Ecolog: Hoping not to extend this discussion to the point of merely tiresome tedium, I must both compliment the contributors to this issue for adding dimensions about which I am not so familiar, and to confess that I just finished a case where I toyed with plagiarism in another context, to wit, wit. I suggest that there is a bit more room for skating nearer to the edge in the arts than the sciences, for what that may be worth to this forum. In my toying (the context was more "philosophical") I both quoted and paraphrased both Shakespeare and Brooke, putting quotes where they belonged (around the quoted matter) and [bracketing] the substitutions with which I butchered poor Will and Rupert, using asterisks to invoke minimal distraction while referring to an informal acknowledgement, e.g., "with apologies to . . . ."
There may be a parallel to this in "scholarly" works, wherein the matter quoted is almost so familiar to readers that it might border on condescension to cite those quoted; however, I still believe that some form of credit to the originator is nearly always called for. Even when one doesn't remember the source I believe quotes are the most honest way of at least acknowledging that the fragment was not original with the writer. Another error I have committed has been misattribution. I have, for example, attributed quotes to Robert Burns, Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw, and others for which they were not the author, and have even attributed quotes to the wrong person. In fact, I find the latter to be rather common in modern literature, and just as serious in its way as misattribution in science. While I hasten to correct myself when the error is discovered, it is sometimes too late, especially for those cases I have simply forgotten--I must leave it to others to discover and expose the error and make the correction (if possible, to me; if not to some publication or listserv). While "pride goeth before a fall," in writing and other human endeavor, exposure of errer is perhaps more frequently taken as a personal affront than a favor. Nonetheless, it is one's duty (as in this "paper," for example?). No whining! I told of my efforts to assist and ESL writer to polish his English in an earlier post on this subject, how one of his paragraphs was so mutilated that I had to leave it, that I asked him to restate the paragraph or find another ESL native speaker in his language to assist, he apparently submitted it to an English-language journal anyway and had it rejected. Since then, the fellow has not responded to my emails. I am so sorry that he was apparently hurt, but there wasn't much I could do. On the other hand (idioms can be particularly vexsome for ESL people), there are some forms of writing in which I do not suggest minor corrections provided that the text is understandable without confusion. Even in a journal publication, I think certain minor errors on the part of ESL authors should be forgiven or corrected by the editors; for example, while I noted such in Hamazaki's post, I understood him perfectly and would not deign to correct him unless he had specifically requested it. I so respect all those who have even adequate command of English that I believe that we EAOL (Engrish as an only language) should be as charitable as possible with them. On other EAOL's however, I think we should show no mercy--although I must admit that if I tried to correct every error I notice in EAOL-authored papers I would have no time for much else. Finally, I think ESL readers should request clarification more frequently, particularly when idiomatic forms are employed or when jargonfog envelops papers unnecessarily. Sometimes I forget to use the best English, and sometimes I intentionally f#^*! it up, sometimes to lighten it up, and sometimes to help ESL readers hone their skills with the various "English" dialects, e.g., herewith. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luke K. Butler" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plagiarizing methods... > "Writing is very hard work, and knowing what you're doing the whole > time."―Shelby Foote (1), author, among several other books, of > the 2,968-page, 1.2 million-word history, The Civil War: A Narrative > (2). > Luke > > I tend to agree with Wayne Tyson's "rules" of honest writing, and > from what I can tell about people I work with/learn from, they think > similar things. I also agree with Martin Meiss' ethic that holds > ideas as more sacred than commonly-used methods. If I understand them > correctly, I tend to disagree with Hamachan Hamazaki's statements: > > "If your students are copying somebody's sentences because their > writing style and sentence structure are better in expressing their > own idea, then I call this as learning process." > > Learning to copy and insert better sentences than one's own versions > is only learning how to copy and insert better sentences than one's > own in a way that makes sense. I don't see what it has to do with > teaching someone to become a professional-quality writer. If one's > writing skills are at a stage where learning happens from merely > copying sentences, then one isn't ready to write a professional > science paper. There are honest ways around this: learn to write well > enough to be published (like everybody else did, whatever the > language) or get a co-author writer. Writing and publishing a paper > by copying without fair citation is fraud, not learning. Furthermore, > if one is knowledgeable