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
