Plagiarism in the sciences: What do we really know

1
Plagiarism in the sciences What do we really
know?
This is a slightly abridged version of Miguel
Roigs slides for his METM06 plenary address.
This version is posted with the speakers
permission as background information for the MET
workshop Managing plagiarism an approach to
dialog between authors and editors.

• Miguel Roig, Ph.D.
• Associate Professor
• Department of Psychologyroigm_at_stjohns.edu

Portions of this presentation have been shown
elsewhere.
2
Some Dictionary Definitions¹

• The action of using or copying someone elses
  idea or work and pretending that you thought of
  it or created it (Collins).
• To take words, ideas, etc., from someone elses
  work and use them in ones own work without
  admitting one has done so(Longman).
• To steal and pass off as ones own the ideas or
  words of another (Webster).
• ¹taken from Decoo, W. (2002). Crisis on campus
  Confronting academic misconduct.
• The MIT Press Cambridge, MA

3
Universal Scholarly Conventions

• Verbatim text taken from another source must be
  enclosed in quotation marks and its source/author
  must be clearly identified.
• When paraphrasing others text, such text must
  be substantially modified and its source/author
  must be clearly indicated.

4
Plagiarism as scientific misconduct
5
Scientific Misconduct
FabricationData/Results FalsificationData/Res
ults Plagiarism 42 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 93effective on June 16,
2005
6
US Public Health Services definition
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another
persons ideas, processes, results, or words
without giving appropriate credit. Research
misconduct does not include honest error or
differences of opinion (Section 93.103).
7
US Office of Research Integrity
(ORI)http//ori.dhhs.gov/policies/plagiarism.shtm
l

• As a general working definition, ORI considers
  plagiarism to include both the theft or
  misappropriation of intellectual property and the
  substantial unattributed textual copying of
  another's work. It does not include authorship or
  credit disputes.The theft or misappropriation
  of intellectual property includes the
  unauthorized use of ideas or unique methods
  obtained by a privileged communication, such as a
  grant or manuscript review.

8
National Science Foundation (NSF)

• (a) Research misconduct means fabrication,
  falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or
  performing research funded by NSF, reviewing
  research proposals submitted to NSF, or in
  reporting research results funded by NSF.
• Research, for purposes of paragraph (a) of this
  section, includes proposals submitted to NSF in
  all fields of science, engineering, mathematics,
  and education and results from such proposals.
• http//a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010
  800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/
• cfr_2002/octqtr/45cfr689.1.htm

9
Cases of plagiarism investigated by the US
government

• From 1992-2005 ORI reported a total of 159 cases
  of scientific misconduct, 19 (12) of which
  involved plagiarism.
• In a similar time period, the NSF reported that
  66 of their cases of scientific misconduct
  involved a finding of plagiarism.
• (the discrepancy between ORI and NSF cases
  involves differences in how each defines
  plagiarism, namely, the fact that NSF does
  consider certain cases of authorship disputes as
  plagiarism)

10
What is the incidence of plagiarism?
11
Incidence of plagiarism

• Falsification and fabrication appear to be more
  frequent than plagiarism (Miller, 2005).Recent
  Plagiarism estimates range from .2 (Claxton,
  Mutation Research, 200558917-30) to about 14
  for self-plagiarism in one specific area of
  biomedicine (Schein, New Surgery, 20041,
  139-140.

