The integrity of biomedical research depends on transparency, reproducibility, and the ethical use of intellectual contributions. Among the threats to these principles, plagiarism has become a major concern within the life sciences and biomedical publishing community. With the rapid expansion of scientific output and the digitisation of scholarly literature, academic publishers have increasingly adopted automated similarity-detection systems to identify potential textual overlap in manuscripts before publication. These tools are now routinely deployed by most major scientific journals and publishing houses to safeguard the integrity of the scientific record and ensure proper attribution of ideas and language in scholarly communication [1][2][3].
Plagiarism in scientific writing can be broadly defined as the use of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without appropriate acknowledgement [2]. Although the concept appears straightforward, the boundaries between legitimate reuse, common phrasing, and unethical copying can be complex in practice. Studies examining the prevalence of plagiarism in the biomedical literature suggest that cases range from deliberate intellectual theft to inadvertent textual similarity arising from inadequate citation practices or limited familiarity with publication ethics [3][4]. Irrespective of intent, however, the detection of significant textual similarity during editorial screening often triggers concerns regarding research integrity and may result in manuscript rejection or further investigation [1].
Importantly, similarity detection software, such as those widely used by journal editors, identifies patterns of overlapping text but does not necessarily distinguish between intentional plagiarism and coincidental similarity. Editors therefore frequently approach such findings cautiously but may assume potential misconduct until the author provides clarification [3]. Consequently, researchers must remain vigilant in their writing practices to avoid unintentional similarities that could raise concerns during the peer-review process.
To help address these challenges, we have recently released a new Insider’s Insight guide entitled Good But Not Original: An Insider’s Insight into Plagiarism. This freely available resource provides practical advice to authors seeking to minimise the risk of plagiarism allegations while maintaining rigorous scholarly standards. The guide reflects the collective expertise of the company’s medical writing team and highlights several simple practices that can significantly improve manuscript preparation.
One important recommendation is to maintain an organised system when reviewing source material. During literature review, authors should keep careful records of the articles they consult and clearly distinguish their own notes from verbatim text extracted from source documents. Such organisation facilitates accurate citation and helps ensure that important passages requiring attribution are not overlooked when drafting a manuscript. Proper documentation during the writing process has long been recognised as a key strategy for avoiding inadvertent plagiarism and maintaining academic transparency [5].
Another essential principle is that authors should never cite publications that they have not read themselves. Secondary citation, where an author cites a source referenced in another article without consulting the original document, can introduce inaccuracies or misinterpretations into the scientific record. Scholarly communication relies on precise attribution and accurate representation of evidence, making it critical that researchers verify the context and conclusions of the original work before referencing it [6].
Similarly, authors are encouraged to avoid relying excessively on a small number of review articles when constructing the background of a manuscript. Although review papers provide valuable summaries of existing knowledge, excessive dependence on a limited set of sources may unintentionally lead to narrative structures or phrasing that closely resemble previously published texts. A broader exploration of the literature not only reduces the risk of textual similarity but also strengthens the scientific foundation of the manuscript by incorporating diverse perspectives and primary research findings [4].
A further strategy for avoiding accidental plagiarism is to develop a distinctive and authentic writing style. Academic writing prioritises clarity, precision, and logical structure; nevertheless, expressing ideas in one’s own words remains essential for demonstrating genuine intellectual engagement with the literature. Writing in a voice that reflects the author’s own understanding reduces the likelihood of reproducing phrases that resemble previously published material. At the same time, authors should remain aware that reusing substantial portions of their own previously published text, often termed self-plagiarism or redundant publication, can also raise ethical concerns within scholarly publishing [2].
Ultimately, a sound understanding of plagiarism and careful writing practices can substantially reduce the likelihood of unintentional misconduct. Although the penalties associated with confirmed plagiarism, including manuscript rejection, retraction, and reputational damage, can be severe, responsible researchers should not be discouraged from consulting a wide range of sources in their work. When appropriate citation, critical interpretation, and original synthesis are applied, the use of diverse literature strengthens scientific scholarship and advances knowledge.
The information presented in Good But Not Original: An Insider’s Insight into Plagiarism was compiled by Dr Susan Reijntjes, Senior Medical Writer at Niche Science & Technology. Drawing on more than a century of combined experience within the organisation’s medical writing team, the guide provides practical advice for early-career and experienced authors alike.
Readers are encouraged to download the current guide from the Insider’s Insight page and explore other titles within the series. These resources aim to support researchers in navigating the complex landscape of scientific communication. By registering for updates, authors can receive monthly notifications of new guides and contribute suggestions for future topics that will help improve best practices in biomedical publishing.
References
- Garner HR. Combating unethical publications with plagiarism detection services. Urol Oncol. 2011;29(1):95–99.
- Roig M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Office of Research Integrity; 2010.
- Errami M, Garner H. A tale of two citations. Nature. 2008;451(7177):397–399.
- Bretag T, Mahmud S. Self-plagiarism or appropriate textual reuse? Journal of Academic Ethics. 2009;7(3):193–205.
- Pecorari D. Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. London: Continuum; 2008.
- Greenberg SA. How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. BMJ.2009;339:b2680.
