Policy on plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable actions

The Spanish Journal of Clinical Cases in Internal Medicine gives special recognition to issues related to plagiarism, self-plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication, and authorship. Therefore, it adopts the guidelines communicated by Miguel Roig in the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) [Roig M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. 2nd review. 2015], and, although due to the characteristics of the clinical cases they are not all applicable, we present below a summary of all of them:

Guideline 1: An ethical writer ALWAYS acknowledges the contributions of others and the source of his/her ideas

Guideline 2: All text taken from another source must be enclosed in inverted commas and accompanied by a citation to indicate its origin.

Guideline 3: When summarising the work of others, we use our own words to condense and convey the contributions of others in a shorter version of the original.

Guideline 4: When paraphrasing the work of others, we must not only use our own words, but we must also use our syntactical structure.

Guideline 5: Whether we are paraphrasing or summarising, we must always identify the source of our information.

Guideline 6: When paraphrasing and/or summarising the work of others, we must ensure that we are reproducing the exact meaning of the other author's ideas or facts and that we do so using our own words and sentence structure.

Guideline 7: In order to make substantial modifications to the original text that result in an adequate paraphrase, you must have a thorough command of the language and a good understanding of the ideas and terminology being used.

Guideline 8: When in doubt about whether a concept or fact is common knowledge, provide a citation.

Guideline 9: Authors of complex studies should follow the advice of Angell and Relman (Angell, M. and A.S. Relman (1989). Redundant publication. New England Journal of Medicine, 320, 1212-14). If single complex study results are best presented as a single "cohesive" whole, they should not be divided into individual articles. In addition, if there is any doubt as to whether a paper submitted for publication represents fragmented data, authors should attach other articles (published or unpublished) that could be part of the article under consideration (Kassirer, J. P. & Angell, M. (1995). Redundant publication: A reminder. The New England Journal of Medicine, 333, 449-450. Retrieved, March 7, 2003, from http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/333/7/449).

Guideline 10: Authors submitting a manuscript for publication that contains previously disseminated data, reviews, conclusions, etc., should indicate to editors and readers the nature of the previous dissemination. The provenance of the data should never be in doubt.

Guideline 11: While there are some situations where text recycling is an acceptable practice, it may not be admissible in other conditions. Authors are urged to adhere to the spirit of ethical writing and avoid reusing their own previously published text unless it is done to warn readers about the reuse or one that is consistent with standard scholarly conventions (e.g., through the use of appropriate quotations and paraphrasing).

Guideline 12: In the context of conferences and similar audiovisual presentations of their work, authors should practice the same principles of transparency with their audiences.

Guideline 13: In addition to traditional practices of ethical scholarship, authors should be mindful of readers' expectations, applicable issues related to intellectual content rights (i.e., copyright), and especially the need to always be transparent in our work when reusing material in different domains of dissemination.

Guideline 14: Because some instances of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and even some writing practices that might be acceptable (e.g., paraphrasing or quoting key elements of a book) may constitute copyright infringement, authors are strongly encouraged to familiarise themselves with the basics of copyright law.

Guideline 15: Authors are strongly encouraged to verify their citations. Specifically, authors should always ensure that each reference notation appearing in the body of the manuscript corresponds to the correct citation listed in the reference section and vice versa and that each source listed in the reference section has been cited at some point in the manuscript. In addition, authors should also ensure that all elements of a citation (e.g., the spelling of authors' names, journal volume number, pagination) are derived directly from the original article rather than from a citation that appears in a secondary source. Finally, authors should ensure that credit is given to those authors who first reported the phenomenon under study.

Guideline 16: References used in an article should be only those directly related to the article's content. The intentional inclusion of references of questionable relevance for purposes such as manipulating the impact factor of a journal or article or the chances of acceptance of an article is an unacceptable practice.

Guideline 17: Always cite the actual work being consulted. When the published article cannot be obtained, cite the specific version of the material being used, whether a conference presentation, abstract or unpublished manuscript. Ensure that the cited work has not been subsequently corrected or retracted.

Guideline 18: In general, when describing the work of others, do not cite an original article if you are relying only on a secondary abstract of that article. Doing so is misleading, reflects poor scholarly standards, and may lead to a misleading description of the work described.

Guideline 19: If an author must rely on a secondary source (e.g., a textbook) to describe the content of a primary source (e.g., an empirical journal article), they should consult the writing manuals used in their discipline to follow the appropriate convention. to do so. Above all, always indicate the actual source of information being reported to the reader.

Guideline 20: When borrowing heavily from one source, authors should always write so that it is clear to readers which ideas/data are their own and which are derived from the sources consulted.

Guideline 21: When appropriate, authors have an ethical responsibility to report evidence that is contrary to their point of view. In addition, evidence we use to support our position must be methodologically sound. When citing supporting studies that suffer from methodological, statistical or other shortcomings, these should be brought to the attention of the reader.

Guideline 22: Authors have an ethical obligation to report all aspects of the study that may affect the replicability of their research by independent observers.

Guideline 23: Researchers have an ethical responsibility to report the results of their studies according to their a priori plans. Any post hoc manipulations that may alter the results initially obtained, such as eliminating outliers or using alternative statistical techniques, must be clearly described along with an acceptable justification for using such techniques.

Guideline 24: Authorship determination must be discussed before the research collaboration and must be based on established guidelines, such as those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Guideline 25: Only those individuals who have made substantial contributions to a project deserve authorship in a paper.

Guideline 26: Faculty and students collaborations should follow the same criteria for establishing authorship. Mentors must be very careful not to grant authorship to students whose contributions do not merit it or deny authorship and due credit to the work of students.

Guideline 27: Academic or professional ghost authorship in the sciences is ethically unacceptable.

Guideline 28: Authors should be aware of potential conflicts of interest in their research and make every effort to disclose situations (e.g., stock ownership, consulting arrangements to the sponsoring organisation) that may pose actual or potential conflicts of interest.