12
Gibelman, Gelman (2003)
Plagiarism by Faculty/Scholars in the News
2000-2003 University Individual Field______
Trinity International University (CA) Dean
Winston F. Frost Law Monash University
(Australia) Vice Chancellor Sociology Dav
id Robinson Kumaun University (India) Balwant
Singh Rajput Physics University of Albany
(NY) Louis Roberts Humanities Wesley College
(DE) President Scott D. Miller Unknown TV
Commentator Scholar Lecturer Doris Kearns
Goodwin History University of New Orleans (LA)
Stephen Ambrose History Gibelman, M.
Gelman, S. R. (2003). Plagiarism in Academia
Trends and Implications. Accountability in
Research Policies Quality Assurance, 10,
229-252.
13
Gibelman, Gelman (2003)
Plagiarism by Faculty/Scholars in the News
2000-2003 University Individual Field___ Moun
t Holyoke (MA) Joseph J. Ellis
History Hamilton College (NY) President
Eugene Tobin Unknown Cornell University (NY)
David A. Levitsky Nutrition Heald College
(Various locations) Senior Vice President,
Unknown Roger C. Anderson Liverpool
Hospital, University Bruce Hall Immunol. of
New South Wales (Australia) Peking University
(China) Wang Mingming Anthrop. Gibelman, M.
Gelman, S. R. (2003). Plagiarism in Academia
Trends and Implications. Accountability in
Research Policies Quality Assurance, 10,
229-252.
14
Gibelman, Gelman (2003)
Plagiarism by Faculty/Scholars in the News
2000-2003 University Individual
Field___ Boston University (MA) John J. Schulz
Commun. University of Pirarus (Greece)
Prof. Assima Kopoulos Engin. University of
Texas Health Center Momiao Xiong Health
Sc. U.S. Naval Academy (MD) Brian VanDeMark
History Florida Atlantic University Lindsey
S. Hamlin Intern. William
T. Ryan Business __________________________
__________________________________________ Gibelma
n, M. Gelman, S. R. (2003). Plagiarism in
Academia Trends and Implications.
Accountability in Research Policies Quality
Assurance, 10, 229-252.
15
Martinson, et al.s (2005) study

• A recent study by Martinson, et al., indicates
  that of 3,247 US scientists
• 1.4 use anothers ideas without obtaining
  permission or giving due credit.
• 4.7 publish the same data or results in two or
  more publications.
• 33 admit to some other form of ethically
  questionable misbehavior.
• Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., de Vries, R.
  (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435,
  737-738.

16
NSFs Internal Study (2006)

• A total of 600 grant proposals submitted to NSF
  were analyzed using Bloomfields software.
  Approximately 2.5 of the sample was found to
  contain unattributed copying from other sources.
• No differences between disciplines (e.g.,
  physics, chemistry) were detected.
• Proposals from certain areas (NSF career
  enhancement) yielded significantly higher rates
  (15) than other areas.http//www.nsf.gov/pubs/2
  006/oigmarch2006/oigmarch2006_4.pdf

17
Cases of plagiarism in China

• From 1999 to 2005, there were 542 cases
  investigated by the NSF of China. There were 60
  cases found to be misconduct.
• 34 of cases involved plagiarism.
• Yidong, G. (2005). China Science Foundation
  Takes Action Against 60 Grantees. Science, 309,
  1798-1799.

18
Plagiarism is probably more common than the data
seem to indicate

• There is every reason to believe that the
  existing literature significantly underestimates
  the extent of the problem.
• Why?

19
Limitations of Survey research
20
Much of the evidence for plagiarism is from
survey research

• Items tend to reflect the unique way in which
  concepts and categories are presented by the
  researchers
• Social desirability of items or of
  respondents/biased samples
• Reliance on memory of events/behaviors
• Respondents views on what constitutes plagiarism
  tend to be liberal

21
Some cases are kept hidden
22
There is some reluctance to out plagiarists

• A plagiarism case may be perceived as reflecting
  poorly on the journal (killing the messenger)
  and some editors might be reluctant to take
  proper action.
• Inaction on the part of institutions or
  associations (see recent case by Chalmers in
  BMJ).
• Fear of litigation
• Plagiarism cases are often kept confidential (NSF
  does not name names ORI does).
• Fear of retaliatory legal action by the accused.

23
A significant number of professionals plagiarize
in subtle ways and these cases are sometimes
difficult to recognize
24
Plagiarism Is More Common Than the Research
Indicates

• There are those who believe that as long as a
  citation is included, they can simply appropriate
  portions of text from another source and use that
  text as their own writing.
• Julliard (1994) found that physicians, but not
  most medical students or English faculty hold the
  above view.
• Julliard, K. (1993). Perceptions of plagiarism
  in the use of other author's language. Family
• Medicine, 26, 356-360.

