Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing

practices: A guide to ethical writing

Miguel Roig, Ph.D.
http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/reporting%20of%20methodology.html
Acknowledging the source of our ideas
Just about every scholarly or scientific paper contains several footnotes or reference notes
documenting the source of the facts, ideas, or evidence that is reported in support of arguments
or hypotheses. n some cases, as in those papers that revie! the literature in a specific area of
research, the reference section listing the sources consulted can be "uite e#tensive, sometimes
ta$ing up more than a third of the published article %see, for e#ample, &ogan, 'al$er, (ole, )
&eu$efeld, 2000*. +ost often, the contributions !e rely upon come from the published !or$ or
personal observations of other scientists or scholars. ,n occasion, ho!ever, !e may derive an
important insight about a phenomenon or process that !e are studying, through a casual
interaction !ith an individual not necessarily connected !ith scholarly or scientific !or$. -ven
in such cases, !e still have a moral obligation to credit the source of our ideas. . good
illustrative e#ample of the latter point !as reported by .lan /ilchrist in a 0121 3cientific
.merican article on color perception. n a section of the article !hich describes the perception of
rooms uniformly painted in one color, /ilchrist states: 4'e no! have a promising lead to ho!
the visual system determines the shade of gray in these rooms, although !e do not yet have a
complete e#planation. %John 5obinson helped me develop this lead.*6 %p.0227 /ilchrist, 0121*. .
reader of the scientific literature might assume that +r. 5obinson is another scientist !or$ing in
the field of visual perception, or perhaps an academic colleague or an advanced graduate student
of /ilchrist8s. 9he fact is that John 5obinson !as a local plumber and an ac"uaintance of
/ilchrist in the to!n !here the author spent his summers. :uring a casual discussion of
/ilchrist8s !or$, 5obinson8s insights into the problem that /ilchrist had been !or$ing on !ere
sufficiently important to the development of his theory of lightness perception that /ilchrist felt
ethically obligated to credit 5obinson8s contribution.
-ven the most ethical authors can fall prey to the inadvertent appropriation of others8
ideas, concepts, or metaphors. ;ere !e are referring to the phenomenon of unconscious
plagiarism, !hich, as stated earlier, ta$es place !hen an author generates an idea that s/he
believes to be original, but !hich in reality had been encountered at an earlier time. /iven the
free and fre"uent e#change of ideas in science, it is not unreasonable to e#pect instances in
!hich earlier e#posure to an idea that lies dormant in someone8s unconscious, emerges into
consciousness at a later point, but in a conte#t different from the one in !hich the idea had
originally occurred. <resumably, this is e#actly !hat happened in the case of former =eatle
/eorge ;arrison, !hose song 4+y 3!eet &ord6 !as found to have musical elements of the song
4;e8s 3o >ine6, !hich had been released years earlier by 9he (hiffons %see =right 9unes +usic
(orp. v. ;arrisongs +usic, &td., 012?*. @nfortunately, there are probably other John 5obinsons,
as !ell as other accomplished scientists, scholars, and artists, no! forgotten, !hose original, but
unac$no!ledged ideas have been subse"uently and unconsciously %or sadly, perhaps "uite
intentionally* 4reinvented/rediscovered6 by others and have, thus, failed to get their due credit.
n some cases the misappropriation of an idea can be a subtle process. (onsider the
famous case of .lbert 3chatA !ho, as a graduate student !or$ing under 3elman 'a$sman at
5utgers, discovered the antibiotic streptomycin. -ven though the first publications describing his
discovery identified 3chatA as primary author %+artin, 0112*, it !as 'a$man !ho, over a period
of time, began to ta$e sole credit for the discovery ultimately earning him the Bobel priAe in
01C2 %see, for e#ample, 3hatA, 011D7 +istiaen, 2002 for a fuller description of this case*.
,f course, there also have been instances in !hich unscrupulous scientists have
intentionally misappropriated ideas. 9he confidential peer revie! process is a ripe source from
!hich ideas may be plagiariAed. (onsider the scenario !here the offender is a journal or
conference referee, or a member of a revie! panel for a funding agency. ;e
0
E0F reads a paper or
a grant proposal describing a promising ne! methodology in an area of research directly related
to his o!n !or$. 9he grant fails to get funded based, in large part, on his negative evaluation of
the protocol. ;e then goes bac$ to his lab and prepares a grant proposal using the methodology
stolen from the proposal that he refereed earlier and submits his proposal to a different granting
agency.
+ost of us !ould deem the behavior depicted in the above scenario as do!nright
despicable. @nfortunately, similar situations have occurred. n fact, elements of the above
scenario are based on actual cases of scientific misconduct investigated by ,5.
9he peer revie! conte#t appears to be sufficiently susceptible to the appropriation of
ideas that in 0111 the federal ,ffice of 3cience and 9echnology e#panded their definition of
plagiarism as follo!s:
4<lagiarism is the appropriation of another person8s ideas, processes,
results, or !ords !ithout giving appropriate credit, including those
obtained through confidential revie! of others8 research proposals and
manuscripts.6 %,ffice of 3cience and 9echnology <olicy, 0111*.
Guideline 1: .n ethical !riter .&'.G3 ac$no!ledges the
contributions of others and the source of his/her ideas.
Plagiarism of text
Copying a portion of text from another source without giving credit to its author and without
enclosing the borrowed text in quotation marks.

