction.

Introduction

Exact strategies are needed for plagiarism detection identification with a gigantic measure of archive information. With the spread of PCs and the Internet, countless records opened up as electronic information. Digital documents are not difficult to duplicate and reuse, which energizes literary thefts from protected substance and scholarly reports, for example, research papers. The present circumstance obstructs the sound advancement of the imaginative exercises of people. A straightforward answer for the issue is to build up a strategy that distinguishes literary thefts from countless archives as precisely as conceivable examination papers. The present circumstance blocks the sound improvement of the innovative exercises of people. A straightforward answer for the issue is to build up a strategy that distinguishes copyright infringements from countless archives as precisely as could really be expected.

Counterfeiting location Plagiarism detection from records can be formalized as an issue to process a similitude of archives [42]. Summed up related investigations to plagiarism detection and demonstrated that a perspective for grouping plagiarism detection discovery techniques is the proportion of closeness between archives. A methodology is utilizing measurements of word events, for example, the sack of-words model [43]. Another methodology is utilizing examples of word events, for example, the alter distance and its weighted [48] and neighborhood rendition which are bases of arrangement in bioinformatics [46]. A trouble in applying the example coordinating based way to deal with plagiarism detection overall archives exists on setting the closeness between words. There propose a counterfeiting recognition strategy that utilizes a dispersed portrayal of words for setting a likeness between words [40]. A dispersed portrayal is

(2)

Annals of R.S.C.B., ISSN:1583-6258, Vol. 25, Issue 4, 2021, Pages. 10380 - 10391 Received 05 March 2021; Accepted 01 April 2021.

10381 http://annalsofrscb.ro

viewed as a capacity that maps a word to a vector with a little measurement, and the distance between vectors addresses closeness between the words that relate to the vectors. A basic disseminated portrayal is accessible by diminishing the element of a direct vector portrayal dependent on word recurrence [43]. The new work in neural organizations made simple to accomplish a circulated portrayal that addresses word similitude well from genuine record information. The point of our examination is assessing the legitimacy of utilizing the dispersed portrayal to characterize the word comparability for literary plagiarism detection [44]. There present three techniques dependent on the accompanying three report likenesses: for two archives,

 The length of the longest regular aftereffect (LCS) [39] partitioned by the length of the more limited report,

 The neighbourhood maximal estimation of the length of LCS, and

 The neighbourhood maximal estimation of the weighted length of LCS

There propose a literary theft location strategy dependent on the last similitude. The proposed technique compares to the arrangement comparability figured by the Smith-Waterman calculation [46]. In spite of the fact that there as of now exist counterfeiting location strategies dependent on the calculation; the curiosity of the proposed strategy is utilizing a dispersed portrayal for the word likeness [41, 47]. Basically, the dispersed portrayal was acquired from no specific information by word2vec [44]. Their applied these three techniques to the dataset for an opposition of counterfeiting recognition and examined the exactness of the copyright infringement identification [45].

Objectives of the Study

The fundamental target of this exploration is to examine the distributions of worldwide copyright infringement research announced during 2000-2019 and listed in the Web of Science center assortment data set. In explicit, the investigation means to disclosure:

o To find the Document Types

o To identify the Annual Total Citation per Year o To indicate theTop 10 contributing authors impact o To find out the most Source impact of the top ten journals o To determine the level Most cited plagiarism papers o To study the Top 20 most cited countries

o To study the various Top 20 Corresponding authors country and publications o To find out the most preferred The keywords co-occurrence network

o To determine the frequently used Abstract based word cloud o To study the purpose and benefit of Funding Agencies

Research Methods

All friend assessed logical articles identifying with counterfeiting study were downloaded from the Web of Science™ Core Collection Database [49]. The pursuit terms {"plagiarism"} were utilized in the title field and results were separated by distribution year since 2000 through 2019 No language limits were obligatory. The total metadata for every unique distribution and survey article was incorporated and physically traded on July 28, 2019 [49]. The "reference report"

reason since Web of Science was applied to gauge citation rates, h- index and g- index.

