I think RG team should use some anti-plagiarism software to detect plagiarized posts and strictly warn the researchers/scientists indulged in such unethical practices. Even after warning, if they don't abstain from plagiarization practices their account must be suspended.

Research is an honest scholarly endivour to search for truth In science or otherwise and built knowledge. This process of knowledge creation more than anything requires honesty, without which science crumbles. The source of the problem is instant gratification, which is more impulse driven than reason, and above all lack of passion to the profession. As a scientist, we have to have passion and honor to what we and others do and what we emulate and want others to do. It is only new results and authentic works that rise the tower of knowledge, not things which already put in place. It is this consciousness that stops such bad actions, aside from penalties.

The individuals need to be tracked and reported via tagging and raising awareness of it. Perhaps a list of those who copy paste can be formed here where those individuals will be screened until they stop plagiarism for a period. If they start then they should be listed again.

Another thing to do is to add some colour indicator of people who write original contributions (DARK GREEN), who cite others properly (BRIGHT GREEN) and then those who copy paste (RED).

It may be done via some report made public for each researcher on the profile so everyone may see.

I think RG team should use some anti-plagiarism software to detect plagiarized posts and strictly warn the researchers/scientists indulged in such unethical practices. Even after warning, if they don't abstain from plagiarization practices their account must be suspended.

I think that this type of plagiarism may be happened spontaneously and not deliberately. So it can be corrected by using special anti-plagiarism software.

Dear Karl Pfeifer , I do fight such examples of plagiarism via my answers under many threads. Researchgate has informed me that they do not act any more on this matter. So, as before RG profiles of such people were banned, such practice is not performed any more. I do block the researchers who do massive copy/paste plagiarism, and I do mention in as a reason. Everyone should point out such bad practice of plagiarism.

Yehya A. Salih RE: "this type of plagiarism may be happened spontaneously and not deliberately."

Sometimes, maybe. But I have posted responses warning the individuals that they have plagiarized and furthermore I have supplied missing citations (links) as evidence. Yet some of these people still continue with such behavior.

Its a serious matter and those who commit plagiarism need to be banned with their accounts at the very end as this is supposed to be a platform for real research. Otherwise it would not make any sense and purpose. Prevention is better than curing but sometimes cures may not exist if not reacting early.

I dont think that anyone would ever write something or take it without awareness, that its not referenced if copy-pasted. If that is the case then the person would acknowledge a technical mistake of missing to cite. I saw also as Karl Pfeifer that some seem to do it deliberately without hesitation. Sadly.

Dear Karl Pfeifer ,

This is life, the struggle is in progress, love against hate,

peace against war, originality against plagiarism, etc.

Such actions will never stop.What can be done?

I simply ignored such answers. There are some followers don't want to do plagiarism,

they want to point out some available information that helps to find answers.

In this case, I prefer to ask the follower to show a reference for his answer.

Best regards

I do agree that research gate team should implement a strategy to prevent such plagiarism from occurring .

YouTube implemented its own engine that detected duplicates , to ensure more authentic contents .

The research community needs such automation that eliminates plagiarism , ensuring all contents are original or properly referenced.

You can use anti-plagiarism software.

Karl Pfeifer You defined the plagiarism as " simply copy-and-paste their answers verbatim from various webpages and present the material as if it is their own." I would like to pay an attention to another type of plagiarism. I often see that my answers are completely rewritten using different wording. While nothing new is added. I never commented such behavior. I think that if any kind of plagiarism is detected, we must comment it

Yurii V Geletii I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have seen numerous long disquisitions by particular individuals on RG that are in such diverse areas of expertise, all of them so far removed from the individual's educational credentials and own areas of research, that it could not possibly all be their own work. Unfortunately if the postings have been carefully rephrased it's very hard to track down the source unless someone like yourself recognizes their own work and can present a side by side comparison.

Ali Abbood

PS The posts posts of Ali Abbood have been removed by RG administration.

Yuri

I sometimes cut and paste answers on Researchgate but when I do I share a link to the source.

Ali Abbood

Rick, nothing is wrong in copy/paste if the source of information is provided. A direct plagiarism can be revealed by software. The worst is paraphrasing your idea and post it as it's your own. I came across numerous times with such "valuable" answers in RG forum. This plagiarism is very common. Usually, a "stolen" answer appears just after the original post. I know several examples, when the original post has no recommendations, and all credits are given to a rephrased version. I never commented such behavior. It is too stressful to be involved in such discussions. While I would be very grateful if someone reacts to such unacceptable behavior.

Dear Ljubomir Jacić, I really appreciate your efforts and start following you.

If someone copy and paste from various sites to give us comprehensive answer that we didn't find, we should appreciate their efforts, when someone answered, he/she never claim it’s his own idea. Mostly answered are the collection of information from different source and own experience.

Most of the information in our minds are not our copyright, we learned it from various sources.

Karl Pfeifer I am completely agreed with you. Shockingly, even I saw some answers came out from the googles first two search results. Perhaps people doing this to be active on RG or to increase RG score. But, The prime reason of ResearchGate Q&A section is just to clear your experimental difficulties by consulting with global experts. Only answering the question to prove that we know better or to increase RG score doesn't makes any sense.