'hen it comes to using others8 !ordHforH!ord %verbatim* te#t in our !riting the
universally accepted rule is to enclose that information in "uotations and to indicate the specific
1
source of that te#t. 'hen "uoting te#t from other sources, you must provide a reference citation
and the page number indicating !here the te#t comes from. .lthough the use of direct "uotes is
uncommon in the biomedical literature, there may be occasions !hen it is !arranted. 9he
material "uoted earlier from /ilchrist %0121* serves as a good e#ample of !hen to use
"uotations.

Guideline 2: .ny verbatim te#t ta$en from another author must be
enclosed in "uotation mar$s.

.lthough the evidence indicates that most authors, including college students, are a!are
of rules regarding the use of "uotation mar$s, plagiarism of te#t is probably the most common
type of plagiarism. ;o!ever, plagiarism of te#t can occur in a variety of forms. 9he follo!ing
revie! !ill allo! the reader to become familiar !ith the various subtle forms of plagiarism of
te#t.
&et8s consider the follo!ing variety:
Copying a portion of text from one or more sources, inserting and/or deleting
some of the words, or substituting some words with synonyms, but never giving
credit to its author nor enclosing the verbatim material in quotation marks.
9he above form of plagiarism is relatively !ell $no!n and has been given names,
such as patch!riting %;o!ard, 0111* and paraphragiarism %&evin ) +arshall, 011D*. verson, et
al. %011I* in the .merican +edical .ssociation8s +anual of 3tyle identify this type of unethical
!riting practice as mosaic plagiarism and they define it as follo!s:
4+osaic: =orro!ing the ideas and opinions from an original source
and a fe! verbatim !ords or phrases !ithout crediting the original
author. n this case, the plagiarist intert!ines his or her o!n ideas
and opinions !ith those of the original author, creating a Jconfused
plagiariAed mass86 %p. 00K*.

.nother, more blatant form !hich may also constitute plagiarism of ideas occurs !hen an
author ta$es a portion of te#t from another source, thoroughly paraphrases it, but never gives
credit to its author.


Guideline 3: 'e must al!ays ac$no!ledge every source that !e use in
our !riting7 !hether !e paraphrase it, summariAe it, or
enclose it "uotations.
Inappropriate paraphrasing
Taking portions of text from one or more sources, crediting the author/s, but only changing one
or two words or simply rearranging the order, voice (i.e., active vs. passive and/or tense of the
sentences.

nappropriate paraphrasing is perhaps the most common form of plagiarism and, at the
same time, the most controversial. 9his is because the criteria for !hat constitutes proper
paraphrasing differs bet!een individuals even !ithin members of the same discipline. 'e !ill
discuss these issues shortly, but first let8s consider the process of paraphrasing.
<araphrasing and 3ummariAing
3cholarly !riting, including scientific !riting, often involves the paraphrasing and
summarizing of others8 !or$. >or e#ample, in the introduction of a traditional scientific paper it
is customary to provide a brief and concise revie! of the pertinent literature. 3uch a revie! is
accomplished by the cogent synthesis of relevant theoretical and empirical studies and the tas$
typically calls for the summariAing of large amounts of information.
Guideline 4: 'hen !e summariAe, !e condense, in our o!n !ords, a
substantial amount of material into a short paragraph or perhaps
even into a sentence.

.t other times, and for a variety of reasons, !e may !ish to restate in detail and in our
o!n !ords a certain portion of another author8s !riting. n this case, !e must rely on the
process of paraphrasing. @nli$e a summary, !hich results in a substantially shorter te#tual
product, a paraphrase usually results in !riting of e"uivalent te#tual length as the original, but, of
course, !ith a different !ords and, ideally, different sentence structure. 'hether paraphrasing or
summariAing others8 !or$, !e must al!ays provide proper credit. n fact, !hen paraphrasing in
the humanities, one may thoroughly modify another author8s te#t and provide the proper citation.
;o!ever, if the original sentence structure is preserved in the paraphrase, some !ill classify such
!riting as an instance of plagiarism.