Bibliometrix (variant 3.0.1), a R-Tool of R-Studio Version 1.3.959 [50] as complete science planning assessment, and biblioshiny, the gleaming limit up to a web interface for bibliometrix, were utilized to presentation and succeed the metadata from Web of Science™ [48]. Common metadata contained print structures, like writer's name, complete number of distributions, references tally with all total citations (TC), average article citations (AAC), corresponding author’s country (CAC), number of citing articles, journal sources, keywords, and the author-level metrics such as h-, g-, and m-, indices. The h-index, a typical intermediary measure for individual logical yield, is characterized as the quantity of papers with citationnumber ≥ h (in any event one citation) [1]. Hence, the h-index relies upon both the quantity of a researcher's distributions and their effect on peers (number of citations). More, to represent the citationsdevelopment of the most referred to article of the predefined writer over the long haul, the g-index, which gives kudos

(3)

for the most exceptionally cited to articles in an informational collection, was utilized. Co- author’sestimates included the quantity of articles per writer (articles/authors), number of authorsper articles (authors/articles). Also, utilizing the word co-event in our information assortment, we diagrammed the hypothetical construction of a whole word's framework with a dimensionality decline strategy and Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) [10].

We know bunches of papers which express aggregate thoughts. Words appearing to be both in an article were associated in an organization. VOSviewer 1.6.4 [51], an organization study software tool, was reused to speculation a watchword co-occurrence network [35]. The co-occurrence of two watchwords repeats the quantity of diaries wherein the two catchphrases happen created. The size of the rings in the VOSviewer figure shows the number of journals that have the corresponding keywords. The link strength among the roundsreproduces the occurrence of keyword’s co-occurrence. The overall link strength is the quantities of link strengths of the keyword total the additional keywords.

Table 1. Main Information about Datain field of plagiarism research Main Information About Data

Timespan 2000:2019

Sources (Journals, Books, etc) 1601

Documents 2576

Average years from publication 8.09

Average citations per documents 7.65

Average citations per year per doc 0.81

References 35817

Author's Keywords (DE) 3953

Authors 4835

Author Appearances 6156

Authors of single-authored documents 798 Authors of multi-authored documents 4037

Single-authored documents 969

Documents per Author 0.53

Authors per Document 1.88

Co-Authors per Documents 2.39

Collaboration Index 2.51

Table 1 represents the profile of plagiarism research seen complete window of Biblioshiny: The shiny application for bibliometrix analysis 6156 authors appearances wrote a total number of 2576 numbers of article. It is fairly(4835) number of authors. Findings have interested more scientists to contribute in publishing scientific documents (This is ahypothesis). Collaboration is the significant amongst authors whereby 4037 authors have published exclusively. The Average years from publication for scientific production are about 8.09% in the field of plagiarism.In the whole datasetof 4835 authors, 6156 authors (78,54%) published a single paper related to plagiarism and were considered “occasional” authors; Authors of single-authored documents 798 respectively, Authors of multi-authored documents 4037 respectively. Authors Collaboration Single-authored documents 969number of authors respectively, Documents per Author 0.533 were produced, Authors per Document 1.88 respectively, Co-Authors per Documents 2.39 were produced and Collaboration Index2.51.

Table 2. Document Typesin field of plagiarism research

Document Types Records %

Article 994 38.59

(4)

Annals of R.S.C.B., ISSN:1583-6258, Vol. 25, Issue 4, 2021, Pages. 10380 - 10391 Received 05 March 2021; Accepted 01 April 2021.

10383 http://annalsofrscb.ro

Proceedings paper 782 30.36

Editorial material 427 16.58

Letter 178 6.91

Review 51 1.98

News item 41 1.59

Article; proceedings

paper 39

1.51

Book review 24 0.93

Meeting abstract 22 0.85

Correction 11 0.43

Retraction 3 0.12

Review; book chapter 2 0.08

Biographical-item 2 0.08

2576 100.00

Table-2 discuss about source wise distribution on plagiarism research output were availability during the research periods overall 13 various types of documents are included in this research.

