Not All Plagiarism Requires a Retraction. Chaddah, P. 511(7508):127. ![Not All Plagiarism Requires a Retraction [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Papers that plagiarize only text can still contribute to the literature, but any errors or omissions should be prominently corrected, says Praveen Chaddah. [Excerpt] The ease with which large chunks of text can be digitally scanned and compared with what has previously been published has produced a new breed of academic watchdog. Plagiarism-detection software has opened up scrutiny of scientific publications to non-experts and text that has been copied and pasted without proper attribution is now a common reason for papers being retracted. [...] Such plagiarism is unethical and it is a form of misconduct, but scientists are not writers. We value the originality of ideas more than of language. There are worse offences than text plagiarism – such as taking credit for someone else's research ideas and lifting their results. These are harder to detect than copy-and-pasted text, so receive less attention. This should change. To help, academic journals could, for instance, change the ways in which they police and deal with such cases. To scientists, plagiarism of an idea strikes at the heart of research as a creative enterprise. An idea could be a hypothesis to explain observations, or an experiment designed to test a hypothesis. [...] There is a third form of copying: results plagiarism. This is different from fraud, in which the claimed experiments are often not carried out. In results plagiarism, scientists can repeat an experiment and obtain valid data. Such reproduction is, of course, a useful and common feature of science. The deception comes when they fail to mention the original work. Giving credit to those who did the original work is essential. Credit is a driving force for humans and quality of original thought is one of the most fundamental ways to judge scientists' work and determine who progresses in their career. [...] Speaking as someone who has been plagiarized, I believe that a correction to the errant paper is sufficient. The wording of the correction must make clear that the offence was plagiarism, not fraud, and include reference to the original work. Most importantly, the correction should be attached to the PDF file of the paper, so that every download also carries the correction. This does happen, but not enough: many journals provide only an online link to the correction. If viewers, including future referees, do not notice that link, then the corruption of the scientific flow of ideas and credit continues. If corrections were to be made prominent, it could dissuade plagiarism in future.
@article{chaddahNotAllPlagiarism2014,
title = {Not All Plagiarism Requires a Retraction},
author = {Chaddah, Praveen},
date = {2014-07},
journaltitle = {Nature},
volume = {511},
pages = {127},
issn = {0028-0836},
doi = {10.1038/511127a},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/511127a},
abstract = {Papers that plagiarize only text can still contribute to the literature, but any errors or omissions should be prominently corrected, says Praveen Chaddah. [Excerpt] The ease with which large chunks of text can be digitally scanned and compared with what has previously been published has produced a new breed of academic watchdog. Plagiarism-detection software has opened up scrutiny of scientific publications to non-experts and text that has been copied and pasted without proper attribution is now a common reason for papers being retracted. [...] Such plagiarism is unethical and it is a form of misconduct, but scientists are not writers. We value the originality of ideas more than of language. There are worse offences than text plagiarism -- such as taking credit for someone else's research ideas and lifting their results. These are harder to detect than copy-and-pasted text, so receive less attention. This should change. To help, academic journals could, for instance, change the ways in which they police and deal with such cases.
To scientists, plagiarism of an idea strikes at the heart of research as a creative enterprise. An idea could be a hypothesis to explain observations, or an experiment designed to test a hypothesis. [...] There is a third form of copying: results plagiarism. This is different from fraud, in which the claimed experiments are often not carried out. In results plagiarism, scientists can repeat an experiment and obtain valid data. Such reproduction is, of course, a useful and common feature of science. The deception comes when they fail to mention the original work. Giving credit to those who did the original work is essential. Credit is a driving force for humans and quality of original thought is one of the most fundamental ways to judge scientists' work and determine who progresses in their career. [...] Speaking as someone who has been plagiarized, I believe that a correction to the errant paper is sufficient. The wording of the correction must make clear that the offence was plagiarism, not fraud, and include reference to the original work. Most importantly, the correction should be attached to the PDF file of the paper, so that every download also carries the correction. This does happen, but not enough: many journals provide only an online link to the correction. If viewers, including future referees, do not notice that link, then the corruption of the scientific flow of ideas and credit continues. If corrections were to be made prominent, it could dissuade plagiarism in future.},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13254273,competition,publish-or-perish,science-ethics,scientific-misconduct},
