If it is not, why some scholars do it. They even paraphrase some materials from papers without citation. I do not call it pure plagiarism, and will call it quasi-plagiarism or peer-thought-plagiarism. What are you opinions about the topic.
Guidelines for Effective(& Ethical) Paraphrase
1. Read and understand the original source. Use a highlighter pen only if you are going to make notes also.
2. Write the bibliographic information down carefully and completely.
3. For Internet sources, print the Web pages you are using (as Web addresses frequently change), and note the date you accessed the page.
4. Make notes, using words, phrases, or a short string of words. Do NOT copy sentences or long sections of text.
5. Leave the material for a period of time, at least several hours and preferably several
days.
6. When you write your paper, use only the notes you have taken. Never write your paper looking directly at the original text.
7. Place appropriate citations in your in your text to indicate sources.
8. After writing a complete section such as a literature review, verify details included in
your paper by using the original text.
9. Add details or make other adjustments if what you have written misrepresents the
original text.
http://www.uab.edu/graduate/images/acrobat/publications/plagiarism.pdf
You should always cite other authors' ideas even if you paraphrase them.
In a way this should be a form of plagiarism, whether quasi or peer-thought!
Plagiarism occurs when an author uses someone else's ideas and pretend they are his/her own.
We must still reference ideas that are not our own even if we paraphrase the sentences/paragraphs.
Yes it is plagiarism, if not not cited. The original author should have their due recognition.
Dear Bahram,
Dear All,
This thread is a 4th, 5th…10th(?) repetition of the subject on plagiarism or scientific ethics.
One can but repeat well known common places! The subject can be refreshed only by detailed and characteristic case stories…
I am eager of them!
Dear Bahram,
Copying someone else's work and claiming it as your own is plagiarism. You need to cite the source of the idea and write it down in your own language. Other than that it is plagiarism. See www.plagiarism.org for more information about the types of plagiarism. According to this site:
ACCORDING TO THE MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, TO "PLAGIARIZE" MEANS
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
to use (another's production) without crediting the source
to commit literary theft
to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.
Regards
Of course, I absolutely agree that it is plagiarism.
Furthermore, ad Mehdi said, the more related studies you mention, the more credible is your work.
Yes it is plagiarism. But I want to introduce a new variable. Scientific production is vast, is not possible to know all the knowledge in papers and sometimes your own ideas have been written for someone else before and you could think they are original thinking. I meant, ideas are not an exclusive property.
Is that possible? How to deal with that?
A researcher only adds a little knowledge to the knowledge that is already existing in the field of study in most cases. If this is so, then it sometimes baffles me why some people may decide not to give credit to those whose works they have consulted. I have seen a few cases among students who contracted research groups in the country to do their research works for them. These research groups take other people's work, modify it to suit the topic of the client. Knowing that what they are doing is a criminal offense, these Research groups do not declare the source of the works that they consulted. In my University even if you are doing a Diploma or a first degree you must defend your project work.Those students were found out because they could not defend the work. I have heard that there is a software that can be used to detect works that are not original works. If it works well, then someone enlightens us on it so that we can go in for it. The essence of all these is to minimize dishonesty in the academia.
If the other person's ideas are original you must cite their work--even when you paraphrase.
Guidelines for Effective(& Ethical) Paraphrase
1. Read and understand the original source. Use a highlighter pen only if you are going to make notes also.
2. Write the bibliographic information down carefully and completely.
3. For Internet sources, print the Web pages you are using (as Web addresses frequently change), and note the date you accessed the page.
4. Make notes, using words, phrases, or a short string of words. Do NOT copy sentences or long sections of text.
5. Leave the material for a period of time, at least several hours and preferably several
days.
6. When you write your paper, use only the notes you have taken. Never write your paper looking directly at the original text.
7. Place appropriate citations in your in your text to indicate sources.
8. After writing a complete section such as a literature review, verify details included in
your paper by using the original text.
9. Add details or make other adjustments if what you have written misrepresents the
original text.
http://www.uab.edu/graduate/images/acrobat/publications/plagiarism.pdf
Dear András Bozsik, you are right, but my first and foremost intention of posing this question was not pure plagiarism (taking others' words and passing them as yours) but was and is quasi-plagiarism or peer-thought plagiarism, i.e. getting ideas for starting new research while reading other author's papers or books but not mentioning or appreciating that author's name in your paper. Anyway thanks for your contribution.
Any matter being taken from any paper significantly - must be cited appropriately, the persons giving you ideas must be acknowledged.
Dear Flemming I have studied maths and physics both at my school level, and text books in these discipline are very much valuable, a got a strong base and knowledge out of these only. All good text books represents high science. These only make me know Archimede's principles, probability and many theories/principles.
I agree with Kamal that, “One of the main pillars of scientific publication is to respect the work and ideas of other fellows the scientists and cite them fairly”. I think that there should be no quotations without citations.
Dear All,
There are various degrees of plagiarism which has been many times discussed here. Unfortunately, lack of imagination and originality as well as the desire to making the (self)illusion of being a scientist occurs often.
Dear Flemming,
One should not always cite elementary and often used phenomena, facts, connections (e.g. who invented the character “a” when writing a word containing “a”). I do not ask you who invented the trick with the rabbit and the top hat or who took the picture you have chosen to represent yourself…
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Citations