Among the 2576 records, the article are placed the first with 39 percentage of document availability, followed by Proceedings paper are placed second with 782 records, the serial number Review; book chapter and Biographical-item are respectively last rank.

Table 3. AnnualTotalCitationperYearin field of plagiarism research

Year No. of

Articles

Mean TC per

Articles

Mean TC per Year

2000 13 6.08 0.30

2001 10 10.60 0.56

2002 28 12.71 0.71

2003 32 6.59 0.39

2004 33 8.76 0.55

2005 90 11.81 0.79

2006 99 14.36 1.03

2007 111 7.41 0.57

2008 147 7.80 0.65

2009 171 25.92 2.36

2010 172 10.02 1.00

2011 197 7.52 0.84

2012 218 8.18 1.02

2013 249 5.60 0.80

2014 256 3.67 0.61

2015 156 4.94 0.99

2016 168 4.04 1.01

2017 202 3.04 1.01

2018 183 2.06 1.03

2019 41 0.12 0.12

As seen in the WoS core collection citation database, the global output in plagiarism field cumulated to a total of 2576 articles with an average output of 8.09 papers per year during 2000- 2019 and average total citations of articles by year are shown in table 1 the highest mean of total citation per articles 7.65 listed in the year 2014 against 249 number of the article published, more than 10 respectively years (25.92% from 2009, 14.36% from 2006, 12.71% from 2002, 11.81%

(5)

from 2005, 10.60% from 2001, and 10.02% from 2010 citation per articles. while the highest (2.36%) Mean total citation per years from 2009, and lowest mean of total citation per article recorded in the year 2019 in the field of plagiarism (Table 3).

Table 4. Top 10 contributing authors’indexes in field of plagiarism research

Author hindex gindex mindex TC NP PYstart

Rosso P 11 20 0.917 413 30 2009

Stein B 8 14 0.533 304 14 2006

Barron-Cedeno

A 9 12 0.75 274 12 2009

Bilic-Zulle L 7 9 0.438 221 9 2005

Salim N 5 11 0.417 142 11 2009

Meuschke N 5 9 0.5 82 11 2011

Gipp B 4 8 0.4 75 10 2011

Wiwanitkit V 4 5 0.4 55 36 2011

Cho HG 4 5 0.286 37 12 2007

Joob B 2 3 0.2 16 15 2011

The table 4 describe that the top ten contributingauthors indexesin field of plagiarism research, Wiwanitkit V(Department of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand) was hierarchical firstin the number of published articles (n = 36) but h-index 4 total citation also 55 citation started by 2011[37].Rosso P(Professor, Computer Science, UniversitatPolitècnica de València,Spain)had the highest h- index, g-index,m-indices and overall citation also citation started by 2009 (11, 20 and 2.2, and 413 respectively)[9].WhileStein B(Professor of Computer Science, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, USA) had the second place m- index and total citation per item count(0.533 and 304)[20-21].

In the time frame analyzed, there were 1601 academic journals publishing papers linked to plagiarism research. Table -5 shows that International journal for educational integrity had the highest publication output (n = 61, .0.88%), followed by Science and engineering ethics (n = 45, 0.62 %), Nature (n = 28, 0.53 %), and Current science (n = 27, 0.17%). The most cited journals were International journal for educational integrity (n = 633), Science and engineering ethics (n = 522), Journal of academic ethics (n = 378), Computers & education (n = 346), and IEEE transactions on education (n = 311). International journal for educational integrity (14) has the highest h index cited started from 2005, following by Science and engineering ethics 13 h-index since 2000, and Journal of academic ethics and Computers & education 12 h-index since 2005 and 2007. Summarized source impact of the top 10 journals publishing on plagiarism.

Table 5. top 10 Journalsindexespublishing on plagiarism

Source hindex gindex mindex TC NP PYstart

International journal for

educational integrity 14 22 0.88 633 61 2005

Science and engineering ethics 13 20 0.62 522 45 2000

Nature 9 13 0.53 216 28 2004

Current science 3 5 0.17 34 27 2003

Journal of academic ethics 12 19 0.75 378 24 2005

Accountability in research-

policies and quality assurance 7 12 0.78 167 21 2012

IEEE transactions on education 11 17 0.55 311 19 2001

Computers & education 12 18 0.86 346 18 2007

(6)

Annals of R.S.C.B., ISSN:1583-6258, Vol. 25, Issue 4, 2021, Pages. 10380 - 10391 Received 05 March 2021; Accepted 01 April 2021.