25
Plagiarism Is More Common Than the Research
Indicates

• Others believe that, as long as you can change a
  word here or there in a sentence, the resulting
  writing constitutes an acceptable paraphrase and
  not plagiarism.

26
Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college
professors Roig M. Plagiarism and paraphrasing
criteria of college and university
professors. Ethics Behavior 200111(3)307-323.

27
Study Instructions

• Assume that you want to include the information
  from the Zenhausern paragraph in your paper and
  are considering the re-written versions shown
  below. Please examine each re-written paragraph
  carefully, compare it with the original version
  above, and ... indicate whether ... the
  re-written version constitutes a case of
  plagiarism (P), not plagiarism, that is, the
  paragraph has been legitimately paraphrased (NP),
  or you simply cannot determine (CD).

28
College professors (first row n 138) and
psychology professors (second row n 53)
responses

• __________________________________________________
  _________________
• Plagiarized Not
  Plagiarized Cannot Determine
• __________________________________________________
  _________________
• Paragr 1 92 (126) 7 (10) 1 (2)
• 96 (51) 3 (2) 0 (0)
• Paragr 2 83 (114) 12 (17) 5
  (7)
• 92 (49) 6 (3) 2 (1)
• Paragr 3 81 (111) 13 (18) 6
  (9)
• 81 (43) 9 (5) 9 (5)
• __________________________________________________
  ______From Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and
  paraphrasing criteria of college and university
  professors Ethics and Behavior (11) 3, 307-323.

29
College professors (first row n 138) and
psychology professors (second row n 53)
responses

• __________________________________________________
  _________________
• Plagiarized Not
  Plagiarized Cannot Determine
• __________________________________________________
  _________________
• Paragr 4 48 (66) 44 (60) 9 (12)
• 57 (30) 36 (19) 8 (4)
• Paragr 5 4 (5) 94 (129) 3
  (4)
• 6 (3) 93 (49) 2 (1)
• Paragr 6 4 (5) 91 (126) 5
  (7) 2 (1) 93 (49) 6 (3)
• __________________________________________________
  ______From Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and
  paraphrasing criteria of college and university
  professors Ethics and Behavior (11) 3, 307-323.

30
Appropriate and inappropriate paraphrasing

• Paragraph 4
•    According to one researcher, subjective and
  objective tests of imagery ability have not
  resulted in differences in performance and
  therefore the only way to determine if a person
  thinks visually or nonvisually is to ask that
  question directly. One important finding is that
  many nonvisual thinkers who state with confidence
  that they do not think in pictures have rather
  vivid imagery.

• ORIGINAL
• Since subjective and objective tests of imagery
  ability have not resulted in predicted
  performance differences, the only way to
  determine if a person thinks visually or
  nonvisually is to ask that question directly. ...
  One important finding is that many nonvisual
  thinkers have rather vivid imagery, but they can
  state with confidence that they do not think in
  pictures" (Zenhausern, 1978, p. 382).

31
Appropriate and inappropriate paraphrasing

• Paragraph 6
•    Zenhausern (1978) reports that various types
  of instruments designed to measure imagery have
  yielded inconsistent results. He suggests that
  the only technique that will tell us whether
  someone thinks visually or not is to ask the
  person directly. However, this author also notes
  that some individuals who admit that they do not
  think in pictures report having very vivid
  imagery (p. 382).

• ORIGINAL
• Since subjective and objective tests of imagery
  ability have not resulted in predicted
  performance differences, the only way to
  determine if a person thinks visually or
  nonvisually is to ask that question directly. ...
  One important finding is that many nonvisual
  thinkers have rather vivid imagery, but they can
  state with confidence that they do not think in
  pictures" (Zenhausern, 1978, p. 382).

32
College professors (first row n 138) and
psychology professors (second row n 53)
responses

• __________________________________________________
  _________________
• Plagiarized Not
  Plagiarized Cannot Determine
• __________________________________________________
  _________________
• Paragr 4 48 (66) 44 (60) 9 (12)
• 57 (30) 36 (19) 8 (4)
• Paragr 5 4 (5) 94 (129) 3
  (4)
• 6 (3) 93 (49) 2 (1)
• Paragr 6 4 (5) 91 (126) 5
  (7) 2 (1) 93 (49) 6 (3)
• __________________________________________________
  ______From Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and
  paraphrasing criteria of college and university
  professors Ethics and Behavior (11) 3, 307-323.

33
What happens when college professors are asked to
paraphrase these paragraphs?
34
Study Instructions

• Let's assume that you want to include the
  information from the original paragraph in your
  paper but that you do not want to use a direct
  quote. Instead, you want to paraphrase the
  entire paragraph. How would you re-write the
  above version of the paragraph so as to not be
  classified as a case of plagiarism? In the space
  below, please paraphrase the above paragraph to
  the best of your ability (use the back of the
  page if you need more space). Assume that a
  correct citation (e.g., a footnote, Zenhausern,
  1978) will appear in your paper's reference
  section. Also, please write clearly and legibly.

35
How would you paraphrase the following paragraph?

• ORIGINAL
• Since subjective and objective tests of imagery
  ability have not resulted in predicted
  performance differences, the only way to
  determine if a person thinks visually or
  nonvisually is to ask that question directly. ...
  One important finding is that many nonvisual
  thinkers have rather vivid imagery, but they can
  state with confidence that they do not think in
  pictures" (Zenhausern, 1978, p. 382).

36
How would you paraphrase the following paragraph?

• ORIGINAL
• If you have ever had your astrological chart
  done, you may have been impressed with its
  seeming accuracy. Careful reading shows many
  such charts to be made up of mostly flattering
  traits. Naturally, when your personality is
  described in desirable terms, it is hard to deny
  that the description has the ring of truth"
  (Coon, 1995, p. 29).

37
Text misappropriation by professors as function
of paragraph readability

•  
• College Professors
  Psychologists
• Difficult-to-read Difficult-
  to-read Easy-to-read
• (n 109)
  (n 43) (n 64)
  __________________________________________________
  __________________
• String Length
• 5-word strings 30 26
  03 6-word strings
  22 19 037-word
  strings 18 16
  008-word strings 09
  09 00
• _________________________________________________
  ____________
• From Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and
  paraphrasing criteria of college and university
  professors Ethics and Behavior (11) 3, 307-323.

38
Text misappropriation as function of paragraph
readability

•  
• College Professors Psychologists
  Students
  Difficult-to-read Easy-to-read
  Difficult-to-read Easy-to-read
• (n 109)
  (n 64) (n 215)
  (n 206) __________________________________
  _________________________________________
• String Length
• 5-word strings 30 03
  68 19 6-word strings
  22 03 62
  16 7-word strings 18 00
  53 10 8-word
  strings 09 00 41
  09
• _________________________________________________
  __________________Student data from Roig, M.
  (1999). When college students' attempts at
  paraphrasing become instances of
• potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports,
  84, 973-982.

39
Plagiarism has not been fully operationalized
and the available guidance is sometimes
inconsistent.
40
Paraphrasing according to the general writing
guides
41
General Writing Guides

• When paraphrasing, you restate an authors ideas
  in your own words. A good paraphrase retains the
  organization, emphasis, and often many of the
  details of the original passage
• Kennedy, X. J., Kennedy, D. M., Holladay, S. A.
  (2002). The Bedford Guide for College Writers,
  6th ed. Boston Bedford/St. Martins Press.

42
General Writing Guides

• Changing a word here and there and reversing the
  order of phrases is not sufficient, even though
  you give credit in a footnote (Campbell
  Ballou, 1990, p. 11).
• In explaining proper paraphrasing strategies
  these authors further warn
• Do not substitute synonyms here and there or
  rearrange sentence elements (Campbell Ballou,
  p. 39).
• Campbell, W. G., Ballou, S. V. (1990). Form
  and Style Theses, Reports, Term Papers. (5th
  ed.). Boston Houghton Mifflin.

43
General Writing Guides

• You also plagiarize when you use words so close
  to those in your source, that if your work were
  placed next to the source, it would be obvious
  that you could not have written what you did
  without the source at your elbow. (Booth,
  Colomb, Williams, 1995 p. 167)
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M.
  (1995). The craft of research. Chicago
• The University of Chicago Press.

44
Biology Writing Guide
Writing Guides in Biology

• Express your own thoughts in your own words.
  Note, too, that simply changing a few words here
  and there, or changing the order of a few words
  in a sentence or paragraph, is still plagiarism.
  Plagiarism is one of the most serious crimes in
  academia. (Pechenik, 2001 p.10).
• Pechnick, J. A. (2001). A short guide to
  writing about biology, 4th Edition. New York
  Addison Wesley Longman.

45
Plagiarism and paraphrasing according to the
professional writing guides

• Most of the student and professional writing
  guides provide coverage for plagiarism. However,
  few of the professional guides cover the more
  subtle forms of plagiarism (e.g., inappropriate
  paraphrasing).

46
The American Medical Association Manual of Style,
9th edition

• Direct Plagiarism Verbatim lifting of passages
  without enclosing the borrowed material in
  quotation marks and crediting the original
  author.
• Mosaic Borrowing ideas and opinions from an
  original source and a few verbatim words or
  phrases without crediting the original author. In
  this case the plagiarist intertwines his or her
  own ideas and opinions with those of the original
  author, creating a confused plagiarized mass

47
The American Medical Association Manual of Style,
9th edition

• Paraphrase Restating a phrase or passage,
  providing the same meaning but in a different
  form without attribution to the original author.
• Insufficient acknowledgement Noting the original
  source of only part of what is borrowed or
  failing to cite the source material in such a way
  that a reader will know what is original and what
  is borrowed.

48
The APA Manual

• One guide that provides some coverage of proper
  paraphrasing is the Publication Manual of the
  American Psychological Association (2001).
• Unfortunately the coverage provided by the APA
  Manual is misleading

49
The APA Manual

• From the APA Manual
• Each time you paraphrase another author (i.e.,
  summarize a passage or rearrange the order of a
  sentence and change some of the words), you will
  need to credit the source in the text.
• Please note that summarizing and paraphrasing are
  two distinct processes, though in both instances
  we must acknowledge the source of the material.

50
US Office of Research Integrity
(ORI)http//ori.dhhs.gov/policies/plagiarism.shtm
l

• Substantial unattributed textual copying of
  another's work means the unattributed verbatim or
  nearly verbatim copying of sentences and
  paragraphs which materially mislead the ordinary
  reader regarding the contributions of the author.
  ORI generally does not pursue the limited use of
  identical or nearly-identical phrases which
  describe a commonly-used methodology or previous
  research because ORI does not consider such use
  as substantially misleading to the reader or of
  great significance.

51
Institutional standards are more conservative

• S. Baughman (2005) has noted that some
  universities steer their faculty to abide by
  standards set up for students. However, these can
  be in conflict with professional standards.
• According to Price (2005) Two cases referred to
  ORI in which the institutions had found
  plagiarism were dismissed by ORI as not
  constituting misconduct.

52

• Perhaps ORIs definition may stem from
  encountering situations, such as the one that
  follows

53
Try paraphrasing this paragraph

• Mammalian histone lysine methyltransferase,
  suppressor of variegation 39H1 (SUV39H1),
  initiates silencing with selective methylation on
  Lys9 of histone H3, thus creating a high-affinity
  binding site for HP1. When an antibody to
  endogenous SUV39H1 was used for
  immunoprecipitation, MeCP2 was effectively
  coimmunoprecipitated conversely, aHA antibodies
  to HA-tagged MeCP2 could immunoprecipitate
  SUV39H1 (Fig. 2G). (Lunyak, et al., 2002 p.
  1748)
• Lunyak, V., et al., (2002). Corepressor-dependen
  t silencing of chromosomal regions encoding
  neuronal genes. Science, 298, 1747-1756.

54
Even the most terse text can be paraphrased

• ORIGINAL VERSION
• Mammalian histone lysine methyltransferase,
  suppressor of variegation 39H1 (SUV39H1),
  initiates silencing with selective methylation on
  Lys9 of histone H3, thus creating a high-affinity
  binding site for HP1. When an antibody to
  endogenous SUV39H1 was used for
  immunoprecipitation, MeCP2 was effectively
  coimmunoprecipitated conversely, aHA antibodies
  to HA-tagged MeCP2 could immunoprecipitate
  SUV39H1 (Fig. 2G). (Lunyak, et al., 2002, p.
  1748)

• PARAPHRASED VERSION
• According to Lunyak, et al. (2002), a high
  affinity binding site for HP1 can be produced by
  silencing Lys9 of histone H3 by methylation with
  mammalian histone lysing methyltransferase, a
  suppressor of variegation 39H1 (SUV39H1). MeCP2
  can be immunoprecipitated with antibodies
  prepared against endogenous SUV39H1 on the other
  hand, immunoprecipitation of SUB39H1 resulted
  from aHA antibodies to HA-tagged MeCP2.

55
But, it is not easy!!

• There are some instances in which the extent to
  which text can be modified is very limited ...
• Particularly in situations where the author has
  less than a full command of the language, proper
  paraphrasing can be extremely difficult.

56
Self-Plagiarism Can one steal from one self?
57
Plagiarism vs. self-plagiarism

• Plagiarism refers to the misappropriation of
  others ideas, words, images, design properties,
  data, musical notes, etc.
• Self-plagiarism refers to authors re-use of
  their earlier work and passing it of as new or
  original material .

58
Forms of Professional Self-plagiarism

• Duplicate publication/presentation Submitting a
  paper to a journal or conference which had been
  previously written for journal or conference
  under a slightly different title.
• Redundant publication occurs when some portion of
  previously published data is used again in a new
  publication with no indication that the data had
  been published earlier.

59
Forms of Professional Self-plagiarism

• Fragmented or piecemeal publication occurs
  when a complex study is broken down into two or
  more components and each component is analyzed
  and published as a separate paper.
• Augmented publication occurs when when a
  simpler study is made more complex by the
  addition of more observations or experimental
  conditions.

60
Forms of Professional Self-plagiarism

• Salami Slicing Using data from a large, complex
  study and segmenting it to produce two or more
  papers.
• Text recycling Reusing portions of previously
  published text in a new publication without
  reference to the original.
• The essence of self-plagiarism in all of the
  above instances is that the reader is not made
  aware of the duplication.

61
The evidence for self-plagiarism
62
Empirical evidence for self-plagiarism

• Schein (2001) found that 14 of 660 articles
  represented a clear form of redundant
  publication.
• Schein, M. (2001) Redundant publicationsfrom
  self-plagiarism to Salami-Slicing.
  NewSurgery, 1, 139-140.

63
Empirical evidence for self-plagiarism

• More recently, von Elm, et al. (2004), reported
  that of 1,234 articles reviewed in the area of
  anesthesia and analgesia, 5 were duplicates that
  gave no indication as to the original
  publication.
• von Elm, E., Poglia, G., Walder, B. Tramèr,
  M. R. (2004). Different patterns
• of duplicate publication. Journal of
  the American Medical Association. 291,
• 974980.

64
Many do not believe self-plagiarism is unethical

• In a study of health educators, Price, et al.
  (2001) reported that 64 of their sample stated
  that self-plagiarism is an acceptable behavior
• Price, J. H., Dake, J. A., Islam, R. (2001).
  Selected ethical issues in research and
  publication Perceptions of health education
  faculty. Health Education and Behavior, 28, 51-64.

65
Why self-plagiarism is problematic

• It misleads the reader into thinking that the
  material is new.
• More importantly, self-plagiarism overestimates
  or underestimates a statistical effect thereby
  biasing our state of knowledge in a given area.

66
What about reusing portions of previously
published text?
67
Traditional scholarly conventions

• Verbatim text taken from another source must be
  enclosed in quotation marks and its source must
  be clearly identified.
• When paraphrasing others text, such text must be
  substantially modified and its source must be
  clearly indicated.
• Technically, the same rules apply when verbatim
  or paraphrased text was re-used by the same
  author in a new publication or conference
  presentation.

68
Text reuse in a sample of 9 psychology journal
articles

• Study Method
• Obtained electronic versions of all articles
  (target articles) published in one issue of a
  psychology journal.
• For each target article I obtained at least 3 of
  the articles from the same author/authors that
  were cited as references (source).
• I compared each of the references to the target
  article to determine if any text had been re-used
  from any of the earlier published sources.

69
Text reuse in a sample of 9 psychology journal
articles

• __________________________________________________
  _
• Target Article Id A B C D E
  F G H I
• __________________________________________________
  _
• String length Number of word-strings
  detected
• _________________________________
• 6 9 8 1 0 6 1 2
  8 2
• 7 6 1 0 0 0 1 3
  6 1
• 8 6 1 0 0 3 1 1
  3 1
• 9 4 1 1 0 0 0 0
  0 0
• 10 and longer 13 0 0
  0 0 1 2 3 0
• __________________________________________________
  ___
• 30 sentences of a total of 79 contained text
  strings derived from other same-authored
  publications.
• From Roig (2005). Re-using text from ones own
  previously published papers
• An exploratory study of potential
  self-plagiarism. Psychological Reports,
• 97, 43-49.

70
Results

• Most of the reused text found was derived from
  methodology sections.
• Other comparisons between pairs of references
  revealed at least 4 instances of identical sets
  of 40 to 60 word strings, again, mainly in
  Methods sections.

71
Is it self-plagiarism? Is it unethical?

• Given standard scholarly conventions (i.e.,
  quotations, footnotes) are there any
  circumstances where even small amounts of text
  (e.g., one full sentence) can be re-used without
  any indication of its origin?
• Text from these sections is sometimes difficult
  to paraphrase. For example
• Mammalian histone lysine methyltransferase,
  suppressor of variegation 39H1 (SUV39H1),
  initiates silencing with
• selective methylation on Lys9 of histone H3

72
It is best to avoid re-using ones own text

• On the other hand, at least one journal cautions
  against the use of previously published methods
  sections as templates for writing these sections
  in new publications (Academic Emergency
  Medicine)
• http//www.saem.org/inform/aempub.htm

73
Guidelines from selected journals

• At the time of submission, authors must describe
  in a cover letter any data, figures, or text in
  the manuscript that have been used in other
  papers (Conservation Biology) http//www.conbio.o
  rg/SCB/Publications/ConsBio/Instructions/
• A paper submitted to the Indian Pediatrics
  should not overlap by more than 10 with
  previously published work, or work submitted
  elsewhere which then would be labeled as
  duplicate publication. http//www.indianpediatric
  s.net/author1.htm

74
Guidelines from selected journals

• The authors must describe in a cover letter any
  data, illustrations, or text in the manuscript
  that have been used in other papers that are
  published, in press, submitted, or soon to be
  submitted elsewhere (Evolution and Development),
  http//www.blackwellpublishing.com/submit.asp?ref
  1520-541X
• If part of a contribution has appeared or will
  appear elsewhere, the author must specify the
  details in the covering letter accompanying the
  Nature submission (Nature). http//www.nature.com
  /nature/authors/policy/index.html

75
OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE TEXT RE-USE OCCURS

• What are the parameters of text reuse? What are
  readers expectations?

76
From article to grant proposal?

• From article to grant proposal? Vice versa?
• From journal article to conference presentation?
  Vice versa?
• From one book to another?
• Where is the guidance with respect to these
  questions? Who decides whether these activities
  are appropriate or not?

77
Am I self-plagiarizing this talk?

• It depends on whether you assume that this
  presentation was exclusively prepared for you.
  Therefore, please note that
• Many of the ideas and slides from this
  presentation have been shown at other venues
  (e.g., conferences)

78
Plagiarism in the sciences What do we really
know?
79
What do we really know?

• We know that it happens, but we do not know its
  true incidence.
• There are significant discrepancies amongst the
  various official definitions of plagiarism.
• There is no operational definition of plagiarism
  (extent or form of misappropriation).
• Few guidelines exist on text self-plagiarism.

80
Thank youMiguel Roig

• roigm_at_stjohns.edu
• http//facpub.stjohns.edu/roigm/plagiarism