Plagiarism: “The Plague of current science”

  • Ghulam Mustafa Khaim Khani President Elect, Pakistan Orthopaedic Association
  • Faaiz Ali Shah Department of Orthopaedics, Lady reading Hospital, Peshawar


The word Plagiarism has a Latin origin, “plagiarius,” meaning “kidnapper” or “abductor” and “plaga” meaning “hunting net” 1,2 The term is very old and has many definitions. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) define plagiarism as “the unreferenced use of others published and unpublished ideas.”3 The authors, however must be cautious that using published photos, videos, images, art work, graphs and tables without written permission is also plagiarism.2 Plagiarism is the most common among ethics issues in research and although there are many forms of plagiarism like collusion plagiarism, self-plagiarism, technical plagiarism, patchwork plagiarism, and blatant plagiarism none is acceptable ethically and legally.4 The exact prevalence of plagiarism is not known.1 However some studies have reported a rejection rate of 9.8% to 16% research papers due to plagiarism and a higher incidence of plagiarism has been reported in some countries like Japan, Korea, Italy, France, China, Iran, Turkey and India.5,6


Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Seksenbayev B, Trukhachev VI,Kostyukov EI, Kitas GD.Plagiarism in the Context of Education and Evolving Detection Strategies.J Korean Med Sci 2017;32(8):1220-1227.
2. Juyal D, Thawani V, Thaledi S. Plagiarism: An Egregious Form of Misconduct N Am J Med Sci 215;7(2):77-80.
3. Committee on Publication Ethics. Promoting integrity in research publication. [Accessed September 11, 2014]. at
4. Bazdaric K, Bilic-Zulle L, Brumini G, Petrovecki M. Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian medical journal. Sci Eng Ethics 2012;18:223-39.
5. Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK. Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open 2016;6:40-47.
6. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012;109:17028–17033.
7. iThenticate (US) Crossref similarity check powered by iThenticate [Internet] [accessed on 31 March 2017]. Available at
8. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) plagiarism Advisory Program website,, visited: 22 July 2006
9. Skandalakis JE, Mirilas P. Plagiarism. Arch Surg 2004;139:1022-1024
10. Stearns L. Copy wrong: plagiarism, process, and the law. In: Buranen L, Roy AM, eds. Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World. Albany: State University of New York; 1999:6-7.
11. Smith JP. Plagiarists publish and perish [editorial]. J Adv Nurs 1999;30:777-778.
12. [HEC Press 2006] Higher Education Commission Pakistan Press release (7 Feb. 2006), and (10 May 2006),, visited: 22 July 2006
13. Jansen PA, Forget PM. Predatory publishers and plagiarism prevention. Science 2012;3:1380.
14. Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Udovik EE, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. Predatory publishing is a threat to non-mainstream science. J Korean Med Sci 2017;32:713-717.
15. Chaddah P. Pursuing knowledge creation, India needs a policy on ‘plagiarism cells’ Curr Sci 2014;106:349.
16. Neuroskeptic (US) Plagiarism: copy, paste, thesaurus? [Internet] [accessed on 31 March 2017]. Available at
How to Cite
KHAIM KHANI, Ghulam Mustafa; SHAH, Faaiz Ali. Plagiarism: “The Plague of current science”. Journal of Pakistan Orthopaedic Association, [S.l.], v. 32, n. 03, p. 74-75, oct. 2019. ISSN 2076-8966. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 16 dec. 2019.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.