{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02278574053656744, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013597941933112825, 'mean_word_length': 5.257471264367816, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Plagiarism in Predatory Publications: A Comparative Study of Three Nursing Journals

PURPOSE
This study compared three known predatory nursing journals to determine the percentage of content among them that was plagiarized or duplicated. A serendipitous finding of several instances of plagiarism via duplicate publications during the random analysis of articles in a study examining the quality of articles published in predatory journals prompted this investigation.


DESIGN
The study utilized a descriptive, comparative design. All articles in each journal (n = 296 articles) from inception (volume 1, number 1) through May 1, 2017, were analyzed.


METHODS
Each article was evaluated and scored electronically for similarity using an electronic plagiarism detection tool. Articles were then individually reviewed, and exact and near exact matches (90% or greater plagiarized content) were paired. Articles with less than 70% plagiarized scores were randomly sampled, and an in-depth search for matches of partial content in other journals was conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data.


FINDINGS
The extent and direction of duplication from one given journal to another was established. Changes made in subsequent publications, as a potential distraction to identify plagiarism, were also identified. There were 100 (68%) exact and near exact matches in the paired articles. The time lapse between the original and duplicate publication ranged from 0 to 63 months, with a mean of 27.2 months (SD =19.68). Authors were from 26 countries, including Africa, the United States, Turkey, and Iran. Articles with similarity scores in the range of 20% to 70% included possible similarities in content or research plagiarism, but not to the extent of the exact or near exact matches. The majority of the articles (n = 94) went from Journal A or C to Journal B, although four articles were first published in Journal B and then Journal A.


CONCLUSIONS
This study found a substantial level of plagiarism via duplicate publications in the three analyzed predatory journals, further diluting credible scientific literature and risking the ability to synthesize evidence accurately to inform practice. Editors should continue to use electronic plagiarism detection tools. Education about publishing misconduct for editors and authors is a high priority.


CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Both contributors and consumers of nursing literature rely on integrity in publication. Authors expect appropriate credit for their scholarly contributions without unethical and unauthorized duplication of their work. Readers expect current information from original authors, upon which they can make informed practice decisions.