ben hogan: ithenticate/crosscheck usage and case studies #crossref15

iThenticate/CrossCheck Usage and Case Studies

November 17, 2015

Sales

Specific Cases33%

Sporadic Checks30%

Original Only18%

Original and Revised

19%

Usage

Data pulled from ScholarOne Manuscripts, accurate to June 2015

Total number of titles (across all disciplines): 341Specific Cases: 111Sporadic Checks: 102Original Only: 62Original and Revised: 66

Wiley CrossCheck Usage

Min Max Mean1. Not Used 0 0 02. Specific Cases 1% 65% 28%3. Sporadic Checks 8% 46% 22%4. Original Only 8% 44% 20%5. Original & Revised 4% 39% 19%

Partner logo 2

Average Percentage Match Across All Journals

1. Not Used 2. Specific Cases 3. Sporadic Checks

4. Original Only 5. Original & Revised

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Mean

Partner logo 1 Partner logo 2

% = high Process Exclusions Decision Type with highest match

Journal A 40 Automated for original

No Special Accept (without external review)

Journal B 30 Automated for original

No Scope – Immediate Reject

Journal C 40 Manual No Unsubmit

Journal D 0 Automated for original

No Reject – Similarity Index Over 50%

Examples


1. When should journals run their reports?

2. How do I actually read/use the reports?

3. How do I take forward with authors/institutions?

4. Do I run reports with or without references?

Common questions from editors


• How up to date is the database, and what does it pull from?

• In some cases, we get a match in a similarity report and the matched document has a broken URL.

• Do these reports cover me if I need to approach an author or institution?

• COPE

More common questions/feedback


Insert Full Screen image here


• Check for evidence• Ask author for clarification• If honest error then ask for

revisions. • If plagiarism then reject.

Main Points of COPE Guidelines


• Social science title• All manuscripts are run through at original

submission, pre-peer review• Manuscript in question came through with a

relatively low similarity score• Editorial office was contacted by reviewer about

potential overlap with two of reviewer’s publications• Reviewer sent publications and visually, they

looked similar. Publications were from major publishers and at least 2 years old

• iThenticate report didn’t link to either of the reviewer’s publications, although there were similarities to other publications

• Manuscript sent back to author

Journal A


• Social science title• All original manuscripts are run upon

original submission• Similarity score came in at 38% with

references, 16% without• Reviewer noted a large passage.

CrossCheck confirmed exact match of 200 words w/ no attribution

• Action: Authors queried, article returned for revision

Journal B


• Life Science Open Access title• Auto-runs submissions• CrossCheck report showed some

similarities to another article in the field.

• Direct passages weren’t copied over and articles were about slightly different topics, but sentence structure was a match.

• Action: EIC approached authors. Still ongoing.

Journal C


• Wiley routinely advises using CrossCheck as a standard part of the peer review process, but we advise editors to use it as a tool, not as a catch-all. Reports are great, but oversight is required.

• Most editors see the value in the tool, but appreciate any/all education about using similarity reports to their best effect.

Conclusions/Next Steps


Questions? [email protected]

Thanks!

ben hogan: ithenticate/crosscheck usage and case studies #crossref15

Technology