number = {7508}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"f77gLT2dkpBniYwbr","bibbaseid":"chaddah-notallplagiarismrequiresaretraction","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Chaddah, P."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Not All Plagiarism Requires a Retraction","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Chaddah"],"firstnames":["Praveen"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2014-07","journaltitle":"Nature","volume":"511","pages":"127","issn":"0028-0836","doi":"10.1038/511127a","url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/511127a","abstract":"Papers that plagiarize only text can still contribute to the literature, but any errors or omissions should be prominently corrected, says Praveen Chaddah. [Excerpt] The ease with which large chunks of text can be digitally scanned and compared with what has previously been published has produced a new breed of academic watchdog. Plagiarism-detection software has opened up scrutiny of scientific publications to non-experts and text that has been copied and pasted without proper attribution is now a common reason for papers being retracted. [...] Such plagiarism is unethical and it is a form of misconduct, but scientists are not writers. We value the originality of ideas more than of language. There are worse offences than text plagiarism – such as taking credit for someone else's research ideas and lifting their results. These are harder to detect than copy-and-pasted text, so receive less attention. This should change. To help, academic journals could, for instance, change the ways in which they police and deal with such cases. To scientists, plagiarism of an idea strikes at the heart of research as a creative enterprise. An idea could be a hypothesis to explain observations, or an experiment designed to test a hypothesis. [...] There is a third form of copying: results plagiarism. This is different from fraud, in which the claimed experiments are often not carried out. In results plagiarism, scientists can repeat an experiment and obtain valid data. Such reproduction is, of course, a useful and common feature of science. The deception comes when they fail to mention the original work. Giving credit to those who did the original work is essential. Credit is a driving force for humans and quality of original thought is one of the most fundamental ways to judge scientists' work and determine who progresses in their career. [...] Speaking as someone who has been plagiarized, I believe that a correction to the errant paper is sufficient. The wording of the correction must make clear that the offence was plagiarism, not fraud, and include reference to the original work. Most importantly, the correction should be attached to the PDF file of the paper, so that every download also carries the correction. This does happen, but not enough: many journals provide only an online link to the correction. If viewers, including future referees, do not notice that link, then the corruption of the scientific flow of ideas and credit continues. If corrections were to be made prominent, it could dissuade plagiarism in future.","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13254273,competition,publish-or-perish,science-ethics,scientific-misconduct","number":"7508","bibtex":"@article{chaddahNotAllPlagiarism2014,\n title = {Not All Plagiarism Requires a Retraction},\n author = {Chaddah, Praveen},\n date = {2014-07},\n journaltitle = {Nature},\n volume = {511},\n pages = {127},\n issn = {0028-0836},\n doi = {10.1038/511127a},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/511127a},\n abstract = {Papers that plagiarize only text can still contribute to the literature, but any errors or omissions should be prominently corrected, says Praveen Chaddah. [Excerpt] The ease with which large chunks of text can be digitally scanned and compared with what has previously been published has produced a new breed of academic watchdog. Plagiarism-detection software has opened up scrutiny of scientific publications to non-experts and text that has been copied and pasted without proper attribution is now a common reason for papers being retracted. [...] Such plagiarism is unethical and it is a form of misconduct, but scientists are not writers. We value the originality of ideas more than of language. There are worse offences than text plagiarism -- such as taking credit for someone else's research ideas and lifting their results. These are harder to detect than copy-and-pasted text, so receive less attention. This should change. To help, academic journals could, for instance, change the ways in which they police and deal with such cases.\n\nTo scientists, plagiarism of an idea strikes at the heart of research as a creative enterprise. An idea could be a hypothesis to explain observations, or an experiment designed to test a hypothesis. [...] There is a third form of copying: results plagiarism. This is different from fraud, in which the claimed experiments are often not carried out. In results plagiarism, scientists can repeat an experiment and obtain valid data. Such reproduction is, of course, a useful and common feature of science. The deception comes when they fail to mention the original work. Giving credit to those who did the original work is essential. Credit is a driving force for humans and quality of original thought is one of the most fundamental ways to judge scientists' work and determine who progresses in their career. [...] Speaking as someone who has been plagiarized, I believe that a correction to the errant paper is sufficient. The wording of the correction must make clear that the offence was plagiarism, not fraud, and include reference to the original work. Most importantly, the correction should be attached to the PDF file of the paper, so that every download also carries the correction. This does happen, but not enough: many journals provide only an online link to the correction. If viewers, including future referees, do not notice that link, then the corruption of the scientific flow of ideas and credit continues. If corrections were to be made prominent, it could dissuade plagiarism in future.},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13254273,competition,publish-or-perish,science-ethics,scientific-misconduct},\n number = {7508}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Chaddah, P."],"key":"chaddahNotAllPlagiarism2014","id":"chaddahNotAllPlagiarism2014","bibbaseid":"chaddah-notallplagiarismrequiresaretraction","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1038/511127a"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-13254273","competition","publish-or-perish","science-ethics","scientific-misconduct"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:04.041Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-13254273","competition","publish-or-perish","science-ethics","scientific-misconduct"],"search_terms":["plagiarism","requires","retraction","chaddah"],"title":"Not All Plagiarism Requires a Retraction","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}