10385 http://annalsofrscb.ro

Science 5 9 0.28 83 13 2003

American journal of

roentgenology 4 7 0.44 52 12 2012

Table 6. Top 10 most cited countriesin field of plagiarism research

Country No.of

Records

Total Citations

Average Article Citations

USA 887 5417 10.79

Australia 288 3265 24.01

United

Kingdom 281 2987 17.47

Germany 225 661 7.78

Spain 220 656 6.19

France 170 635 24.42

China 143 622 4.04

India 88 347 2.27

Croatia 75 334 12.85

Canada 74 261 5.55

Nineteen Nine countries were involved in plagiarism related research output. Among them, 3823 (86.38%) of publications were contributed by the top 10 most productive countries, putting out more than 50 publications the table-6 indicated that the United States of America (USA) published the most papers (n = 887), had the highest Total Citations (5417), Other productive countries were Australia (n = 288), United Kingdom (n =288), and Germany (n = 225). The France had the highest rate of average article citations (n = 24.42), followed by and Australia (n=24.01), United Kingdom (n= 17.47), Austria (n= 14.27), Croatia (n=12.85), and the USA (n = 10.79).

The top 10 cited journal articles by plagiarism publications are presented in Table-7. The number of citations displays how popular the articles are among researchers in the plagiarism area. Most of these articles are survey articles related to the theme of plagiarism analytics. The first-ranked article, titled “In other (people's) words: Plagiarism by university students--literature and lessons”

published by Park, Chris, Chris in Assessment & evaluation in higher education in 2003 received the maximum number of citations (n = 121) [19]. This article presents a summary of the IT concept, its enabling access to Determinants, Digital Plagiarism, Trends and Patterns, Origin and Emergence, Students Cheat, digital sources, the Internet, quality assurance, learning, teaching, Digital Detection, Promoting Academic Integrity, Honor Codes, Term Paper Mills etc, as well as the relationship between IT and other developing technologies such as plagiarism analytics collected [19]. While second (n = 104) place of citation “Winnowing: local algorithms for document fingerprinting” published by Schleimer, Saul, Daniel S. Wilkerson and Alex Aiken in Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data at 2003. This paper offerings and impression of the plagiarism detection service concept it’s enablingplagiarism, revision, quotation, accurately identifying copying, small partial copies, file sharing all create copies, and Digital content is for copying [26]. Others articles below hundreds citation.

Table-8 exhibit the lean of corresponding author’s countries with their number of publications and examination of number of single country publication (SCP), multiple country publication (MCP) and multiple country publication relative. USA was the foremost country with a total of 502 publications out of those 459 were single country and 43 were multiple country publications with a MCP ratio of 0.09 which shows majority of the publications on plagiarism investigation in United States were single country published.

(7)

Table 7. Table most cited plagiarism papersin field of plagiarism research http://annalsofrscb.ro

Author Title Journals Yea

rs

V ol

Iss.

No.

Page No.

Citati ons Park, Chris In other (people's) words: Plagiarism by

university students--literature and lessons

Assessment & evaluation in

higher education 2003 28 5 471-

488 121

Schleimer, Saul, Daniel S.

Wilkerson and Alex Aiken.

Winnowing: local algorithms for document fingerprinting

Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data

2003 3 1 76–85 104

Prechelt, Lutz, Guido Malpohl, and Michael Philippsen

Finding plagiarisms among a set of programs

with J plag J. UCS 2002 8 11 1016 90

Maurer, Hermann A., Frank

Kappe, and Bilal Zaka Plagiarism-A survey J. UCS 2006 12 8 1050-

1084

79

Fanelli, Daniele How many scientists fabricate and falsify research?

