One of my research students (Ph.D. research) has done extension type of research on representation of numerical data on a pair of variables by mathematical curve. He derived some formulas from Newton's forward interpolation formula , Newton's backward interpolation formula, Newton's divided difference interpolation formula and Lagrange's interpolation formula. Accordingly, he mentioned these four formulas in his thesis to be submitted for the degree. It was necessary to mention them in the thesis since these are the sources from which he derived the new formulas. But, in the plagiarism checking done by the university, these have been treated as copied from the others and due to this reason the thesis has been treated as unfit for submission. Thus the question here arises -whether it is wrong or otherwise to mention these four formulas in the thesis. Therefore the question is
" Is it wrong to mention an existing formula in the thesis, containing a new formula, if the new one is derived from it ? "
I don't think it's wrong in any way if each of the expressions were properly cited.
If each of the expressions were properly cited and placed in their appropriate places there should be nothing wrong. However, as your university does not approve this, you can just mention in the thesis that the new one is based on newtons formula of.......... and so on giving a reference rather than describing the whole formula.
@ Mehdi Asadi ,
I am also of the same opinion.
But the result of the plagiarism checking done by the university in the instant case contradicts this opinion.
@ Divyesh Varade ,
I also agree with your opinion.
However, it is to be mentioned that all the expressions were cited properly .
But still the plagiarism checking done by the university has shown these as plagiarized.
@ Sheikh Hefzul Bari ,
I am of the view that your opinion is correct.
In this connection it I reiterate that each of the expressions were properly cited and placed in their appropriate places. Still the plagiarism checking done by the university has shown these as plagiarized. However, your suggestion regarding remedial measure may be fruitful and therefore your suggestion is acknowledged and recommended.
I think Sheikh Hefzul Bari has right approach. But since you say that all of the citations were duly done, then it may be that the university is just following the Plagiarism checking software, without checking in detail about the way the citation was done, and the reason for mentioning those expressions. That would entail a human person actually checking for the amount of match with the original, and what is the outcome of your student's research. It may be worthwhile to discuss with the officials of the university, the decision makers, as to what extent your student's work ADDS to science based on earlier work. After all, every new bit of research is standing on the shoulders of giants in earlier research studies!
@ Madhura Niphadkar ,
The suggestion is, I think, valuable. However, I doubt on whether it will be fruitful.
I have been convinced that it is not wrong to mention an existing formula in the thesis, containing a new formula, if the new one is derived from it.
However, how many references are required to be quoted to validitate this existing formula if there are huge references related to this formula.
I invite suggestions/opinions from all.
There is no mistake, and we assume if the student did not mention the source, he would have accused him of scientific plagiarism and this is not acceptable in the scientific community
Therefore, the student and you, doctor, being the supervisor, must not be silent, and the scientific committee in the scientific department, college or university must have a vision and interference
@ Haider Raid Talib , I am also of the same view with that of Haider Raid Talib that if a student does not mention the source of his research work/content, he is accused of scientific plagiarism and this is not acceptable in the scientific community since non-mentioning the source implies disregard to the contributor/researcher of the respective source. That is why I raised the question.
Personally...It is not wrong in any way if each of the expressions were cited properly in the thesis.
Dhritikesh Chakrabarty Madhura Niphadkar Sheikh Hefzul Bari Divyesh Varade
@ Joab O. Odhiambo ,
The view of Joab O. Odhiambo viz.
" it is not wrong in any way if each of the expressions were cited properly in the thesis"
is agreed with that of mine.
View on
" how many references are required to be quoted to validate this existing formula if there are huge references related to this formula"
is also invited.
Dhritikesh Chakrabarty, if your student felt that inclusion of the existing formulas was necessary for a clear understanding of their derivation, then you NEED to include these expressions.
Below is an example from one of my (unpublished) projects that illustrates a solution to your conundrum:
"We propose a novel formulation which will be referred to as 'Relativiteee':
- E = mceee
This equation is derived from:
- E = mc3 (Timothy et al, 2016)
The foundational formalism for the above work as well as for Relativiteee is described by:
- E = mc2 (Einstein, 1905)"
@ Miky Timothy ,
It is our normal practice of mentioning / writing an existing formula if and only if it is essential for clear understanding the associated content and / or the associated derivation. My view is that this practice does not violate the nobility / polity of research protocol.
Thus, I feel that the view, mentioned by Miky Timothy , is acceptable with respect to research ethics.
In my opinion plagiarism would be to present such formulae _without proper citation_. In order to make developments in a way that is transparent to the readers, providing the known formulas is often _necessary to understand fully, what are the differences between the known and the newly developed formulas_ (!). One has to cite anyway, and just giving a reference in the style "Eq. ( x.y ) in [ref. uvw]" makes reading and understanding much more difficult. Thus, I agree with the answer of Miky Timothy
@ Herbert H H Homeier ,
The view of Herbert H H Homeier , associated to the question , is a complete agreement with that of my view.
It may be difficult to understand the content if instead of mentioning the associated formulae clearly only the reference is mentioned. That is why the necessity of mentioning the formulae arises. My view is that the practice of mentioning the formulae with proper reference does not violate the nobility / polity of research protocol.
The formula can actually be referenced without writing it. But if the formula is needed for derivation then it can be added to the work, changing the symbols and variables names. A plagiarism test would have been done independently to ascertain the percentage of similarity index. Then the work can be adjusted.
He should have cited some references for those four formulas that are not his.
@ Matthew Iwada Ekum,
The formulas had to be written due to better understanding of the topic . However, the formulas had been written with proper references. So, I think that it was not wrong.
Thank you for your suggestion that if a formula is needed to be mentioned for derivation of some other then it can be added to the work, changing the symbols and variables names.
@ Georgeta Vaman ,
He had cited proper references for those formulas. So I think, your view had been complied with.