方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法；存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 审稿流程× | 学术研究中的剽窃× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 出版伦理 | 出版伦理 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 1665 | 1989 |
| 提出者≠ | Scientific publishing community; formalized by journals and COPE | U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and institutional policies |
| 类型≠ | Process | Standard |
| 开创性文献≠ | Committee on Publication Ethics (2023). COPE Guidelines: Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. COPE. link ↗ | U.S. Office of Research Integrity (2023). Definition of Research Misconduct. Federal Policy on Research Misconduct (42 CFR Part 93). ORI. link ↗ |
| 别名 | Peer Reviewing, Manuscript Evaluation, Scholarly Review | Text Plagiarism, Idea Plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism |
| 相关 | 4 | 4 |
| 摘要≠ | Peer review is the process by which manuscripts are evaluated by experts in the same field before publication in academic journals. Reviewers assess the manuscript's scientific merit, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field. Established in 1665 with the first scientific journal (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society), peer review remains the gold standard for quality control in academic publishing. Despite ongoing criticism and proposals for alternatives, peer review continues to filter low-quality and unethical work, though it is imperfect and sometimes slow. | Plagiarism—the use of others' words, ideas, or methods without attribution—is formally classified as research misconduct by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity and most institutions worldwide. It ranges from verbatim copying of text to paraphrasing without citation to presenting others' ideas as one's own. Unlike accidental omission of a citation (which is corrected via erratum), plagiarism implies intent or gross negligence and triggers investigation, potential retraction, and career consequences. Plagiarism detection tools (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate) and manual checking by journals now routinely screen manuscripts. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|