Cover not available
Discussion published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 24:1 (2022) ► pp.140–146
Discussion

How plagiarism passes peer review

Reflection on a handbook editor’s experience

| Shandong University
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
Published online: 3 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00071.cui
References
Basu, R.
(2021) Top 15 best plagiarism detection and remover tools in 2021. [URL] (accessed 7 October 2021).
Bontempo, K. & Napier, J.
(2011) Evaluating emotional stability as a predictor of interpreter competence and aptitude for interpreting. Interpreting 13 (1), 85–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cui, Y. & Zhao, W.
(Eds.) (2015) Handbook of research on teaching methods in language translation and interpretation. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Plagiarism.org
(2017) What is plagiarism? [URL] (accessed 23 June 2021).
Pöchhacker, F. & Liu, M.
(2021) Interpreting research in print: A quarter-century update. Interpreting 23 (1), 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Noorden, R.
(2011) Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature 4781, 26–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar