Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 1/2015

01.02.2015 | Scientific Contribution

Plagiarism in research

verfasst von: Gert Helgesson, Stefan Eriksson

Erschienen in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy | Ausgabe 1/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Plagiarism is a major problem for research. There are, however, divergent views on how to define plagiarism and on what makes plagiarism reprehensible. In this paper we explicate the concept of “plagiarism” and discuss plagiarism normatively in relation to research. We suggest that plagiarism should be understood as “someone using someone else’s intellectual product (such as texts, ideas, or results), thereby implying that it is their own” and argue that this is an adequate and fruitful definition. We discuss a number of circumstances that make plagiarism more or less grave and the plagiariser more or less blameworthy. As a result of our normative analysis, we suggest that what makes plagiarism reprehensible as such is that it distorts scientific credit. In addition, intentional plagiarism involves dishonesty. There are, furthermore, a number of potentially negative consequences of plagiarism.
Fußnoten
1
Only if the result of intellectual work is a novel idea about a way to process a certain task (a method) will it be possible to plagiarise by repeating the processes and not disclosing where the idea of doing it like that originated. Which is to say that (the idea of) a method may be plagiarised by using it and not disclosing that someone else came up with it, thereby implying that you invented it yourself.
 
2
It is, of course, not the writing that constitutes plagiarism in the context of ghost-writing, but the claim to have written or co-authored a text completely written by others.
 
3
It should be noted that it does not have to be the authors’ fault that a paper is misleading about who deserves credit. Leonard Fleck has brought to our attention instances of journals, unbeknown to the authors, having mistakenly removed references or quotation marks in the text, causing the text to give the impression that some phrases quoted from others are the authors’ own.
 
4
Our claims here regarding practices are based on anecdotic evidence only. However, based on our teaching about 500 doctoral students per year, and having heard this frequently in class, we believe this to be fairly common, or at least far from unique.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Anekwe, T.D. 2010. Profits and plagiarism: The case of medical ghostwriting. Bioethics 24(6): 267–272.CrossRef Anekwe, T.D. 2010. Profits and plagiarism: The case of medical ghostwriting. Bioethics 24(6): 267–272.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Baždarić, K., L. Bilić-Zulle, G. Brumini, and M. Petrovečki. 2012. Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian Medical Journal. Science and Engineering Ethics 18: 223–239.CrossRef Baždarić, K., L. Bilić-Zulle, G. Brumini, and M. Petrovečki. 2012. Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian Medical Journal. Science and Engineering Ethics 18: 223–239.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Brogan, M. 1992. Recycling ideas. College and Research Libraries 52(5): 453–464.CrossRef Brogan, M. 1992. Recycling ideas. College and Research Libraries 52(5): 453–464.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bruton, S.V. 2014. Self-plagiarism and textual recycling: Legitimate forms of research misconduct. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 21(3): 176–197.CrossRef Bruton, S.V. 2014. Self-plagiarism and textual recycling: Legitimate forms of research misconduct. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 21(3): 176–197.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Brülde, B., and P.-A. Tengland. 2003. Hälsa och sjukdom: en begreppslig utredning (Health and disease: A conceptual inquiry). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Brülde, B., and P.-A. Tengland. 2003. Hälsa och sjukdom: en begreppslig utredning (Health and disease: A conceptual inquiry). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Zurück zum Zitat Butler, D. 2010. Journals step up plagiarism policing. Nature 466(7303): 167.CrossRef Butler, D. 2010. Journals step up plagiarism policing. Nature 466(7303): 167.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Chandrasoma, R., C. Thompson, and A. Pennycook. 2004. Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 3(3): 171–193.CrossRef Chandrasoma, R., C. Thompson, and A. Pennycook. 2004. Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 3(3): 171–193.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Couzin-Frankel, J., and J. Grom. 2009. Plagiarism sleuths. Science 324(5930): 1004–1007.CrossRef Couzin-Frankel, J., and J. Grom. 2009. Plagiarism sleuths. Science 324(5930): 1004–1007.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat DeVoss, D., and A.C. Rosati. 2002. “It wasn’t me, was it?” Plagiarism and the web. Computers and Composition 19: 191–203.CrossRef DeVoss, D., and A.C. Rosati. 2002. “It wasn’t me, was it?” Plagiarism and the web. Computers and Composition 19: 191–203.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Khan, B.A. 2011. Plagiarism: An academic theft. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation 1(4): 255.CrossRef Khan, B.A. 2011. Plagiarism: An academic theft. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation 1(4): 255.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Pecorari, D. 2012. Textual plagiarism: How should it be regarded? Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 20(3): 3,10. Pecorari, D. 2012. Textual plagiarism: How should it be regarded? Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 20(3): 3,10.
Zurück zum Zitat Rathod, S.D. 2012. Plagiarism: the human solution. Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 20(3): 1,7. Rathod, S.D. 2012. Plagiarism: the human solution. Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 20(3): 1,7.
Zurück zum Zitat Samuelson, P. 1994. Self-plagiarism or fair use. Communications of the ACM 37(8): 21–25.CrossRef Samuelson, P. 1994. Self-plagiarism or fair use. Communications of the ACM 37(8): 21–25.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Sox, H. C. 2012. Plagiarism in the digital age. Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 20(3): 1,6. Sox, H. C. 2012. Plagiarism in the digital age. Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 20(3): 1,6.
Zurück zum Zitat Sun, Y.C. 2012. Does text readability matter? A study of paraphrasing and plagiarism in English as a foreign language writing context. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 21(2): 296–306. Sun, Y.C. 2012. Does text readability matter? A study of paraphrasing and plagiarism in English as a foreign language writing context. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 21(2): 296–306.
Zurück zum Zitat Titus, S.L., J.A. Wells, and L.J. Rhoades. 2008. Repairing research integrity. Nature 453(7198): 980–982.CrossRef Titus, S.L., J.A. Wells, and L.J. Rhoades. 2008. Repairing research integrity. Nature 453(7198): 980–982.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Yilmaz, I. 2007. Plagiarism? No, we’re just borrowing better English. Nature 449(7163): 658.CrossRef Yilmaz, I. 2007. Plagiarism? No, we’re just borrowing better English. Nature 449(7163): 658.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang, Y. 2010. Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized. Nature 467(7312): 153.CrossRef Zhang, Y. 2010. Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized. Nature 467(7312): 153.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Plagiarism in research
verfasst von
Gert Helgesson
Stefan Eriksson
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2015
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy / Ausgabe 1/2015
Print ISSN: 1386-7423
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8633
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9583-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 1/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Scientific Contribution

Hope for health and health care