A systematic review and meta-

analysis of survey data PloS one 2009 4 5 e5738 65

Martinson, Brian C., Melissa S.

Anderson, and Raymond De Vries.

Scientists behaving badly Nature 2005 43

53

704 3

737-

738 61

McCabe, Donald L., Linda KlebeTreviño, and Kenneth D.

Cheating in academic institutions: A decade

of research Ethics &Behavior 2001 11 3 219-

232 57

FANG FC., et al

Real-time quantitative reverse transcription PCR for monitoring of blood-stage Plasmodium falciparum infections in malaria human challenge trials

The American journal of tropical

medicine and hygiene 2012 10

9 2 383-

394 56

Liu, Chao, et al GPLAG: detection of software plagiarism by program dependence graph analysis

Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining.

2006 12 1 872 53

Ashworth, Peter, Philip Bannister, and Pauline Thorne

Students on the Qualitative Research Methods Course Unit.(1997). Guilty in whose eyes?

University students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment

Studies in higher education 22.2:

187-203. 1997 22 2 187-

203 52

(8)

Annals of R.S.C.B., ISSN:1583-6258, Vol. 25, Issue 4, 2021, Pages. 7959 – 7967 Received 05 March 2021; Accepted 01 April 2021.

10387 http://annalsofrscb.ro

Table 8. Top10 Corresponding authors country and publicationsin field of plagiarism

Country Articles Freq SCP MCP MCP

Relative

USA 502 0.22 459 43 0.09

United

Kingdom 171 0.08 145 26 0.15

China 154 0.07 139 15 0.10

India 153 0.07 145 8 0.05

Australia 136 0.06 128 8 0.06

Spain 106 0.05 89 17 0.16

Germany 85 0.04 69 16 0.19

Canada 47 0.02 39 8 0.17

Japan 46 0.02 42 4 0.09

Brazil 45 0.02 37 8 0.18

While United Kingdom on the other hand with a grand MCP relative of 0.15 resides on the fifth place showing although single country publications was more (171) but considerable number of 26 publications were multiple country publications. The high MCP relative shows the greater collaboration of a country with other countries.

Spain and Germany correspondingly were the third and fourth respectively countries.

Fig.1 The keywords co-occurrence network in field of plagiarism research.

Keywords analysis

Minimum number of occurrence of a keyword = 5, minimum links strength = 5. Overall, 4481 keywords met threshold criteria. There are 9 clusters of keywords: red indicates Cluster 1 (n = 58), green indicates Cluster 2 (n = 48), blue violet indicates Cluster 3 (n = 46), yellow indicates Cluster 4 (n = 28), pink indicates Cluster 5, aquaindicates Cluster 6, blue indicates Cluster 7, mustardCluster 8, olive indicates Cluster 9. The most frequent author’s keywords were “plagiarism”(n = 1771), “ethics” (n = 560), “misconduct”(n = 370), “scientific misconduct” (n = 354), “students” (n = 332),“perceptions” (n = 264), “science” (n =254), “plagiarism detection” (n

= 247), “attitudes” (n = 240),“fraud” (n = 214). The overall keyword networkvisualization is presented in figure 1.

We recognized keywords through a high-citation burst, which can be usedto forecastinvestigation areas enticing an extraordinary degreeof care. The results are plotted on a two-dimensional map total, 9 clusters of words could be

recognized(everycolorsignifies a cluster of word).

(9)

Figure 2. Abstract based word cloudin field of plagiarism research

There is a portion more that could be completed now e.g. poster that in the abstract based word cloud for Tinker Hatfield, the word students, document are repeated the picture - approximately we could address by singularising the words before plotting the word cloud. We used the Shown word cloud mixture in keyword plus Evaluator to create Figure 2, which shows the word cloud of the entire number shaped on the incidence of statuses and the differences in the practice of relations completed plagiarism. A word’s font size is larger as the position symmetry is higher. The relations with greater occurrences in the earlier abstract are publicized in the thick pink color of the plagiarism, while the ones with higher frequencies in the current abstract are shown in the olive drab color of the term students, red color indicates for the detection, violet color mention that paper, turquoise color show that academic, and furthermore the identified themes for plagiarism’ perception about the adoption of keyword plus color are document, data code, study, software, author, methods, education, source, approach, text, similarity, scientific, system, , etc.