Dear Muzammil Iqbal

"If someone copy and paste from various sites to give us comprehensive answer that we didn't find, we should appreciate their efforts, when someone answered, he/she never claim it’s his own idea." If someone does copy/paste, this is the plagiarism by definition. I agree that we should appreciate their effort, if they provide their source of information.

" Most of the information in our minds are not ... copyright," but are our intellectual properties.

" We stand on the shoulders of giants" is Google Scholar's advertising slogan taken from a quote by holy Bernard of Chartres and is a nod to the scholars who have contributed to their fields over the centuries, providing the foundation for new intellectual achievements. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Scholar]

Hello Dear Colleagues

Thanks a lot Dear Karl Pfeifer for this question, and a very special Thanks for our colleague Yurii V Geletii for his reply: " "follow" is not! an answer but a spam. "

Really, very well said :-)

What annoys more is to find a very high number of answers like "following", "yes", "no" or "interesting" which forces anyone to miss an interesting discussion or question considering the very important number, wrongly, of responses and replies. instead of these responses/replies it will be profitable for all to click Recommend or Share a Question/Discussion or a Response/Reply and Follow a Question/Discussion.

Dear Karl, with all my respect, honestly, I never do this before but I don't find this very annoying, if the copied items will be said or presented within a new look, touch or different understanding.

Sincerely, Djamel.

Thanks @Djamel Zeghida, and I even reported one time one member adding "following" 3 consecutive times, unfortunately the RG replied that it was not against their policy, so it was kept as is.

The strange thing is that some of these "following" non informative posts also got "recommended", that is even more interesting to explore! 🤔

Thanks @Yurii V Geletii for your enlightening answers!

I do recommend to do our best to avoid the simple copy and paste without intellectual property reference or additional reflection!

Djamel Zeghida RE: What annoys more is to find a very high number of answers like "following", "yes", "no" or "interesting"

Same here. The irony is that several times when I have I explained at length why such answers are inappropriate, people have responded yet again with a simple "I agree", "thank you", "good answer", and the like. 😖

See my post about "following:"

https://www.researchgate.net/post/following_as_the_answer_to_the_question

Inform the person that the information posted/shared is copied from ...RG/, if it is copied from RG or from other sources for that matter, by citing the original source. We have no control over such behaviors but we can make our discourse clean by letting discussants know that particular copied post. I know sometimes the people who do that did not care about what you said, but it is important we do that, for otherwise our scholarly efforts are in vain.

Dejenie A. Lakew

It's useless "to inform the persons." They know what they do. I agree with you that we must " discussants know that particular copied post ." No violation should not be ignored. Much more problematic is a violation of intellectual properties, which is more difficult to prove.

If you know who the information was stolen from it should be easy to inform the true author that his/her work has been stolen. If you don't know who it was stolen from do you really know that it is stolen?

Dear Karl Pfeifer your reply wasn't fair at all; you mentioned my comment on Yurii V Geletii 's answer and you ignored my answer !!!!

If my response was only this comment without an answer, your reply will be fair enough and will be relevant, but it isn't the case, so your reply was irrelevant and it is in turn: "Same here" as you said.

Sincerely, Djamel.

Dear Djamel Zeghida , your answer had two parts, and I responded to one but not the other. You expressed your annoyance with X and I agreed, remarking on an irony I've encountered in that regard. How is that "unfair"? "Same here" just means that I find X annoying just as you did.

But okay, I'll respond to your second part too.

RE: "I never do this before but I don't find this very annoying, if the copied items will be said or presented within a new look, touch or different understanding."

Adding a new twist is certainly preferable to mere copy-and-paste, but the source of the copied item, or from which the slightly altered wording derives, should still be cited. That's what scholarship is about, but it's not merely a matter of giving credit. It also allows those who are interested in pursuing the matter further to go to the source, compare the original wording with the altered version if applicable, and to see the material in its original context which may suggest a different interpretation.

In a way, you are the one that was being unfair since your answer ignored a similar point which I had already made in the explanation under my question. I'll quote it for you: "This is not only dishonest but a disservice to researchers who might have been interested in going to the source for more information if the source had been provided."

Here is the unbelievable example of plagiarism at RG. My answer was copied and posted immediately after mine answer! Bouteffaha Ahmed is plagiator! Please, see it!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_are_you_attending_academic_conferences

Dear Ljubomir Jacić ,

I have another point of view. It may be not plagiarism.

I think Bouteffaha Ahmed posted your answer immediately to show that, he admires your answer and repeated it word by word as a sort of confirmation of what you have said.

You can consider him as (plagiator), if he used the same answer in another thread within a different period.

We should consider this possibility.

Best regards

I think there must be some sort of reference for the text, which is being copied from other sources or researcher opinion

Sorry, Dear Karl Pfeifer I apologize and I plead "Guilty" :-)

Sincerely, Djamel.

