English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

TO THE EDITOR: In this April, a letter from a reviewer was sent to Deputy Editor of Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (JNM). The reviewer said that some sentences of a received manuscript for review were very similar to his previous article in JNM and asked the Deputy Editor to verify the corresponding author's name. She investigated this case immediately. At first, the degree of similarity was checked. Five days later, the corresponding author of the manuscript withdrew the manuscript. She informed all assigned reviewers that there was no necessity to review the manuscript; however, the reviewer who reported the similarity requested the followings to the Deputy Editor: he would like to search the authors' or their group's work if there were further similar cases; to confirm the policy of publication ethics of JNM again; to guide the authors or latent authors how to cite the previous articles according to the international standard. As an editorial consultant, I suggested the following opinion according to the request from the Deputy Editor, on how to treat this case. First, why was there a request to review without screening with CrossCheck, a plagiarism screening tool? In April 4, 2014, the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility changed the sponsoring publisher for digital object identifier (DOI) CrossRef XML deposition to Inforang Co. Ltd. Although there was a smooth migration for XML deposition, a new CrossCheck ID was not provided until then. This was why the editorial board members were not able to use CrossCheck for a month. In May 7, 2014, a CrossCheck ID was recovered temporarily with the help of CrossRef staff. If the manuscript had been screened before the request to review, such case would not have occurred. Second, it should be properly investigated and screened to find whether the sentences that the reviewer indicated were plagiarized ones or not. I checked the manuscript with CrossCheck with setting options as excluding quotes, bibliography, methods, small match up to 6 words and small sources up to 1%. Repository searched included CrossCheck, Internet and Publications. Similarity was 29% consisting of 9% from one article and 3% each from 3 articles. There were frequent " cut and paste " from the article that was written by the reviewer. The problem is that the authors used sentences with references altogether as described in the reviewer's article; therefore, the reference in the manuscript was not that of …

What Happened When CrossCheck Was Not Used for a Month in Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility?