Methodological Article

Plagiarism in Scientific Publications

Lead author: Gil Facina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29289/25945394202020200054

Gil Facina, the lead author, together with Francisco Pimentel Cavalcante, Régis Resende Paulinelli, and René Aloisio da Costa Vieira, addresses one of the most important—and often insufficiently discussed—issues in academic publishing: plagiarism and its consequences for scientific integrity. Published in Mastology, the methodological article “Plagiarism in Scientific Publications” provides practical guidance for researchers, reviewers, and editors involved in preparing and evaluating scientific manuscripts.

The authors explain that plagiarism extends beyond the literal copying of sentences. It may involve the inappropriate reproduction of content, unauthorized use of data, figures or images, appropriation of concepts and research methods, and reuse of previously published material by the same authors, commonly described as self-plagiarism. Although these practices differ in form and severity, all may compromise the originality, reliability, and credibility of scientific communication.

A particularly relevant contribution of the article is its emphasis on prevention. The authors recommend conducting a comprehensive literature review before beginning the manuscript, organizing references according to the concepts that will be discussed, and writing from an understanding of the evidence rather than merely reproducing the wording of previous publications. Priority should be given to recent original studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Careful reading, repeated revision, and participation of all coauthors in reviewing the final text are also essential measures.

The article additionally discusses similarity-detection software, including iThenticate and other available platforms. These tools can identify textual overlap and generate similarity percentages, but their results require critical interpretation. A similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism because references, methodological expressions, and commonly used terminology may legitimately increase the percentage. Editors and reviewers must therefore examine the origin, extent, and context of each identified similarity. Conversely, a low score does not exclude the inappropriate appropriation of ideas or concepts.

This methodological discussion remains highly relevant in an era of increasing publication pressure and rapid production of scientific content. Education, institutional policies, transparent authorship practices, and responsible editorial assessment are central to preventing misconduct.

Ultimately, scientific integrity depends not only on producing valid data but also on communicating them honestly and originally. By offering clear concepts and practical preventive strategies, Gil Facina and colleagues provide a valuable educational resource for strengthening trust among authors, journals, and the scientific community.