All: I must be missing something here, so please give me a couple of swats and lead me to salvation if you see where I am straying . . .
I'm not sure how all this fits together in my head, but for what it might be worth: 1. Unless one is naive, one knows when one is plagiarizing. When one knows, one shouldn't do it. 2. Any work that one is quoting from any source should be cited and referenced. 3. Copying from any source and not citing the source implies that the author (you) want the reader to believe that the work is yours (the author of the present work), and not that of the author of the source from which it is copied. 4. If one is honestly working from memory and honestly doesn't remember the source, one probably is not committing a grave sin by not citing it, although if one honestly remembers where the material came from, one could, or perhaps should, make some reference to what one remembers. A general or specific reference in acknowledgements. However, one should NEVER acknowledge the assistance of others who did not actually participate knowingly, just to attach credibility to one's work. (This might be called "reverse plagiarism" or some such--let me know if you know a better term.) 5. In the case of methodology, one always should at least honor the originator (as in "after Smith") and cite the publication one used, even if it is not the original paper, as IN: PCR Methods etc., 2009, and provide page numbers. The originator of the method or significant contribution always should be cited if known or it is reasonable to conclude that one should know the originator, regardless of the amount of modification. 6. Whatever one does, one should always make it easier rather than more difficult for a reader to check up on your sources and methods. 7. If one has modified another method, one should clearly indicate the method modified and the modifications clearly. If one just makes cosmetic changes, one is still plagiarizing, but the more obscure the reference, the less likely one is to be "caught" or that anyone will even notice or care, but one's portrait will grow a bit uglier, even as one's public image benefits from each little cut and slice. It's all up to you. 8. Links always should be included when possible (see item 6). 9. Moving the science forward always should be the primary goal, not merely moving one's paper or career forward. 10. One's reputation always is at stake. Honest errors should be forgivable. One always has to live with dishonesty. The sooner corrections are made, the better. In the particular case cited, it would seem that an honest commentary or note explaining the situation clearly might be in order. If there is an error or some sloppy work in the paper consulted, perhaps one should keep looking, perhaps distrust the source, or perhaps communicate with the author so that a correction can be made with the least fuss. If that doesn't have the proper effect, it is the responsibility of the discoverer of the error to submit a communication to the publication in which the sloppiness occurred--but only after the author refuses to make the correction himself or herself. Frankly, this "list" is just off the top of my head, so I would welcome modifications. (Properly cited, of course. Yes, even from an email or other pers. comm. However, this is an example of a courtesy, not a demand.) If one just makes cosmetic changes, one is still plagiarizing, but the more obscure the reference, the less likely one is to be "caught" or that anyone will even notice or care, but one's portrait will grow a bit uglier, even as one's public image benefits from each little cut and slice. It's all up to you. "Work" always is work, regardless of whether or not it has been sanctified by publication. Modification IS peer review, and it can move the issue forward. References leave a trail back to the sources and discover errors, sometimes years later. Sometimes errors go unnoticed for years, perhaps forever. (An interesting example of how sloppy scholarship can perpetuate a myth for some time, wasting countless hours, dollars, and other resources can be found in: Minnich, Richard A. 1982. Pseudotsuga. macrocarpa in Baja California? Madroño 29(l):22-31). WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cara Lin Bridgman" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 7:28 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Plagiarizing methods... One of my students did a quick survey of 18 papers from 9 journals and found a total of four ways of describing conditions for PCR reactions. I’ve tried to standardize these examples for temperatures and times. Ten papers used this formula: “All PCR reactions included an initial denaturation of 94*C for 30 s, 35 cycles of 94*C for 30 s, 58*C for 45 s, and 72*C for 2 min, followed by a final elongation step at 72*C for 7.” Five papers used this formula: “30 s denaturation at 95*C, 45 s annealing at 58*C and 2 min extension at 72*C, a final extension step of 7 min at 72*C.” Two papers used this formula: “PCR cycling conditions of an initial denaturation step (94*C, 30 s), followed by 35 cycles at 94*C (30 s), 58*C (45 s), 72*C (2 min) and a final extension step of 7 min at 72*C.” One paper used this formula: “The reaction was cycled 35 times with 94*C (30 s), 58*C (45 s) and 72*C (2 min).” The question is this: When writing your own paper, does using (or copying) one of these four ways constitute plagiarism? If it does constitute plagiarism, then are these papers plagiarizing each other? Also, how does one go about describing methods for PCR reactions without commiting plagiarism? My students and I agree that the ways are rather limited--especially since there is not much diversity in these 18 published papers. This is a real dilemma, because these conditions have to be described in each paper that uses PCR--the details in terms of times, temperatures, and cycle number change with every study and every experiment. If it does not constitute plagiarism, then how much of the descriptions for other methods (statistical analysis, definitions for formula, figure legends, table titles, etc.) can be copied before it constitutes plagiarism? (My students and I can see a slippery slope here...) When writing her own PCR methods, my student tried going around this problem by finding a paper that came close to doing the same things she did, citing that paper, and adding a sentence to explain the changes in times or temperatures to describe what she actually did. We do not find this a very satisfactory solution because my student did not use the cited paper when actually deciding how to do her PCR reactions or in any other part of her thesis. In other words, citing that paper gives it undue credit for helping her with her methods. Finding ourselves in an impasse, I told my students I'd ask you here at Ecolog what you think and how you cope with these sorts of dilemmas. Thanks, CL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cara Lin Bridgman [email protected] P.O. Box 013 Shinjhuang http://megaview.com.tw/~caralin Longjing Township http://www.BugDorm.com Taichung County 43499 Taiwan Phone: 886-4-2632-5484 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.53/2156 - Release Date: 06/05/09 06:24:00