Table 9. Funding Agenciesin field of plagiarism research

Funding Agencies Records % of

2576

National Science Foundation NSF 37 1.436

National Natural Science Foundation of China 35 1.359

National Institutes of health NIH USA 32 1.242

United states department of health human services 32 1.242 Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and

Technology Japan MEXT 12 0.466

ConsejoNacional De Cienciay TecnologiaConacyt 11 0.427

CAPES 8 0.311

European Union Eu 8 0.311

Fundamental research funds for the central

universities 8 0.311

(10)

Annals of R.S.C.B., ISSN:1583-6258, Vol. 25, Issue 4, 2021, Pages. 7959 – 7967 Received 05 March 2021; Accepted 01 April 2021.

10389 http://annalsofrscb.ro

Japan society for the promotion of science 8 0.311

Overall 501 agencies contributed in the fields plagiarism realted published, the importance and willingness of funding agencies is somewhat reproduced in their organizational plans, mission statements, and strategic objectives. The administrative charts occasionally attribute the responsibility of funding agencies to separate directorates, departments and/or branches (Table 8). For example, funding agencies has a separate partition for plagiarism. Most of the funds supporter by National Science Foundation mission [52], while 35 of funds patron from National Natural Science Foundation of China [53], 32 of funds sponsor by two organisations National Institutes of health NIH USA and United states department of health human services, Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and Technology Japan MEXT [44] 12 of funds spent, 11 of funds ConsejoNacional De Ciencia y TecnologiaConacyt [55], and others funding agencies below eight number of funds provided during the period in the field of plagiarism

Conclusion

Our scientometric analysis revealed a global lessening research in Plagiarism, fewer research output from high- income countries (exclusively of USA)compared to low- and middle-income countries and narrow collaborate author with developing countries. The low outputs in developing countries in Plagiarism research mirror the state of matters in other research fields. A improved understanding of the Trends and Patterns, Digital Detection, Promoting Academic Integrity,quality assurance,Origin and Emergenceand Plagiarism -associated accurately identifying copying is needed in countries with high digital sources in the world. Developing themes and recent research focus in Plagiarism research are not easily recognized in scientometric studies due to low incidence of appearance in keywords, therefore, the necessity for forthcoming studies guided by narrative reviews

.

References

1. Aria M, Cuccurullo C (2017). Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetrics.11 (4):959–75.

2. Ashok Kumar, P., Navalur, S. A., &Sivasekaran, K. A (2013)Scientometric Study of Biodiversity Research in India: A Special Reference to Authors’ Poductivity, International Journal of Scientific Research 2 (3): 220- 222

3. Baba, K., Nakatoh, T., & Minami, T. (2017). Plagiarism detection using document similarity based on distributedRepresentation. Procedia computer science, 111, 382-387.

4. Bilić-Zulle, L., Frković, V., Turk, T., Ažman, J., &Petrovečki, M. (2005). Prevalence of plagiarism among medical students. Croatian medical journal, 46(1).

5. Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University.

6. Burdine, L. K., de Castro Maymone, M. B., &Vashi, N. A. (2019). Text recycling: Self-plagiarism in scientific writing. International Journal of Women's Dermatology, 5(2), 134-136.

7. Carter, H., Hussey, J., & Forehand, J. W. (2019). Plagiarism in nursing education and the ethical implications in practice. Heliyon, 5(3), e01350.

8. Chauhan, S. K. (2018). Research on plagiarism in India during 2002-2016: A bibliometric analysis. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 38(2), 69.

9. Franco-Salvador, M., Gupta, P., Rosso, P., &Banchs, R. E. (2016). Cross-language plagiarism detection over continuous-space-and knowledge graph-based representations of language. Knowledge-based systems, 111, 87-99.

10. Greenacre MJ (1991). Interpreting multiple correspondence analysis. Appl Stochastic ModelsData Anal.

7(2):195–210.

