http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2041-1626.2011.00099.x/full
Irulandy Ponniah
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hopsital, Chennai, India.
Abstract There have been a number of papers that have addressed the issue of plagiarism. Nevertheless, the charges of plagiarism usually merit little attention with experts, because it is still not clear what sort of copying actually constitutes plagiarism. Another problem that eludes consensus is whether plagiarism was committed with or without intention. This paper discusses certain issues relating to plagiarism and differentiates between intentional and unintentional forms of plagiarism.
Irulandy Ponniah
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hopsital, Chennai, India.
Abstract There have been a number of papers that have addressed the issue of plagiarism. Nevertheless, the charges of plagiarism usually merit little attention with experts, because it is still not clear what sort of copying actually constitutes plagiarism. Another problem that eludes consensus is whether plagiarism was committed with or without intention. This paper discusses certain issues relating to plagiarism and differentiates between intentional and unintentional forms of plagiarism.
Writing is an art that develops with practice, and it can be further enhanced by repetition. However, writing a publishable paper is not an easy task. Reading articles to understand the use of lexis and syntax in science writing and the nature of citations can nevertheless help to a great extent. Further, when the subject matters are clear, the thought process will emerge and the synthesis of language will become spontaneous. However, plagiarism is inevitable when one resorts to reproducing the language of others. Butler reports that the detection of plagiarism becomes easier with software to scan manuscripts submitted to journals.1 According to Butler, plagiarism can range from copying a few paragraphs to the outright copying of others. Even so, what constitutes plagiarism is an issue where there is no consensus due to the subjective nature of assessment. This is one reason why experts who deal with plagiarism conclude that it is unintentional, without being explicit about intentional copying.
According to the Office for Research Integrity, the word “plagiarism” describes theft or misappropriation of others works, including ideas and language.2 The use of others’ language involves substantial textual copying (word for word) of another’s work, with or without attribution.2,3 However, limited use of same or closely-matching phrases does not amount to textual copying when it is pertinent to the paper.2 It is prudent to discuss the nature of citations in the published articles to determine whether plagiarism was intentional or due to an inadvertent error.
In an article by Pino-Neto et al.,4 the discussion section reads: “Ramon et al. described two sibs born to a consanguineous couple who presented with a previously undescribed syndrome of mental deficiency, epilepsy, cherubism, fibrous dysplasia of the mandible, gingival fibromatosis, and stunted growth”. The literature revealed that a similar description, subsequently published after Pino-Neto et al.,4 was also found in other articles.5–7 The same information can also be found at Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM ID 266270; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/266270).
A closer look at the above sentence is necessary to determine whether the interpretation and citation are appropriate. Unlike Ramon syndrome, mental retardation, epilepsy, hypertrichosis, and gingival fibromatosis represent idiopathic or hereditary gingival fibromatosis.8 Thus, the only denominator to distinguish Ramon syndrome and hereditary gingival fibromatosis is the presence or absence of cherubism.
In this context, a review of the report by Ramon et al.9 shows that of the two patients (9 and 12 years of age) reported, the 9-year-old boy presented with epilepsy, mental retardation, stunted growth, gingival fibromatosis, and cherubism, whereas the 12-year-old boy had only mild mental retardation and gingival fibromatosis. There was no mention of fibrous dysplasia of the mandible as part of the disease complex in the Ramon et al.9 article, as stated by Pino-Neto et al.4 Although the three articles have attributed the right source (i.e. Ramon et al.), two findings were inconsistent with the original report, that is, “two siblings” with Ramon syndrome and “fibrous dysplasia of the mandible”. It shows that the authors’ did not read the original source properly, which points to ignorance, rather than intention.
Scientific writing is a form of argumentation that requires substantiation of inference by citing existing facts, either for or against the conclusion.10 Therefore, citations are needed to verify the source, and to compare and establish the relationship between the source and the authors’ representation of it.11 Unsupported statements or sentences will be considered as the authors’ own.11 For example, “Unfortunately, some situations may occur that delay immediate replantation. Where such situations exist, the tooth should be stored in a medium that maintains periodontal ligament cell viability until definitive dental treatment can be accomplished”. This statement lacks an in-text citation, and as such, forms the authors’ own. However, with the exception of the underlined words, the passage was also found in another article. This raises the issue of whether a similar idea expressed in the same words by people at various points of time is textual copying. Having a unique idea is not unusual, but the overlap of words in a given sentence suggests that it is unlikely to be mere coincidence. This is based on the fact that a similar passage was also found in two other articles, but with proper source attribution (search the later part of the quoted statement “the tooth…can be accomplished” in Google).
It is clear from the above illustrations that unsupported texts need not necessarily be original. This form of writing has the potential to amount to textual plagiarism, especially when there is substantial overlap with other work.2,3 However, a search of the sentence “Apoptotic keratinocytes are no longer able to perform this function” from certain articles in Google will show that even with significant copying, authors are given benefit of doubt for plagiarism when the original source is credited or if the author is a novice. This writing genre, according to Abasi and Akbari,12 does not constitute intentional plagiarism, but can be termed “patch writing”. Writing a review article, however, requires critical analysis of relevant sources to advance an argument in order to seek new lines of enquiry, rather than to take recourse in transgressive textual appropriation of source.
As I alluded to earlier, the assessment of plagiarism is subjective, and readers should judge what constitutes intentional plagiarism by searching the sentences “Diagnosis in dentistry may be defined as the process whereby the data obtained” or “the replacement of lost or deficient tissues involves the use of prosthetic materials” in the Google search.
The purpose of scientific writing is to disseminate and contribute knowledge to the existing literature, but it is more important to refrain from plagiarism, and efforts should be directed to curb such practices at infancy.
References
- 1
- 2 ORI provides working definition of plagiarism. Office of Research Integrity, ORI Newsletter, Vol 3, Number 1, December 1994. Available from: http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/newsletters.shtml. (Assessed June 25, 2011).
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10 Writing guide: parts of an argument. Available from: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/documents/argueparts/printformat.cfm?printformat=yes. (Assessed June 25, 2011).
- 11
- 12 , . Are we encouraging patchwriting? Reconsidering the role of the pedagogy context in ESL student writers’ transgressive intertextuality. English for Specific Purposes 2008; 27: 267–84.
