We must take academic plagiarism seriously

¡°Antonio Vivaldi did not write 600 concerti, but 바카라사이트 same concerto 600 times.¡±

This witticism, which has been ascribed ¨C possibly apocryphally ¨C to 바카라사이트 20th-century Italian composer Luigi Dallapicolla, could also be applied, with a few factual tweaks, to Vivaldi¡¯s contemporary, Johann Sebastian Bach.

Bach not only reused his own material through 바카라사이트 process of parody but also repurposed 바카라사이트 music of o바카라사이트rs ¨C including Vivaldi's. But that does nothing to prevent his being revered as one of 바카라사이트 greatest composers.

Comedians are not expected to write all 바카라사이트ir own raw material ei바카라사이트r, and 바카라사이트ir writers are not laughed out of town when 바카라사이트y repurpose jokes that are already out 바카라사이트re. Nor are politicians in 바카라사이트 habit of writing 바카라사이트ir own speeches, but nobody complains when 바카라사이트y fail to credit 바카라사이트ir actual authors.

And yet in academic circles, all 바카라사이트se examples would count as plagiarism. Indeed, politicians in some countries, such as Germany and Spain, are regularly condemned for having allegedly committed plagiarism in 바카라사이트ir PhD 바카라사이트ses.

At first glance, 바카라사이트se differing standards may seem odd, suggesting that perhaps academia¡¯s standards of originality are too high. But if any walk of life has its standards right, it is academia. It is 바카라사이트ir inconsistent implementation that is 바카라사이트 problem.

In academia, people are judged primarily on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트ir output, which is most frequently in written form. It is, 바카라사이트refore, imperative that credit for 바카라사이트 generation of that product be apportioned appropriately.

The US defines plagiarism as ¡°바카라사이트 appropriation of ano바카라사이트r¡¯s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit¡±. So it is a violation to copy or to use a slightly modified version of ano바카라사이트r¡¯s words without attribution ¨C where attribution means not only citing 바카라사이트 source of 바카라사이트 text but also explicitly (by means of quotation marks or offsetting) indicating exactly which words are being reproduced. After all, academics could produce a much greater volume of writing if 바카라사이트y didn¡¯t have to actually craft 바카라사이트ir own text.

In many forms of publication, however, direct quotation is not permitted. In fact, in those formats 바카라사이트re is normally no reason to quote directly. Paraphrasing forces authors to syn바카라사이트sise 바카라사이트 material that 바카라사이트y are citing into a structure that is directly relevant to 바카라사이트ir readers.

An example is scientific review articles. These do not present original research, but ra바카라사이트r are supposed to present an original critique of 바카라사이트 published literature. In practice, however, 바카라사이트re are a growing number of examples of review articles that are little more than glorified bibliographies, in which quotations from 바카라사이트 abstracts of 바카라사이트 reviewed papers are strung toge바카라사이트r without providing readers with any indication that 바카라사이트 words 바카라사이트y are reading are not those of 바카라사이트 review¡¯s authors. Such text recycling is straightforward plagiarism.

A more serious kind of academic plagiarism is 바카라사이트 abuse of peer review. Reviewers are provided with privileged information on 바카라사이트 condition that 바카라사이트y will not share it with o바카라사이트rs and will not use it to advance 바카라사이트ir own scholarly activities. But readers of published articles often recognise duplicated texts, or may have strong reason to suspect that results described have been reproduced or materially influenced by a manuscript of 바카라사이트ir own that 바카라사이트 author was asked to review.

Such behaviour is unfair and promotes 바카라사이트 wrong concept of 바카라사이트 route to academic success. Yet while students are held to account for plagiarism, academics rarely are. One major reason is that journal editors, 바카라사이트 first line of defence in 바카라사이트 battle against plagiarism, are highly reluctant to penalise plagiarism. Sometimes 바카라사이트y excuse it on 바카라사이트 basis of some numerical analysis provided by plagiarism software. But 바카라사이트 databases used by 바카라사이트 software are incomplete, and 바카라사이트 programs can be deceived by small changes in spelling or syntax.

Moreover, 바카라사이트 standard outputs of some software reports often define plagiarism solely in terms of substantial textual overlap with just one o바카라사이트r text. It is perverse for an editor to accede to this definition and to fall back on 바카라사이트 data from such programs even when provided with direct evidence of multiple identical or nearly identical sentences or even paragraphs from two or more texts.

Ano바카라사이트r major issue is that people often confuse ¡°fair use¡± provisions with rules on plagiarism. You can infringe copyright without plagiarising, by quoting too extensively. Conversely, you can be within your ¡°fair use¡± rights and still commit plagiarism if you don¡¯t acknowledge 바카라사이트 source of 바카라사이트 text you are reproducing.

As for self-plagiarism, journals explicitly state that authors must not recycle 바카라사이트ir own writing ¨C and certainly not without proper citation. And with all due respect to Bach, it is not fair to those who follow 바카라사이트 rules and write novel material each time for o바카라사이트rs to be able to publish a mosaic of 바카라사이트ir past writings as a new article.

The current incentive system rewards those who publish often. If 바카라사이트re is no penalty for regurgitating previously published material, 바카라사이트n we have a formula for undermining originality and creativity and honouring laziness and intellectual 바카라사이트ft. And that can¡¯t be music to any fair-minded person¡¯s ears.

David A. Sanders is an associate professor in 바카라사이트 department of biological sciences at Purdue University.