Hernández RJS

Language: Spanish
References: 8
Page:
PDF size: 1155.02 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Ouriginal is software that helps detect and pre-vent plagiarism regardless of language. It brings together the combined experience of Urkund and PlagScan of more than three decades and is trusted by hundreds of companies and educational institutions worldwide. Regarding the work with the Cuban medical journals, it began to be used in 2021, and it was ordered to be used with all the articles to be processed by the end of that year. Recently, the Cuban journals have been denied access to this tool. Objective: To show the experiences of working with Ouriginal in the Cuban Journal of Health and Labor from August to De-cember 2021. Methods: A user profile was created in the system. The estab-lished procedures for analyzing manuscripts and identifying coincidences were observed. A log of results and a template for editorial analysis of the reports were created. This analysis and the software report are included with the article in the submis-sion for proofreading. Results: Twenty-eight articles were processed and twenty-six software reports were analyzed, excluding two manuscripts returned for other reasons. All the detected coincidences were investigated, regardless of the percentage they accounted for. Unjustified similarities were not observed, nor were unethical authorial behaviors detected. Conclusions: Ouriginal was a useful and effective tool for the identification of coincidences and the prevention of possible plagiarism in scientific publication. It is necessary to find a way to access this software again.

REFERENCES

1. Cárdenas Díaz T. La publicación científica y su contribución a la generación del conocimiento. Rev. Cuba Oftalm [Internet]. 2021 [acceso 30/09/2021];34(1):e1048. Disponible en: http://www.revoftalmologia.sld.cu/index.php/oftalmologia/article/view/1048

2. Rodríguez-Venegas EC, Zamora-Fung R. Autoría y dilemas éticos en la publicación científica. Rev Cub Med [Internet]. 2021 [acceso 29/09/2021];60(1):e1604. Disponible en: http://www.revmedicina.sld.cu/index.php/med/article/view/1604

3. Guraya SY. The confounding factors leading to plagiarism in academic writing and some suggested remedies: A systematic Review. J Pak Med Assoc. 2017 [acceso 04/01/2020];67(5):767-72. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28507368

4. Solís G, Cano A, Antón M, Manrique de Lara LA, Galán CR. Plagio y ética en las publicaciones cientí-ficas. Anales de Pediatría [Internet]. 2019;90(1):1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpedi.2018.10.008

5. Ruzafa M, González E, Moreno T, del Río C, Al-bornos L, Escandell C. Proyecto de implantación de guías de buenas prácticas en España 2011-2016. En-ferm Clin. 2011;2(5):275-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfcli.2011.07.013

6. López A. Herramientas antiplagio: de la suposición a la comprobación. Presentación. Evento científico “PubliCient-2019.” Editorial Ciencias Médicas, La Habana, Cuba.

7. Our company – Ouriginal. [Internet]. 2022 [acceso 06/02/2022]. Disponible en: https://www.ouriginal.com/our-company/

8. Ouriginal. Mensaje automático del sistema. [Inter-net]. 2021 [acceso 13/02/2022]. Disponible en: https://secure.ouriginal.com/static/documents/ENG_Ouriginal_Policy.pdf