Systematic Characterizations of Text Similarity in Full Text Biomedical Publications

被引:19
|
作者
Sun, Zhaohui [1 ]
Errami, Mounir [2 ]
Long, Tara [1 ]
Renard, Chris [2 ]
Choradia, Nishant [2 ]
Garner, Harold [1 ]
机构
[1] Virginia Bioinformat Inst, Blacksburg, VA USA
[2] Collin Coll, Dept Math & Nat Sci, Plano, TX USA
来源
PLOS ONE | 2010年 / 5卷 / 09期
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
DEJA-VU; PLAGIARISM; CITATIONS; MEDLINE;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0012704
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background: Computational methods have been used to find duplicate biomedical publications in MEDLINE. Full text articles are becoming increasingly available, yet the similarities among them have not been systematically studied. Here, we quantitatively investigated the full text similarity of biomedical publications in PubMed Central. Methodology/Principal Findings: 72,011 full text articles from PubMed Central (PMC) were parsed to generate three different datasets: full texts, sections, and paragraphs. Text similarity comparisons were performed on these datasets using the text similarity algorithm eTBLAST. We measured the frequency of similar text pairs and compared it among different datasets. We found that high abstract similarity can be used to predict high full text similarity with a specificity of 20.1% (95% CI [17.3%, 23.1%]) and sensitivity of 99.999%. Abstract similarity and full text similarity have a moderate correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient: -0.423) when the similarity ratio is above 0.4. Among pairs of articles in PMC, method sections are found to be the most repetitive (frequency of similar pairs, methods: 0.029, introduction: 0.0076, results: 0.0043). In contrast, among a set of manually verified duplicate articles, results are the most repetitive sections (frequency of similar pairs, results: 0.94, methods: 0.89, introduction: 0.82). Repetition of introduction and methods sections is more likely to be committed by the same authors (odds of a highly similar pair having at least one shared author, introduction: 2.31, methods: 1.83, results: 1.03). There is also significantly more similarity in pairs of review articles than in pairs containing one review and one nonreview paper (frequency of similar pairs: 0.0167 and 0.0023, respectively). Conclusion/Significance: While quantifying abstract similarity is an effective approach for finding duplicate citations, a comprehensive full text analysis is necessary to uncover all potential duplicate citations in the scientific literature and is helpful when establishing ethical guidelines for scientific publications.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 6
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Data set Mentions and Citations: A Content Analysis of Full-Text Publications
    Zhao, Mengnan
    Yan, Erjia
    Li, Kai
    JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2018, 69 (01) : 32 - 46
  • [32] Reporting quality of abstracts and inconsistencies with full text articles in pediatric orthopedic publications
    Kamel, Sherif Ahmed
    El-Sobky, Tamer A. A.
    RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND PEER REVIEW, 2023, 8 (01)
  • [33] Towards Automatic Pathway Generation from Biological Full-Text Publications
    Buyko, Ekaterina
    Linde, Joerg
    Priebe, Steffen
    Hahn, Udo
    ADVANCES IN INTELLIGENT DATA ANALYSIS X: IDA 2011, 2011, 7014 : 67 - +
  • [34] Discrepancies Between Meeting Abstracts and Subsequent Full Text Publications in Hand Surgery
    Theman, Todd A.
    Labow, Brian I.
    Taghinia, Amir
    JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2014, 39 (08): : 1585 - 1590
  • [35] Biomedical Text Similarity Evaluation Using Attention Mechanism and Siamese Neural Network
    Li, Zhengguang
    Chen, Heng
    Chen, Huayue
    IEEE ACCESS, 2021, 9 : 105002 - 105011
  • [36] Extractive text summarization system to aid data extraction from full text in systematic review development
    Bui, Duy Duc An
    Del Fiol, Guilherme
    Hurdle, John F.
    Jonnalagadda, Siddhartha
    JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2016, 64 : 265 - 272
  • [38] Full text in the internet
    不详
    ARZNEIMITTELFORSCHUNG-DRUG RESEARCH, 2000, 50 (10): : 879 - 882
  • [39] Full text in the Internet
    不详
    ARZNEIMITTELFORSCHUNG-DRUG RESEARCH, 2000, 50 (12): : 1053 - 1055