Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plagiarizing methods...
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: toshihide.hamaz...@alaska.gov -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 7:10 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 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 cara@msa.hinet.netwrote: 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,
[ECOLOG-L] Ethics in Publications
Dear List members. In case of a multi-authored papers, what is the significance of position in authorship ? For example, how are first author, second author , corresponding author or the last author rated for their contribution to a manuscript ? Quite often, there are conflicts/arguments among the authors with respect to their position in a manuscript. Do there exist any set of relevant rules? Is it entirely depended on the P.I. ( Principal Investigator)? I hope to get comments from you on this. Regards Gurmeet
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plagiarizing methods...
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 , 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 , 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 landr...@cox.net 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ethics in Publications
Gurmeet -- The way I was told was the first author is the primary author and the last author is the person who runs the lab. The authors in-between are listed by contribution. mas tarde, EJF Gurmeet Singh gurmee...@gmail.com Sent by: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 06/07/2009 08:29 AM Please respond to Gurmeet Singh gurmee...@gmail.com To ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU cc Subject [ECOLOG-L] Ethics in Publications Dear List members. In case of a multi-authored papers, what is the significance of position in authorship ? For example, how are first author, second author , corresponding author or the last author rated for their contribution to a manuscript ? Quite often, there are conflicts/arguments among the authors with respect to their position in a manuscript. Do there exist any set of relevant rules? Is it entirely depended on the P.I. ( Principal Investigator)? I hope to get comments from you on this. Regards Gurmeet
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ethics in Publications
in some sectors the fist author wrote the paper, the last directed it. in other sectors, authors are listed in order of the amount of contribution. in other sectors, they are listed in alphabetical order Some folks always put the student first, other groups always put the lab director or senior personnel first. Confused? it varies by subdiscipline in biology, by nation of origin, and even research group. Malcolm On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Gurmeet Singhgurmee...@gmail.com wrote: Dear List members. In case of a multi-authored papers, what is the significance of position in authorship ? For example, how are first author, second author , corresponding author or the last author rated for their contribution to a manuscript ? Quite often, there are conflicts/arguments among the authors with respect to their position in a manuscript. Do there exist any set of relevant rules? Is it entirely depended on the P.I. ( Principal Investigator)? I hope to get comments from you on this. Regards Gurmeet -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Texas AM University-Texarkana Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org http://www.twitter.com/herpconbio Fall Teaching Schedule Office Hours: Landscape Ecology: T,R 10-11:40 pm Environmental Physiology: MW 1-2:40 pm Seminar: T 2:30-3:30pm Genetics: M 6-10pm Office Hours: M 3-6, T: 12-2, W: 3-4 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plagiarizing methods...
Just write We Followed the PCR methods of AUTHOR (year). Malcolm On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Cara Lin Bridgmancara@msa.hinet.net wrote: 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 cara@msa.hinet.net 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 ~~ -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Texas AM University-Texarkana Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org http://www.twitter.com/herpconbio Fall Teaching Schedule Office Hours: Landscape Ecology: T,R 10-11:40 pm Environmental Physiology: MW 1-2:40 pm Seminar: T 2:30-3:30pm Genetics: M 6-10pm Office Hours: M 3-6, T: 12-2, W: 3-4 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ethics in Publications
See the following article for some helpful advice: Title: Authorship in ecology: attribution, accountability, and responsibility http://apps.isiknowledge.com.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/full_record.do?product=WOSsearch_mode=GeneralSearchqid=1SID=3BnMK2NcM6PPDCLOeGHpage=1doc=5 Author(s): Weltzin JF, Belote RT, Williams LT, et al. Source: FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT Volume: 4 Issue: 8 Pages: 435-441 Published: OCT 2006 -- Damon Ely Ph.D. Candidate Department of Biology 2119 Derring Hall Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061 540-231-6679 Office: 1027 Derring Hall http://filebox.vt.edu/users/elyda1/streamteam/homepage.html Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity. ---Charles Mingus
[ECOLOG-L] Arthropod specimens available for analysis from large experiments in long-leaf pine forests
Hi all, We have material from 8100 pitfalls available for anyone (including enterprising students or post-docs) interested in studying the effect of disturbance or fire ant invasion on ground-dwelling arthropods in a variety of habitats. We simply do not have the time to sort this material any time in the near future and we would prefer it not languish on a shelf for decades. The majority of this experimental work was conducted in and near the Apalachicola National Forest in northwestern Florida. This forest is known for its diversity of plants and animals including some of the highest floral diversity in any temperate zone plant communities and important, endangered species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker. The project consisted of three field experiments in northern Florida: one in natural, pine flatwoods habitat, one in grassy, seasonally flooded pine flatwoods, and one in cattle pasture. We established a total of 75 40x40 m plots, and serviced each of these twice or more times annually to maintain them in the desired condition, killing illegal fire ant colonies or replacing vanished colonies. We surveyed and sampled the resident ant communities using 36 pitfall traps in each plot in the summers of 2004, 2005 and 2006. The primary focus of this project was to assess the effects of invasive fire ants and habitat disturbance on native ants. All of the ants have been removed from samples but there is a huge diversity of arthropods remaining. We are seeking individuals who are interested in sorting and identifying individual taxa, or preferably, a general survey of arthropod taxa. In return we ask that we be included as co-authors on any resulting publications. The relevant publications from this study are listed below and include details of experimental design and sampling techniques. We would like to have any arrangements to sort the material settled within the next few months, if at all possible. Please contact both of us if you are interested. King, J. R. and W. R. Tschinkel. 2006. Experimental evidence that the introduced fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, does not competitively suppress co-occurring ants in a disturbed habitat. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 1370-1378. King, J. R. and W. R. Tschinkel. 2008. Experimental evidence that human impacts drive fire ant invasions and ecological change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 20339-20343. Tschinkel, W.R., J.R. King. 2007. Targeted removal of ant colonies in ecological experiments, using hot water. Journal of Insect Science 7:41. Regards, Joshua King, Assistant Professor Central Connecticut State University king...@mail.ccsu.edu Walter Tschinkel, Professor Florida State University tschin...@bio.fsu.edu