11. Gusfield, D. Algorithms on Strings, Trees, and Sequences. Cambridge University Press, 1997.

12. Hinton, G. E. McClelland, J. L and Rumelhart, D. E. (1986) Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1. Chapter Distributed Representations, pages 77-109. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

13. Hirsch JE (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. ProcNatlAcadSci U S A.

(11)

102(46):16569–72.

14. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572.

15. Irving, R. W (2004) Plagiarism and collusion detection using the smith-waterman algorithm. Technical report.

16. Jarić, I. (2016). High time for a common plagiarism detection system. Scientometrics, 106(1), 457-459.

17. Karnalim, O. (2019). IR-based technique for linearizing abstract method invocation in plagiarism-suspected source code pair. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 31(3), 327-334.

18. Kuruvila, J. S., VL, M. L., Roy, R., Baby, T., Jamal, S., &Sherly, K. K. (2017). Flowchart Plagiarism Detection System: An Image Processing Approach. Procedia computer science, 115, 533-540.

19. Lukashenko, R Graudina, V and Grundspenkis, J (2007) Computer-based plagiarism detection methods and tools: An overview. In Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, pages 1-6. ACM, 2007.

20. Manning, C. D. Raghavan, P andSchütze, H (2008) Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge University Press.

21. McCabe, D., & Trevino, L. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379–396.

22. McCabe, D., Trevino, L., & Butterfield, K. (2001a). Dishonesty in academic environments: The influence of peer reporting requirements. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(1), 29–45.

23. McCabe, D., Trevino, L., & Butterfield, K. (2001b). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research.

Ethics and Behavior, 11, 219–232

24. Mikolov, T Sutskever, I Chen, K Corrado, G. S and Dean J (2013) Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 3111-3119.

25. Muthamilarasi, R., Chellappandi, P., &Arokiasamy, C. M. (2013) Scientometrics analysis of allergy research literature. IALA Journal, 1(2): 52-55.

26. Park, C. (2003). In other (people's) words: Plagiarism by university students--literature and lessons.

Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 28(5), 471-488.

27. Potthast, M. Gollub, T. Hagen, M. Tippmann, M. Kiesel, J. Rosso, P. Stamatatos, E. and Stein, B (2013) Overview of the 5th International Competition on Plagiarism Detection. In Working Notes Papers of the CLEF 2013 Evaluation Labs.

28. Potthast, M., Barrón-Cedeño, A., Stein, B., &Rosso, P. (2011). Cross-language plagiarism detection.

Language Resources and Evaluation, 45(1), 45-62.

29. Potthast, M., Stein, B., Barrón-Cedeño, A., &Rosso, P. (2010, August). An evaluation framework for plagiarism detection. In Coling 2010: Posters (pp. 997-1005).

30. Sakamoto, D., &Tsuda, K. (2019). A Detection Method for Plagiarism Reports of Students. Procedia Computer Science, 159, 1329-1338.

31. Samia, Z., & Khaled, R. (2020). Multi-Agents Indexing System (MAIS) for Plagiarism Detection. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences.

32. Sánchez, G. S., Garcinuno, A. C., Gamero, M. A., de Lara, L. A. M., &Galán, C. R. (2014). Plagiarism and ethics in scientific publications. AtenPrimaria, 16, 35-37.

33. Sathiavathy. C., Vinayagamoorthy. P and Shanthi. J (2014) Bibliometric Analysis of Literature on Chronic Liver Diseases (1984-2013). Published in International Journal of Information Retrieval and Management, 2(4): 1-6

34. Schleimer, S., Wilkerson, D. S., & Aiken, A. (2003, June). Winnowing: local algorithms for document fingerprinting. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data (pp. 76-85).

35. Shinyaeva, T. S., &Tarasevich, Y. Y. (2017). Scientometric indicators and collaboration network as a potential tool for gift author detection. Procedia Computer Science, 106, 3-10.

