Nowadays, unfortunately, plagiarizing ideas seems to be an effective way for some people (or perhaps many?) to proceed satisfactorily.

Regards

When I was preparing my PhD thesis proposal in philosophy I discovered that my intended outline corresponded uncannily to the table of contents in a recently published book on the same topic. Disheartened, I changed topics although one of my advisors thought I should have persisted nonetheless. I guess, in the case of philosophy, the author would have been engaged and cited numerous times in connection with the details and arguments pertaining to the issues so the structural correspondence would not have been of concern. However, in the sciences it is appropriate to indicate the methodological approach at the front end, including a description of the specific method within that approach. And if that specific method is not a widespread one but has been adapted from a particular source, that source should at least be acknowledged, which would be easy enough to do, and I myself would insist on it.

Recently a student of mine sent me a paper to mark that looked too close to the text books for my liking, and although I knew him to be a good student I put it through a plagiariser detector. On two questions he was high (appro. 28%)and on two others above the accepted level, but only just, so I marked the paper lower than normally I would have and gave him a warning. It might simply have been a student following the given text too closely, but as I pointed out to him he needed to be more careful as others might refuse to mark it.

Now, in Internet and search engines era, many students (and not students, too) have mastered the technique of "copy-paste". Moreover, they do not even understand what the problem is, when I begin to explain to them that I am interested of their own opinion, but not pieces of other people's thoughts from the Internet (sometimes unrelated, even connected formally). Often, samples of completely stupid works from the Internet are presented as their own, etc. (In this case I say: "I do not believe, you could not write this nonsense ..." ) We need to change something ...

Nowadays, unfortunately, plagiarizing ideas seems to be an effective way for some people (or perhaps many?) to proceed satisfactorily.

Regards

Require at least to make a reference to the original dissertation/thesis

Vladimir Yakovenko

In my opinion these are different things: Citation is manifestation of the respect for previous works, but borrowing just is theft. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of these people will never steal something from a store, but they appropriates other people's thoughts without apparent difficulties.

I think, If a material is already published. It has bee open to public for long time. If someone will copy word by word and sentence by sentence It should be valid. However he or she should give proper reference of the authors of that manuscripts.

Perhaps it would be better if such people steal something from a store instead of other people's inventions

I once had professors take a paper that I had written with others for a course. They passed it off as a grant idea -- until other faculty found out that they had used students' work without giving us the credit. It was a difficult time, as I still had to sit for my PHD exams. Sounds like a big problem all the way around.

A lot of my written work appears on the internet, being sold but with my name attached, and I once came across a power point online that was a complete rip-off of an essay on RG-Oliver Twist and Jung. The ideas were mine-I had never seen them anywhere else- and at times the wording. In the comments I pulled the man to task.

My idea is that, already published materials can be used for their manuscripts giving credits to the previous researchers.

كثير ما ملاحظة في الآونة الأخيرة من سرقة العلمية وأخذ أفكار ومعلومات الغير وينسبها له

Following!

Thinker science, that is everybody''s understanding. It is simply citation

In case of using approaches, work structure, etc., i.e. those things that are not obvious plagiarism, it is more correct to refer to the “original” work, mentioning it, for example, as a model. But this is not usually done. It is often possible to see how a successful experimental step applied to a particular object quickly becomes a “common property” and applies to all similar objects. This is not plagiarism, of course. But not entirely independent work, either. The existence of "jackals" or "hyenas" in science can be excluded only in one way: to write a paper about a method, an approach, etc., and then demonstrate its fruitfulness with a concrete example. But this is not always possible, as require long time, but scientisf should show activity few time in year. Dead end?

احتكار الافكار امر مرفوض..

وهناك تناص في كثير من الاحيان

فقد نكتب عن الحب او عن الاخلاق

ونعتقد بأن كل من يكتب عن هذين الموضوعين فيما بعد بأنه قد سرق منا الكثير.

Yes, the monopoly of ideas is unacceptable. Therefore, I use my own. As we say here: "Shabby, but my own."

The monopoly of information is unacceptable.

Theft of ideas happens all the time in the sphere of research.

It’s unethical to take other’s people’s idea/ work/ writing and claim his/her ownership.

It is simply too bad.

Instead of "Plagiarising idea" I will prefer to use "refining an idea". As there is always room for improvement. One researcher present an idea and work on it. Another researcher review that and improve it to some extent. The 3rd researcher give that a practical shape. This is how research is going on.

If everyone develop his/her own idea and work on it, how "citation" will come?

But this doesn't mean to work on other's idea all the time. We should avoid copying someone's idea and work. If we can't develop our own idea, we are not deserving to stay in the sphere of research. We should search another field to work.

If directly relevant research is not cited, then it amounts to plagiarism.

It reminds me of a similar but more important story that I read in a book: Freud found the anesthetic effect of some drug and showed it to his fellows in an experiment with teeth (or so); one of those fellows received a Nobel prize for this idea in the context of eye surgery...

Cases like the one you indicate happen more and more in universities. I believe that we should be more frontal in the methodology chairs and reiterate the importance of citing the sources that have been used in the elaboration of the research work. In the same way, the tutors and research guides should review these aspects before the presentation and defense of the works.

I saw cases like that. but whe we defined our objetives and methodology, it is very hard on plagiarism. I believe that in theories is easier to copy and past.

Ingrid

We should also be vigilant even here, in the Q&A on RG. I have caught a number of people on RG just copy-and-pasting passages without indicating the source. Ironically, one such plagiarizer was posting a plagiarized answer to a question on plagiarism! When I encounter plagiarism I immediately post an answer calling the person out and providing the missing citation, but my countermeasures are just a drop in the ocean; the amount of plagiarism on RG is immense.

Hello

Ewing, H., Mathieson, K., Anast, A., & Roehling, T. (2019). Student and faculty perceptions of plagiarism in health sciences education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(1), 79-88.

This is a widespread phenomenon. Two things which can be done:

1. As an author, make your research visible by putting it for example on arXiv, because published is not the same as visible , also because arXiv gives a timestamp to the article. (Or use any other favorite visible public place, which can be cited.)

2. As a potential reviewer, if you think that paper A plagiarizes content from paper B, and if you are willing to spend effort to prove it, then limit yourself to a technically correct and dispassioned review. Then put in a visible public place again.

Haji Saediman I have done quite well without plagiarism-checking software by just googling a few suspicious-looking phrases or sentences which will take me to the larger plagiarized passages.

Artur Braun RE: “you’ll never become a great scientist if you cannot steal"

Stealing is not necessarily the same as passing off someone else's work as your own. It can also consist of using another's work without permission, or not respecting patents, copyright, or other forms of intellectual property, which can be done without involving plagiarism; probably par for the course in some financially challenged academic climes. But I suspect the remark was a jocular figure of speech, no?, the suggestion being that one must at least stand on the shoulders of others, if not of giants? BTW, I had just asked my son, "Can I can steal your pen for a sec?"