I think we're losing sight of an important idea here. In literature,
movies, song lyrics, etc. it is the wording that his protected by copyright,
not the ideas. Only Tammy Wynette can "stand by your man" without paying
royalties, but anyone can sing about loyalty.
On the other hand, what matters in science acknowledging the the
source of *ideas* and allowing the reader to replicate one's work. Sure,
people shouldn't lift whole paragraphs from someone else's paper. However,
if for no other reason, then for statistical reasons, certain stock phrases
should be considered fair game.. Consider the phrase "We followed the
protocol of XXXX, et al. for all PCR runs." "We" isn't copyrightble. "We
followed the protocol" isn't copyright able. When does it start?
Just to prevent more pettiness, I hereby place the phrase used
above in the public domain, allowing anyone to use it without attribution to
me and to substitute the appropriate name(s) for "XXXX, et. al." If
requested, I will create a public-domain library of stock phrases so
scientists, especially those who must struggle with English, can concentrate
on ideas instead of wording.
Martin M. Meiss
2009/6/7 Wayne Tyson <[email protected]>
> 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<http://megaview.com.tw/%7Ecaralin>
> 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
>
