Plagiarism in research
Plagiarism is a major problem for research. There are, however, divergent views on how to define plagiarism and on what makes plagiarism reprehensible. In this paper we explicate the concept of “plagiarism” and discuss plagiarism normatively in relation to research. We suggest that plagiarism should be understood as “someone using someone else’s intellectual product (such as texts, ideas, or results), thereby implying that it is their own” and argue that this is an adequate and fruitful definition. We discuss a number of circumstances that make plagiarism more or less grave and the plagiariser more or less blameworthy. As a result of our normative analysis, we suggest that what makes plagiarism reprehensible as such is that it distorts scientific credit. In addition, intentional plagiarism involves dishonesty. There are, furthermore, a number of potentially negative consequences of plagiarism.
KeywordsFabrication Intellectual contribution Plagiarism Scientific misconduct Software Scientific credit
- Brülde, B., and P.-A. Tengland. 2003. Hälsa och sjukdom: en begreppslig utredning (Health and disease: A conceptual inquiry). Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
- Pecorari, D. 2012. Textual plagiarism: How should it be regarded? Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 20(3): 3,10.Google Scholar
- Rathod, S.D. 2012. Plagiarism: the human solution. Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 20(3): 1,7.Google Scholar
- Roig, M. 2006. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Office of Research Integrity 2006. www.cse.msu.edu/~alexliu/plagiarism.pdf.
- Sox, H. C. 2012. Plagiarism in the digital age. Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 20(3): 1,6.Google Scholar
- Sun, Y.C. 2012. Does text readability matter? A study of paraphrasing and plagiarism in English as a foreign language writing context. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 21(2): 296–306.Google Scholar
- Wager, L. 2011. How should editors respond to plagiarism? COPE discussion paper. 26th April, 2011. http://publicationethics.org/files/Discussion%20document.pdf.