Dear Issam Kaddoura , in the case of admired answer, he should use quotation marks and comment the post that he likes!

Deaer Nour Shakir

We are all really happy to hear that you are "following" this discussion. While, evidently you do not follow otherwise you did not post so informative answer. I would suggest to delete it yourself.

If some one is a genuine scholar that wants to create and transmit knowledge in order science to develop, he/she has to be accountable for doing the undoable. It is true that we do not have to create everything we use to express our ideas in a topic, but to cite the source of the information or fact is part of the genuine discourse, so that the person with the question will do to the main source and read more about it. That is the spirit of a true scholarly discourse.

Dear Issam Kaddoura , regarding your previous comment, let me inform you that

Bouteffaha Ahmed has removed/deleded his post! How do you comment it?

Dear Ljubomir Jacić ,

Sometimes we use proverbs, poems or famous words to express our feelings.

In the same thread or the same meeting, if someone copied or repeated my answers, I feel happy, assuming his answers are used to support mine.

Especially, if the answers are (words) and not equations, formulas or theorems.

I guess B.Ahmed has deleted his post as a natural response to your comments.

Best regards

My take is that this is tied to the perception that RG is just a forum for opinion and that academic standards do not apply. I constantly see people trivializing questions with answers that do not hold the standard of an academic person and the post would be better served on Facebook (or worse yet, they are plagiarized).

While it is good to express an opinion, I think that it should be done in a manner that reflects the depth of the question and the seriousness of a person that searches to better understand the fields of knowledge.

Such plagiarism simply increases the Answers in Q&A, and hence the RG score, but will not affect TRI, Citations, or the h-index.

Plagiarism, whether direct or indirect, reflects on the academic engaging in such unprofessional and unethical behaviour.

They are not fooling anyone, except maybe themselves if they are delusional.

Confronting plagiarism and taking effective measures against such unprofessional and unethical conduct is taken seriously by publishers of journals and academic manuscripts.

Constant vigilance by academics by calling our cases of plagiarism is also needed to combat the insidious behaviour.

Researchers should point to plagiarism, but RG has to play a major role. This is, however, an academic portal. Researcher's integrity is very important issue nowadays.

To Ljubomir:

RG would seem to be a social networking site for academics, with around 13m members, and millions more in both published and unpublished papers, so checking for direct and indirect plagiarism is a monumental task.

We must respect ethics and academic integrity dear Michael John McAleer !

Dear Michael John and Ljubomir:

Many thanks for the interesting interchange.

There remains the question of which entities are professionally, ethically and legally responsible for monitoring and managing plagiarism checks.

To Ljubomir:

Respect for professionalism, integrity and ethical issues is essential for academics.

I stated that it was a monumental task, which seems to be a statement of fact.

To Chia-Lin:

I agree that the acceptance of professional responsibility for checking for plagiarism on social media is a vexing issue.

Researcher is responsible for its contribution in terms of plagiarism. Publishing houses are responsible for articles, Researchgate is also responsible for content at its portal.

https://publicationethics.org/

Researchers and publishers are both responsible for checking for plagiarism.

I always follow the dictum: “You shouldn’t forbid bad music, you should oppose good music to bad music”. It is necessary to make so that to the fans of plagiarism themselves would be disgusted deal with plagiarism. How? I would ask the RG team to create a special one link where the list of all fans of plagiarism would be placed would be indicated:

1. Name of the plagiarist

2. The text of plagiarism

3. The source from which this plagiarism text was taken

4. Optional - who discovered plagiarism and sent plagiarism information

I am sure that when this list is publicly available to everyone, the number of plagiators will drastically decrease, if not disappear at all.

Gennady Fedulov I regret that I can only give you 1 recommendation for your excellent suggestion. 👏

Case discussion: Suspected plagiarism

A single author submitted a paper to a journal. A similarity check revealed 48% similarity with another published paper. The published paper was by different authors—5 in total. The similarities between the papers were in the introduction, methods and discussion sections. The submitting author did not reference the published article...

Read the nice discussion on this case, as well as advice given by COPE.

https://publicationethics.org/news/case-discussion-suspected-plagiarism

There should be strict rules and regulations.

I agree with Gennady Fedulov.

I cut and pastes a lot of answer replies on RG but I always acknowledge the source - usually with a link. It’s a very easy thing to do.

Judging from the number of people who post ”following” I suspect many posters simply don’t understand how to properly acknowledge the source ( I think it’s a harder concept than what “following” means) and are focused on providing helpful information to the questioner not who should get credit for the information. It’s still wrong but I prefer to believe that it is done out of ignorance and not malice.

Karl Pfeifer

Correction is necessary and addressing problems at the beginning of the best solution, if exacerbated difficult to do so

Plagiarism on RG it´s a problem that must be combated; I have no doubt. Some of the above suggestions are applicable (Gennady Fedulov suggestion, for example). I have nothing in principle against. Unfortunately, it is a problem that is expanding, also with the publications; recently, I read reports about cases in my country (Portugal). Even worse, cases of research results which are shown to be manipulated and falsified.