Avoiding
plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide
to ethical writing
Just about every scholarly or
scientific paper contains several footnotes or reference notes documenting the
source of the facts, ideas, or evidence that is reported in support of
arguments or hypotheses. In some cases,
as in those papers that review the literature in a specific area of research,
the reference section listing the sources consulted can be quite extensive,
sometimes taking up more than a third of the published article (see, for
example, Logan, Walker, Cole, & Leukefeld, 2000). Most often, the contributions we rely upon come from the
published work or personal observations of other scientists or scholars. On occasion, however, we may derive an
important insight about a phenomenon or process that we are studying, through a
casual interaction with an individual not necessarily connected with scholarly
or scientific work. Even in such cases,
we still have a moral obligation to credit the source of our ideas. A good illustrative example of the latter
point was reported by Alan Gilchrist in a 1979 Scientific American article on
color perception. In a section of the
article, which describes the perception of rooms uniformly painted in one
color, Gilchrist states: “We now have a promising lead to how the visual system
determines the shade of gray in these rooms, although we do not yet have a
complete explanation. (John Robinson helped me develop this lead.)” (p.122;
Gilchrist, 1979). A reader of the
scientific literature might assume that Mr. Robinson is another scientist
working in the field of visual perception, or perhaps an academic colleague or
an advanced graduate student of Gilchrist’s.
The fact is that John Robinson was a local plumber and an acquaintance
of Gilchrist in the town where the author spent his summers. During a casual discussion, Robinson’s
insights into the problem that Gilchrist had been working on were sufficiently
important to the development of his theory of lightness perception that
Gilchrist felt ethically obligated to credit Robinson’s contribution.
Even the most ethical authors can fall
prey to the inadvertent appropriation of others’ ideas, concepts, or
metaphors. Here we are referring to the
phenomenon of unconscious plagiarism, which, as stated earlier, takes place
when an author generates an idea that s/he believes to be original, but which
in reality had been encountered at an earlier time. Given the free and frequent exchange of ideas in science, it is
not unreasonable to expect instances in which earlier exposure to an idea that
lies dormant in someone’s unconscious, emerges into consciousness at a later
point, but in a context different from the one in which the idea had originally
occurred. Presumably, this is exactly
what happened in the case of former Beatle George Harrison, whose song “My
Sweet Lord” was found to have musical elements of the song “He’s So Fine”,
which had been released years earlier by The Chiffons (see Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music,
Ltd., 1976). Unfortunately,
there are probably other John Robinsons, as well as other accomplished
scientists, scholars, and artists, now forgotten, whose original, but
unacknowledged ideas have been subsequently and unconsciously
“reinvented/rediscovered” by others and have, thus, failed to get their due
credit.
In some cases the appropriation of
an idea can be a subtle process.
Consider the famous case of Albert Schatz who, as a graduate student
working under Selman Waksman at Rutgers, discovered the antibiotic
streptomycin. Even though the first publications
describing his discovery identified Schatz as primary author (Martin, 1997), it
was Wakman who, over a period of time, began to take sole credit for the
discovery ultimately earning him the Nobel prize in 1952 (see, for example,
Shatz, 1993; Mistiaen, 2002 for a
fuller description of this case.
Of course, there also have been
instances in which unscrupulous scientists have intentionally appropriated
ideas. The confidential peer review
process is a ripe source from which ideas may be plagiarized. Consider the scenario where the offender is
a journal or conference referee, or a member of a review panel for a funding
agency. He[1]
reads a paper or a grant proposal describing a promising new methodology in an
area of research directly related to his own work. The grant fails to get funded based, in large part, on his
negative evaluation of the protocol. He then goes back to his lab and prepares
a grant proposal using the methodology stolen from the proposal that he
refereed earlier and submits his proposal to a different granting agency. In fact, elements of the above scenario are
based on actual cases of scientific misconduct investigated by ORI.
The peer review context appears to
be sufficiently susceptible to the appropriation of ideas that in 1999 the
federal Office of Science and Technology expanded their definition of
plagiarism as follows:
“Plagiarism is the appropriation of
another person’s ideas, processes,
results, or words without giving
appropriate credit, including those
obtained through confidential
review of others’ research proposals and
manuscripts.” (Office of Science
and Technology Policy, 1999).
Guideline
1: An ethical writer ALWAYS acknowledges the
contributions of others and the source of his/her ideas.
[1] Although men and women have been known to commit scientific misconduct, the majority of offenders are men.