[caption id="attachment_13850" align="alignleft" width="189"]
Creative plagiarism -wikimedia commons[/caption]
Carol Forsloff - Students copy creative work not their own, without giving proper credit or citation. Writers pad their resumes by simply republishing material from one journal to another. Citizen news sites restate newspaper material, using large chunks of someone’s creation offered as another’s original work. Plagiarism is controversial, widespread and continues to be a problem in academia and the media as well; but there are web police out to catch these “crooks.”
One of the websites active in examining plagiarism is
Retraction Notice. A recent article details a scientific journal that retracted an article based upon plagiarism, where an author cited lengthy passages from a number of references without giving credit to the original source. Comments on the article reflect the disagreement and confusion about what constitutes plagiarism. The obvious copying of work is the most flagrant type of plagiarism, as everyone agrees. It is the “self plagiarism” concept that presents confusion and misunderstanding. For that reason, it requires a second look.
While some Journals request original work, many do not. This means the concept of copying one’s work from one publication to another might be different when there is an agreement up front that an author has the right to republish material elsewhere. Citing oneself in an article that substantially uses material from one’s own work is considered reasonable, unless there is an agreement made with the original publisher that the article not be republished. In any case, as some professionals argue, when an author republishes in such situations, the issue is more copyright infringement as opposed to plagiarism.
The ethics of plagiarism, however, is one level of examination. Another has to do with the business practices themselves. When a publication bases its material largely on recopied and restated material, it takes the keyword tags that drive readers in multiple directions, looking for the same material. If the new material is simply a restatement of facts from an original source, without an original viewpoint from the second author, one could argue that a form of plagiarism has occurred as it is not just words that can be copied but ideas as well.
Plagiarism has become such a concern because of the Internet’s new dominance in publishing that an organization has been established to first define the problem and then to prevent it. Plagiarism. Org is one that focuses mostly on student’s work but that offers examples for anyone who writes on an ongoing basis for publication.
Plagiarism.org reminds us that plagiarism itself is not always a black-white issue. Self-plagiarism is one of those gray areas where it is recommended an individual cite one’s own work in the same manner as he or she would cite material of another author. Another concern, and one often found in some newspapers and citizen journals, is the restatement of previously written material, with proper citations, but virtually without any original work.
Doc.cop presents its own solutions, offering a plagiarism detection software examination of questioned material. It also gives news about the problem of plagiarism and looks at it in terms of its impact on the world of publishing in general.
So for those seeking to rewrite news as a hobby, for money or for fun, it is best to determine upfront how far one wants to go to avoid crossing the line, as the Internet has not only provided opportunity to disguise one’s own missteps but has brought new ways of detecting them as well. The conclusion from reviewing plagiarism information is to err on the side of caution is the best advice.
Elvis Presley in 1970[/caption]