More Obstacles for the Graduate Student Author: Open Access ETDs Trigger Plagiarism Detectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supporting graduate students as authors is one of the many services we provide at the University Library, University of Saskatchewan (USask). Graduate students often submit articles to journals based on content from their electronic theses or dissertations (ETDs). Recently, we have noticed an increase in the number of such article submissions being flagged for possible rejection on “plagiarism” or “prior publication” grounds. We suspect this may be because plagiarism detection software is increasingly being integrated into publishers’ article submission systems. This software is triggered by the existence of the student’s open access (OA) ETD in our institutional repository. This happens despite OA ETD inclusion in repositories being a common practice and despite journal policies often allowing submission of articles based on ETDs. We review common practices and guidelines around publishing of ETD content, two recent cases of journals initially rejecting such submissions by graduate student authors of our institution, and our reflections on this issue and how to address it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Open scienceResearch integrity Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | medium |
| gpt | Research integrityScholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | medium |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.445 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".