The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
Volume 20 | Issue 10 | Year 2019

Similarity Index Analysis of the Manuscript: A Viewpoint

Shailesh M Gondivkar1, Sachin C Sarode2, Amol R Gadbail3, Gargi S Sarode4, Shankargouda Patil5

1Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Government Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
2Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Dr DY Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr DY Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, India
3,4Department of Dentistry, Indira Gandhi Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
5Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Oral Pathology, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Corresponding Author: Sachin C Sarode, Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Dr DY Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr DY Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, India, e-mail: drsachinsarode@gmail.com

How to cite this article Gondivkar SM, Sarode SC, Gadbail AR, et al. Similarity Index Analysis of the Manuscript: A Viewpoint. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20(10):1125.

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None

Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism have been considered the major academic/scientific misconduct in writing the research.1 In recent decades, plagiarism detection has become relatively easy with the evolution of newer software.2,3 Undoubtedly, many scientific journals evaluate the received manuscripts for plagiarism/similarity index and strictly refuse to consider manuscripts with higher similarity index for further publication process. In addition, if plagiarism is reported in the published articles, authors may pose various academic, professional, and legal consequences. This is definitely fruitful in producing originality of the articles with newer ideas/concepts in research design:

We herewith would like to put forward a few points to consider in similarity index evaluation.

Considering the above-mentioned issues, we feel that many authors write their scientific manuscripts honestly, but depending on the number of words from the material and methods section and quotations contribute significantly to the similarity index and increasing the overall similarity index. This ultimately results in the rejection of their articles from the scientific journals of their choice. Many at times, this leads to frustration and demotivation for writing manuscripts for the projects. Therefore, we strongly believe that wherever applicable, the materials and methods section and certain relevant quotations accepted by the scientific community should be omitted from considering the similarity index in future. We further hope that scientific journals, universities, and governing authorities should take these issues into consideration to form newer strategies for future publications. Novelty and uniqueness of the research question should be considered while evaluating the similarity index of any paper.


1. U.S. Department of health and human service office of research integrity definition of research misconduct; 2018. https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct.

2. Andrews KG, Smith LA, Henzi D, et al. faculty and student perceptions of academic integrity at U.S. and Canadian dental schools. J Dent Edu 2007;71:1027–1039.

3. Lynch J, Everett B, Ramjan LM, et al. Plagiarism in nursing education: an integrative review. J Clin Nurs 2017;26:2845–2864. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13629.

© The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.