Discussion
How plagiarism passes peer review
Reflection on a handbook editor’s experience
Article outline
- 1.Some facts about the Handbook
- 2.Peer review of the plagiarized chapter
- 3.The need for an open evaluation system backed up by technological tools
- 3.1A major flaw in pre-publication peer review
- 3.2Untrustworthiness of plagiarists’ warranty
- 3.3Plagiarists’ manipulation of content
- 3.4Citation of retracted papers
-
References
References (9)
References
Basu, R. (2021). Top
15 best plagiarism detection and remover tools in 2021. [URL] (accessed 7 October 2021).
Cui, Y. & Zhao, W. (Eds.) (2015). Handbook
of research on teaching methods in language translation and interpretation. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Kriegeskorte, N. (2014). What
lesson do rising retraction rates hold for peer review? The
Conversation (9 July 2014). [URL] (accessed 18 October 2021).
Mahamud, A. A. (2021). Plagiarism
checker best free tools. [URL] (accessed 7 October 2021).
Penet, J.-C. (2015). Review
of Y. Cui and W. Zhao (Eds.),
Handbook
of research on teaching methods in language translation and interpretation (IGI Global,
2015). JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised
Translation
24
1, 262–264.
Plagiarism.org (2017). What is
plagiarism? [URL] (accessed 23 June 2021).
Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science
publishing: The trouble with
retractions. Nature 4781, 26–28.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Cui, Ying & Xiao Liu
2023.
A Questionnaire Survey on Chinese Translation and Interpreting Scholars’ Publication Pressure and Its Impact on Research Quality and Publishing Ethics.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 18:3
► pp. 161 ff.
Hu, Bei
2022.
Trust to thrive.
Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:2
► pp. 309 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.