enough to judge better writing from worse, > then one is able to write an adequate sentence oneself, if by no > other process than writing two sentences, picking the better one, > writing another sentence, picking the better one of those two, and > repeating until the sentence does a sufficiently good job that its > time to move on to the next one, and then let someone else be the > judge. I would think that a lot of people learn to write this way, > even in their so-called native languages. > > and > > "If students are copying the works of others to represent as their > own, then this becomes a plagiarism." > > Writing occurs much, much more to me like work, and like the "works" > that I produce, than any other part of being a scientist. Everything > leading up to it is usually so enjoyable that I would probably only > classify the writing part of my job as the "work" part of my job. As > a very slow, very mediocre writer myself, I empathize with people who > say they have a hard time writing, but I do not believe we should be > afforded special rights (if WT's list, or something like it, is the > "law" that applies to everyone else) to jump ahead in the game (e.g., > by copying). In my limited experience, the effort behind a typical > research paper is something like 50% writing, 40% doing the study, > and 10% thinking about it and formulating new ideas. So, copying the > writing is copying the works of others, and it is fraud. Creating the > combination of words that tell the story is the production of a > "work", whether poetry or prose. There are lots of people who, for > whatever reasons, have hard times learning to write, whatever the > language. There are people who, for whatever reasons, have easier > times learning to write. That's life. Copying to appear to be a > better writer is not fair play. > > Luke > > Acknowledgment > D. DesRochers provided helpful comments on the text. > > References > 1--http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1216 > 2--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civil_War:_A_Narrative > ******************************** > Luke K. Butler > Post-Doctoral Associate > Department of Biology > Tufts University > 165 Packard Ave > Medford, MA 02155 > ph: 617.627.4036 > fax: 617.627.3805 > ******************************** > > > On Jun 7, 2009, at 1:45 AM, Hamazaki, Hamachan (DFG) wrote: > >> Cara Lin, >> >> I think you are too hard on the issue about plagiarism toward non- >> English speakers. And as Jim pointed out, there are only so many >> intelligible ways to state a simple idea. And there are only a few >> efficient and elegant ways to state an idea. >> >> Everyone, including native English speakers learn how to speak and >> write by copying someone else's, which is called learning not >> plagiarism. For instance, when I was in a graduate school, my >> professor edited and rewrote my paper almost every sentences to >> show better ways of expressing of my idea. My professor also tasked >> me to read papers and list sentences that elegantly express ideas. >> And, of course, I read and copy writing style manual that show how >> to express ideas the simplest and the most efficient ways. Because >> of these trainings, my writing style and expressions of idea are >> very similar to my professor's. So, did I plagiarize? I don't >> think so. This is part of learning process. >> >> If your students are copying somebody's sentences because their >> writing style and sentence structure are better in expressing their >> own idea, then I call this as learning process. >> >> If students are copying the works of others to represent as their >> own, then this becomes a plagiarism. >> >> >> >> Toshihide "Hamachan" Hamazaki, PhD : 濱崎俊秀：浜ちゃん >> Alaska Department of Fish & Game >> Division of Commercial Fisheries >> 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, Alaska 99518 >> Ph: 907-267-2158 >> Fax: 907-267-2442 >> Cell: 907-440-9934 >> E-mail: [email protected] >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Crants >> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 7:10 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plagiarizing methods... >> >> Cara Lin, >> >> I don't think it's plagiarism to state a very simple idea (like >> your PCR >> conditions) using the same words someone else did, since there are >> only so >> many intelligible ways to state a simple idea. The University of >> Calgary >> has some information on how they define academic plagiarism ( >> http://www.ucalgary.ca/~hexham/study/plag.html) that agrees >> with this >> position: >> >> For example many basic textbooks contain passages that come >> very close >> to plagiarism. So too do dictionaries >> and encyclopedia articles. In most of these cases the charge of >> plagiarism would be unjust because there are a >> limited number of way in which basic information can be >> conveyed in >> introductory textbooks and very short articles >> that require the author to comment on well known issues and >> events like >> the outbreak of the French Revolution, or >> the conversion of St. Augustine, or the philosophical >> definition of >> justice. >> >> Also, the Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health >> and Human >> Services, USA (Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other >> questionable >> writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Miguel Roig. >> http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/plagiarism/plagiarism.pdf. >> p. 14) >> does not consider