Guideline : 'hether !e are paraphrasing or summariAing !e must
al!ays identify the source of our information.
Paraphrasing and Plagiarism: !hat the writing guides sa"
.lthough virtually all professional and student !riting guides, including those in the sciences,
provide specific instructions on the proper use of "uotes, references, etc., many fail to offer specific
details on proper paraphrasing. 'ith some e#ceptions, !riting guides that provide instructions for proper
paraphrasing and avoiding plagiarism tend to subscribe to a Jconservative8 approach to paraphrasing. 9hat
is, these guides often suggest that !hen paraphrasing, an author must substantially modify the original
material. (onsider the follo!ing e#amples of paraphrasing guidelines:
4#on$t plagiarize. -#press your o!n thoughts in your o!n !ordsL. Bote, too, that simply
changing a fe! !ords here and there, or changing the order of a fe! !ords in a sentence or
paragraph, is still plagiarism. <lagiarism is one of the most serious crimes in academia.6
%<echeni$, 20007 p.00*.
4Gou plagiariAe even !hen you do credit the author but use his e#act !ords !ithout so
indicating !ith "uotation mar$s or bloc$ indentation. Gou also plagiariAe !hen you use
!ords so close to those in your source, that if your !or$ !ere placed ne#t to the source, it
!ould be obvious that you could not have !ritten !hat you did !ithout the source at your
elbo!.6 %=ooth, (olomb, ) 'illiams, 011C7 p. 0?2*
,n the other hand, some !riting guides appear to suggest a more liberal approach to
paraphrasing. >or e#ample, consider the follo!ing guideline from the <ublication +anual of the
.merican <sychological .ssociation %2000*, a guide that is also used by other disciplines %e.g., 3ociology,
-ducation*, in addition to psychology:
4L!ach time you paraphrase another author %i.e., summariAe a passage or rearrange the
order of a sentence and change some of the !ords*, you need to credit the source in the te#t.6
%p. DK1*.
;o!ever, this same resource provides an e#ample of paraphrasing that is consistent !ith the more
conservative definitions outlined above. +oreover, other !riting guides %e.g., ;ac$er, 2000* that revie!
the style used by .merican <sychological .ssociation %.<.* interpret the .<. guidelines in the same
conservative fashion. advocate the more conservative approach to paraphrasing !ith one caveat %see
belo!*.
Guideline %: 'hen paraphrasing and/or summariAing others8 !or$ !e
must reproduce the e#act meaning of the other author8s
ideas or facts using our !ords and sentence structure.
&xamples of paraphrasing: Good and 'ad
9he ethical !riter ta$es great care to insure that any paraphrased te#t is sufficiently
modified so as to be judged as ne! !riting. &et8s consider various paraphrased versions of
the follo!ing material on the electrochemical properties of neurons %ta$en from +artini )
=artholome!, 0112*. n ac$no!ledging the source, !e !ill use the footnote method
commonly used in the biomedical sciences. 9he actual reference !ould appear in the
reference section of the paper.
('ecause the intracellular concentration of potassium ions is relati)el" high* potassium
ions tend to diffuse out of the cell+ ,his mo)ement is dri)en -" the concentration
gradient for potassium ions+ .imilarl"* the concentration gradient for sodium ions
tends to promote their mo)ement into the cell+ /owe)er* the cell mem-rane is
significantl" more permea-le to potassium ions than to sodium ions+ As a result*
potassium ions diffuse out of the cell faster than sodium ions enter the c"toplasm+ ,he
cell therefore experiences a net loss of positi)e charges* and as a result the interior of
the cell mem-rane contains an excess of negati)e charges* primaril" from negati)el"
charged proteins+01 2p+ 2344+
;ere is an .ppropriate <araphrase of the above material:
. te#tboo$ of anatomy and physiologyM reports that the concentration of potassium ions
inside of the cell is relatively high and, conse"uently, some potassium tends to escape out of
the cell. Just the opposite occurs !ith sodium ions. 9heir concentration outside of the cell
causes sodium ions to cross the membrane into the cell, but they do so at a slo!er rate.
.ccording to these authors, this is because the permeability of the cell membrane is such that
it favors the movement of potassium relative to sodium ions. =ecause the rate of crossing for
potassium ions that e#it the cell is higher than that for sodium ions that enter the cell, the
inside portion of the cell is left !ith an overload of negatively charged particles, namely,
proteins that contain a negative charge.

Botice that, in addition to thoroughly changing much of the language and some of the structure
of the original paragraph, the paraphrase also indicates, as per guideline C, that the ideas contained in the
re!ritten version !ere ta$en from another source. 'hen !e paraphrase and/or summariAe others8 !or$
!e must also give them due credit, a rule not al!ays applied by ine#perienced !riters.
&et8s suppose that instead of paraphrasing, !e decide to summariAe the above paragraph
from +artini and =artholome!. ;ere is one summariAed version of that paragraph:
9he interior of a cell maintains a negative charge because more potassium ions e#it the cell
relative to sodium ions that enter it, leaving an over abundance of negatively charged protein
inside of the cell.M

n their attempts at paraphrasing, sometimes authors commit Jnear plagiarism8 %or plagiarism,
depending on !ho is doing the judging* because they fail to sufficiently modify the original te#t and thus,
produce an inappropriately paraphrased version. :epending on the e#tent of modifications to the original,
the e#tent of te#t involved, and on !ho is doing the judging, inappropriate paraphrasing may constitute an
instance of plagiarism. >or e#ample, the follo!ing versions of the +artini and =artholome! paragraph
are inappropriately paraphrased and can thus be classified as plagiariAed versions:
nappropriate paraphrase %version 0*:
=ecause the intracellular concentration of potassium ions is N high, potassium ions tend to
diffuse out of the cell. 9his movement is triggered by the concentration gradient for
potassium ions. 3imilarly, the concentration gradient for sodium ions tends to promote their
movement into the cell. ;o!ever, the cell membrane is much more permeable to potassium
ions than to it is to sodium ions. .s a result, potassium ions diffuse out of the cell more
rapidly than sodium ions enter the cytoplasm. 9he cell therefore e#periences a N loss of
positive charges, and as a result the interior of the cell membrane contains a surplus of
negative charges, primarily from negatively charged proteins.M %p. 20K*.

. comparison bet!een the original version of the +artini and =artholome! paragraph to the
Jre!ritten8 version above reveals that the re!ritten version is a mere copy of the original. 9he fe!
modifications that !ere made are superficial, consisting merely of a couple of !ord deletions,
substitutions, and additions. -ven though by the insertion of a reference note %M* the !riter has credited
+artini and =artholome! !ith the ideas e#pressed, most of the !ords and structure of the original
paragraph are preserved in the re!ritten version. 9herefore, the reader !ould have been misled as to the
origin of the !riting.
nappropriate paraphrase %version 2*:
9he concentration gradient for sodium %Ba* ions tends to promote their movement
into the cell. 3imilarly, the high intracellular concentration of potassium %O* ions is
relatively high resulting in O8s tendency to diffuse out of the cell. =ecause the cell
membrane is significantly more permeable to O than to Ba, O diffuses out of the cell
faster than Ba enter the cytoplasm. 9he cell therefore e#periences a net loss of
positive charges and, as a result the interior of the cell membrane no! has an e#cess
of negative charges, primarily from negatively charged proteins.M %p. 20K*.

.t first glance this second Jre!ritten8 version may loo$ as if it has been significantly modified from
the original, but in reality, it is not unli$e the first inappropriately paraphrased version in that only
superficial changes have been made to the original. n this particular case, the !riter has made a
seemingly disingenuous change by substituting the names of the atoms by using their chemical symbols
%e.g., sodium P Ba*. n addition, the order of the first t!o sentences !as changed giving the appearance of
a substantial modification. ;o!ever, as in the previous version, the language and much of the rest of
structure is still too similar to the original.
.gain, it must be emphasiAed that !hen !e paraphrase !e must ma$e every effort to
restate the ideas in our !ords. ;ere is another properly paraphrased version:
.ppropriate paraphrase %version 2*:
9he relatively high concentration gradient of sodium ions outside of the cell causes
them to enter into the cell8s cytoplasm. n a similar fashion, the interior concentration
gradient of potassium ions is also high and, therefore, potassium ions tend to scatter
out of the cell through the cell8s membrane. =ut, a notable feature of this process is
that <otassium ions tend to leave the cell faster than sodium ions enter the cytoplasm.
9his is because of the nature of the cell membrane8s permeability, !hich allo!s
potassium ions to cross much more freely than sodium ions. 9he end result is that the
interior of the cell membrane8s loss of positive charges results in a greater proportion
of negative charges and these made up mostly of proteins that have ac"uired a
negative charge.M