36. Sivankalai S (2020) Growth of Herpes Research in the 21st Century: A Scientometric Analysis, Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal) 5-15 :1-16

37. Sivankalai, S (2016) Authorship Pattern and Collaborative Research in the Field Of Quality Management, International Journal of Innovative Research in Management Studies (IJIRMS)1 (10);79-85

(12)

Annals of R.S.C.B., ISSN:1583-6258, Vol. 25, Issue 4, 2021, Pages. 7959 – 7967 Received 05 March 2021; Accepted 01 April 2021.

10391 http://annalsofrscb.ro

Research on the Abortion: 2015-2019, Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education 12(4)115-124 39. Sivankalai, Sand KibromYemane (2017) Bibliometric analysis of research output in quality management at African continent from 1990-2016, International Journal of Innovative ResearchinManagementStudies2(3) :40-48

40. Sivasekaran, K. (2015) Literature Output on Rice in India: A Scientometric Study Journal of Advances in Library and Information Science, 4(1): 40-47.

41. Sivasekaran, K. (2015)India’s Contribution on Renewable Energy Research Output: A Scientometric Study.

Journal of Advances in Library and Information Science,4(4): 311-316.

42. Sivasekaran, K., &Srinivasaragavan, S. S. (2013)Mapping of research publications on Himalayas: A scientometrics exploration. International Journal of Scientific Research, 2(3): 58-60.

43. Sivasekaran, K., Stanleayb,P., Ashok Kumar,P., Sivankalai,S., Sivasamy, K. (2021) Curcuma Longa(Medicinal Plant) Research:AScientometric Assessment of Global Publications Output with Reference to Web of Science, Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education 12(5);1477-1496

44. Smith, T. F. and Waterman, M. S (1981) Identification of common molecular subsequences. J. Mol. Biol., 147:195-197.

45. Su, Z Ahn, B.-R. Eom, K.-Y. Kang, M.-K. Kim, J.-P and Kim, M.-K.(2008) Plagiarism detection using the Levenshtein distance and Smith-Waterman algorithm. In Innovative Computing Information and Control, page 569.

46. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 84(2):523–38.

47. Van Eck, N. J., &Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538.

48. Velmurugan, C., &Radhakrishnan, N. (2015). Literature output of plagiarism: a Scientometric approach through Web of Science. Combating Plagiarism: a new role for Librarian. New Delhi: SK Book Agency, 78- 88.

49. Vijayakumar M., Sivankalai S., Michael Joseph Stalin P., Kumaresan G., Selvakumar P., Manikandan V.

(2021) A scientometric Analysis on Development of Nanofluids for Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow Applications. Solid State Technology, 64(2), 3667-3684.

50. Wagner, R. A and Fischer, M. J (1974) the string-to-string correction problem. J. ACM, 21(1):168-173.

51. Wiwanitkit, S., &Wiwanitkit, V. (2017). Responses of authors accused of plagiarism by journal editors.

Science and engineering ethics, 23(1), 309-311.

52. https://clarivate.com/

53. https://rstudio.com/

54. https://www.vosviewer.com/

55. https://www.nsf.gov/

56. http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/publish/portal1/

57. https://www.nih.gov/

58. https://www.hhs.gov/

Referințe

DOCUMENTE SIMILARE

The Nature and the Human Being have many mysteries and unknowns in themselves. Some of these mysteries and unknowns about the biosphere, the lithosphere, the

During the period 1992-2004, for criminal offenses with elements of abuse in the field of real estate turnover in Kosovo there were accused in total 35 persons and none

Abstract: The Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that one of the objectives of immigration is “to see that families are reunited in Canada.” The Act

, Convergence of the family of the deformed Euler-Halley iterations under the H¨ older condition of the second derivative, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics,

Keywords: trickster discourse, meaning, blasphemy, social change, transgression of social norms.. The Myth of the trickster and its

By contrast to Yeats’ central position at the time, as acknowledged agent of cultural power, Joyce’s resistance was catalyzed by the energy of self-exiling –a third space

The evolution to globalization has been facilitated and amplified by a series of factors: capitals movements arising from the need of covering the external

Using a case study designed for forecasting the educational process in the Petroleum-Gas University, the paper presents the steps that must be followed to realise a Delphi