examples such as the ones you identified to be >> plagiarism: >> >> "ORI generally does not pursue the limited use of identical or >> nearly >> identical phrases which describe a >> commonly-used methodology or previous research because ORI >> does not >> consider such use as >> substantially misleading to the reader or of great significance." >> >> (I include quotes AND indentations because Roig is quoting a caveat >> in ORI's >> definition of plagiarism, and I'm quoting him without knowing just >> what >> document he's quoting from.) >> >> Overall, I think it's commonly accepted that brief bits of text >> conveying >> simple ideas will offer the author only so much maneuvering room, >> and it's >> not plagiarism if there's really no sensible way of stating the >> idea in a >> novel way. So, yes, I would say you are being overly harsh if you are >> failing grad students for "copying" PCR reaction conditions, >> especially if >> the only evidence for plagiarism is that they used the same words >> someone >> else did to describe the conditions (i.e., if you don't know >> whether they >> really copied or just converged on the same wording). >> >> I would recommend checking out the above links and the loads of >> other good >> sources you can find by searching for "plagiarism definition" or >> "academic >> plagiarism" online. True, it's not always clear what is or isn't >> plagiarism, but I think the slope seems a lot less slippery when >> you look >> into how other people and organizations have tried to tackle the >> issue of >> defining plagiarism. >> >> Jim Crants >> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Cara Lin Bridgman >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> James Crants' response is addressing the problem. Many people >>> with English >>> as a second or third language are trying to write papers in >>> English. It is >>> very easy to find sentences and paragraphs that have the grammar >>> structure >>> that says exactly what you want if you just change a few key words >>> and >>> numbers. When trying to write the methods for PCR, for example, >>> it is easy >>> to find someone else's methods, copy these methods, and change the >>> times and >>> temperatures to match the conditions of your own study. Since >>> most people >>> do not include citations for things like PCR protocol, the copied >>> methods >>> may not be cited. >>> >>> When I point out to students and colleagues that it is plagiarism >>> to write >>> methods (and papers) by cut and pasting sentences (and paragraphs) >>> from >>> published papers, I often get the response "But my English is so >>> poor!" >>> True. Their own written English is usually barely readable. The >>> thing is, >>> when I ask if it is ok to write a paper this way in Chinese, >>> they'll all >>> quickly say it is not. So, if it's not ok to copy in Chinese, >>> then should >>> not be ok to copy in English! I had to quit teaching in one >>> school because >>> I could not get the students or their advisors to make this >>> connection. >>> >>> The problem my students have with PCR methods is that they have >>> only found >>> 4 ways of writing PCR methods. They did not do this survey to >>> find ways to >>> copy, but because they (and I) could not think of a new way to >>> describe PCR >>> conditions. So it looks as though even native English speakers >>> are copying >>> a sentence structure and changing the times and temperatures to >>> match their >>> experimental conditions. >>> >>> I was taught and I'm trying to teach, that we have to write things >>> using >>> our own words (paraphrase) and we have to give citations for the >>> ideas >>> (including methods and techniques). For me, reading something, >>> putting it >>> away and then sitting down to write my own version, may result in >>> similarities with the original and may not. I teach my students >>> to go back >>> and check to make sure their sentence uses their voice and is really >>> different from the original published sentence. The thing is, >>> we've run >>> into a wall when it comes to describing PCR. >>> >>> And here is the real kicker. I've been failing graduate students for >>> copying things, including methods like PCR reaction conditions. >>> So, am I >>> being too harsh as a teacher? >>> >>> I confirm the plagiarism by checking student phrasing against >>> wording in >>> papers they cite. My philosophy is that it is better the students >>> make >>> mistakes and fail now, while in school, than later when they are >>> trying to >>> build their professional careers. I make it clear that my goal is >>> not to >>> fail them, but to help make sure they understand the right way to >>> write. >>> It's when they plagiarize on the final paper that they fail. This is >>> because plagiarism on the final paper is evidence they've not >>> learned how to >>> avoid the problem. >>> >>> But my students and I have a new problem: what about things like PCR? >>> >>> >>> CL >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Cara Lin Bridgman [email protected] >>> >>> P.O. Box 013 Shinjhuang http://megaview.com.tw/~caralin >>> Longjing Township http://www.BugDorm.com <http:// >>> www.bugdorm.com/> >>> Taichung County 43499 >>> Taiwan Phone: 886-4-2632-5484 >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> James Crants, PhD >> Scientist, University of Minnesota >> Agronomy and Plant Genetics >> Cell: (734) 474-7478 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.57/2163 - Release Date: 06/08/09 12:30:00
