Previous article Table of Contents  Next article

LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 188

Plagiarism: Intention and diagnostic criteria


Translator - Editorial Consultant, Granada, Spain

Correspondence Address:
Karen Shashok
Compositor Ruiz Aznar 12, 2-A, 18008 Granada
Spain
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1658-354X.97040

Rights and Permissions
Date of Web Publication8-Jun-2012
 


How to cite this article:
Shashok K. Plagiarism: Intention and diagnostic criteria. Saudi J Anaesth 2012;6:188

How to cite this URL:
Shashok K. Plagiarism: Intention and diagnostic criteria. Saudi J Anaesth [serial online] 2012 [cited 2019 Dec 14];6:188. Available from: http://www.saudija.org/text.asp?2012/6/2/188/97040

Sir,

Viroj Wiwanitkit raises important points about the definition and diagnosis of plagiarism - points that should interest both authors and editors. Most guidelines for editors take into account whether the authors intended to deceive the readers as to the source of the words, ideas, figures, or any other element of a research publication. So it can be problematic when readers (including editors and reviewers as well as the original but uncited authors) perceive "plagiarism" before they have evidence that the copied material was re-used intentionally to mislead readers about the origin of the material. But it takes time and work to determine what the intention was - To steal credit? To avoid problems with the language? Or to "follow the crowd" and do what seems to be appropriate and acceptable in a scientific environment that pressures researchers to publish as much and as fast as possible? A simple, quantitative criterion (e.g., number of words or lines, or percentage of the total word count) usually cannot be relied on as a diagnostic criterion when it comes to scientific meaning and importance. Unfortunately, many editors and journals lack the resources to investigate further and prefer to manage their workload by rejecting anything that seems suspicious. In practice, this means that authors who have re-used anything without appropriate citation are presumed guilty of plagiarism. Researchers everywhere should have access to training in good citation practices and publication ethics so that they can avoid the trap of being labelled unfairly as plagiarists. Meanwhile, editors can use the COPE flowcharts [1],[2] as an aid to reaching an accurate diagnosis.

 
  References Top

1.Committee on Publication Ethics. Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts. [Last Accessed on 2011 Nov 8].   Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Committee on Publication Ethics. Suspected plagiarism in a published article. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts. [Last Accessed on 2011 Nov 8].  Back to cited text no. 2
    




 

Top
 
Previous article    Next article
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  IN THIS Article
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1515    
    Printed141    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded104    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal