Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics

Living Edition
| Editors: Henk ten Have

Plagiarism

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_340-1

Abstract

Plagiarism is an ethical issue of considerable practical impact, affecting educational systems and research worldwide, but also influencing art, music, and literature. The academic discussion on plagiarism in basic education mainly concerns its frequency and explanation and potential countermeasures. Ethical aspects more often come to the fore in the discussions of plagiarism in research, particularly concerning plagiarism of text, where there is considerable disagreement. While plagiarism is frequently brought up as an important aspect of scientific misconduct in research ethical guidelines, and a variety of definitions have been offered in this context, such documents rarely reflect a deeper understanding of the concept, its relation to similar concepts, its embeddedness in specific practices, or its normative implications. More research on these issues is needed, although suggestions have been made as to how plagiarism should be understood, demarcated, explained, detected, normatively analyzed, and counteracted. One theme with an obvious global focus concerns the cultural dependence of attitudes toward plagiarism, for instance, whether differences in perception and practice can be explained by differences in relation to authorities. An important point for the future is whether or not present practices regarding plagiarism need to be changed in order to better promote progress in research.

Keywords

Fabrication Redundant publication Research ethics Scientific misconduct 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson, M. S., & Steneck, N. H. (2011). The problem of plagiarism. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 29, 90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouville, M. (2008). Plagiarism: Words and ideas. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruton, S. V. (2014). Self-plagiarism and textual recycling: Legitimate forms of research misconduct. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 21(3), 176–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eco, U. (1990). The limits of interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hayes, N., & Introna, L. D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When plagiarism gets in the way of learning. Ethics & Behavior, 15(3), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Helgesson, G. (2014). Time for a change in the understanding of what constitutes text plagiarism? Research Ethics, 10(4), 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Helgesson, G., & Eriksson, S. (2015). Plagiarism in research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 18(1), 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kombe, F., Anunobi, E. N., Tshifugula, N. P., Wassenaar, D., Njadingwe, D., Mwalukore, S., Chinyama, J., Randrianasolo, B., Akindeh, P., Dlamini, P. S., Ramiandrisoa, F. N., & Ranaivo, N. (2014). Promoting research integrity in Africa: An African voice of concern on research misconduct and the way forward. Developing World Bioethics, 14(3), 158–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Moffat, B., & Elliot, C. (2007). Ghost marketing: Pharmaceutical companies and ghostwritten journal articles. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 50, 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. National Science Foundation. (2012). Research misconduct. 45-CFR-689.Google Scholar
  11. Okonta, P., & Rossouw, T. (2013). Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria. Developing World Bioethics, 13(3), 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 210–230.Google Scholar
  13. Roig, M. (2014). Journal editorials on plagiarism: What is the message? European Science Editing, 40, 58–59.Google Scholar
  14. Stretton, S., Bramich, N. J., Keys, J. R., Monk, J. A., Ely, J. A., Haley, C., & Wolley, M. J. (2012). Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: A systematic, retrospective study. Current Medical Research & Opinion, 28, 1575–1583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sun, Y. (2013). Do journal authors plagiarize? Using plagiarism detection software to uncover matching text across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 264–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wager, E. (2014). Defining and responding to plagiarism. Learned Publishing, 27, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Readings

  1. Carroll, J. (2007). A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.Google Scholar
  2. CODEX – rules & guidelines for research. Website at www.codex.vr.se
  3. Retraction Watch. Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process. Website at http://retractionwatch.com

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden