Plagiarism and Self plagiarism
from the perspective of academic authors
Lesley Pocock
(1)
Mohsen Rezaeian (2)
(1) Publisher and Managing Director, medi+WORLD
International, Australia
(2) Professor Mohsen Rezaeian, Rafsanjan Medical
School
Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Correspondence:
Lesley Pocock
Publisher
medi+WORLD International
Email: lesleypocock@mediworld.com.au
Abstract
This
paper looks at the background and history
of plagiarism and self plagiarism, reviews
aspects of academic self plagiarism from
the academic, the institution and publisher's
point of view and provides a handy check-list
of the current definitions and requirements.
Key words: plagiarism,
self plagiarism
|
The concept of plagiarism goes back many centuries.
The word plagiarism derives from Latin roots:
plagiarius, an abductor, and plagiare, to steal.
The first recorded case of plagiarism was by
the roman poet Martial who lived from 40 AD
to somewhere between 102 and 104 AD. Prior to
that the concept was seen in a positive manner
as a way of passing down and disseminating great
works of literature or art. This likely carried
on the previous tradition of humans passing
down histories and ideas by word of mouth. (1)
Written material like religious texts were once
freely copied and incorporated into later works,
and good writing usually meant slavishly imitating
a small number of respected authors. However,
poets, and playwrights tended to protect their
original works. (1,2,3,4)
During the Renaissance, original scholarship
became more respected and individual accomplishment
was recognized in many more fields than it had
been previously (for example, this is when painters
began signing their works). By the mid 1600s,
accusations of plagiarism and stealing ideas
were common in every creative field including
the sciences. (1,2,3,4)
The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral,
and originality as an ideal, emerged in Europe
only in the 18th century, particularly with
the Romantic Movement which then extended the
idea to art and the visual image. (1,2,3,4)
The first English copyright law was passed in
1709. It had as much to do with protecting the
rights of publishers against book piracy as
it did with protecting the author's rights against
unscrupulous printers, but authors' rights developed
very quickly.(5)
However the precise definitions of plagiarism
evolved during the 20th century. The word "plagiarism,"
in the sense we use it today, first appeared
in English in the various battles among Shakespeare
and his peers. The Oxford English Dictionary
credits Ben Jonson with being the first to use
it in print. The word they used was "plagiary,"
which is a Latin term for a type of kidnapper
or illegitimate slaver. (5)
While the concept of plagiarism has generally
been positively accepted, one of the most famous
cases of the adverse effects of plagiarism on
highly reputable and well intentioned authors
involved Charles Darwin in his publishing of
"The Origin of the Species" in 1859.
Alfred Russel Wallace, a contemporary of Darwin
was also independently working on the same issues:
disease and famine, what kept human and other
populations in check, recent discoveries, particularly
newly observed fossil evidence showing the tremendous
age of earth, and how this affected species
over great periods of time. (6)
Wallace, in what can be seen as a huge strategic
mistake on his part, wrote up and sent his ideas
to Charles Darwin who was also a naturalist
of great repute. Darwin had also been working
on the same issues for decades, but vacillating
about publishing due to some of the more controversial
aspects of his work, namely the evolution of
humans themselves, and decided to quickly publish
and get his work out before Wallace(6). The
rest is history. This is a prime example of
the maxim 'publish or perish' and while both
authors/researchers had original work and had
high integrity, the process itself made one
a winner and one a loser.
CURRENT DEFINITIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND SELF
PLAGIARISM |
While there is some conjecture and controversy
currently as to the precise definition and interpretation
of plagiarism and self plagiarism, the established
protocols, used and recommended by most current
academic journals can be found in the Recommendations
for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication
of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals www.icmje.org
and the COPE Code of Conduct http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/New_Code.pdf.
(7, 8) These are usually displayed on the websites
of each academic journal as Author Information
or Instructions to Authors.
The definition of plagiarism is more straightforward,
deliberate theft of another's intellectual property,
however the definition of self plagiarism is
a totally different issue and one that encompasses
many issues both within the influence of the
author and those which the author has no direct
say over. It can also be subjective and not
without bias or legal and economic sequelae.
On the one hand there are some who would argue
that using large sections of text from one or
more previously published papers in a paper
presented as 'original', is almost fraudulent
(9).
The New England Journal of Medicine insists
that Authors should submit to the Editor copies
of any published papers or other manuscripts
in preparation or submitted elsewhere that are
related to the manuscript to be considered by
the journal. However, it is clearly unacceptable
to submit the same paper to two different journals
with the intention of the paper being perceived
as two separate, original pieces. (9)
PUBLISHERS
AND
SELF
PLAGIARISM
|
While
assuming
that
most
publishers
are
inherently
reputable
and
have
their
own
valid
concerns
they
also
have
to
deal
in
the
legal
(and
subsequent
economic
sequelae)
of
copyright.
This
is
further
compounded
in
academic
publishing
by
the
re-use
of
journal
articles
in
the
major
databases
under
exclusive
or
non-exclusive
contracts.
What
is
deemed
unacceptable
duplication
may
contravene
copyright
law
or
violate
copyright
licenses.
It
is
one
of
the
reasons
that
when
issues
of
plagiarism
arise
that
the
publishers
firstly
get
together
with
the
author
and
the
involved
academic
institution
if
there
is
one,
and
try
to
sort
out
the
problem
between
themselves
before
it
becomes
a
point
of
law.
A
resolution
is
usually
argued
successfully
and
usually
results
in
one
or
more
of
the
publishing
houses
withdrawing
that
publication.
The
academic
institutions
involved
then
take
their
own
measures
internally.
Copyright
of
an
academic's
work
is
normally
transferred
to
the
publisher
as
a
requirement
of
publication
in
scientific,
medical
and
academic
journals.
Therefore
plagiarism
and
self
plagiarism
is
a
copyright
violation
and
the
publisher
concerned
is
the
one
legally
liable,
unless
they
have
grounds
to
sue
the
other
party
or
parties.
It
is
the
obvious
reason
why
plagiarism
and
self
plagiarism
can
tend
to
be
a
punitive
rather
than
a
conciliatory
approach
on
behalf
of
publishers.
A
'winner'
is
usually
decided
upon
and
that
winner
retains
copyright
of
the
given
work.
Self-plagiarismtakes
on
yet
another
dimension
as
an
issue
of
integrity,
additional
to
the
legal
and
copyright
concerns
of
publishing
houses.
The
reputation
of
the
academic
publishing
house
(or
academic
institution)
can
be
diminished
if
they
are
seen
to
publish
repetitive
and
non
original
material
even
though
papers
may
have
been
deemed
to
be
original
at
the
time
of
acceptance.
Electronic
software
can
be
used
by
such
publishing
houses
and
we
will
discuss
this
further
on,
but
this
does
not
get
around
issues
of
submission
of
the
manuscript
concurrently
to
two
different
publishing
houses,
or
unintentional
plagiarism
or
self
plagiarism
and
indeed
electronic
software
can
encourage
deliberate
concealment
of
aspects
of
similarity.
The
reputable
academic
author
is
best
advised
to
discuss
any
concerns
on
these
matters
with
their
academic
institution
and
the
preferred
publisher
prior
to,
or
at
time
of
submission.
They
should
also
try
to
do
as
much
research
and
cover
as
much
ground
as
possible
to
ensure
their
work
is
original,
but
allowing
for
the
fact
that
some
academics
will
have
access
to
greater
information
resources
than
others.
The
other
obvious
aspect
is
full
attribution
of
all
other
sources
of
their
material
be
it
their
own
earlier
publications
or
references
from
other
works,
as
far
as
is
humanly
possible.
Others,
academicians
and
publishers,
can
then
judge
for
themselves,
prior
to
publication
if
they
find
the
use
of
those
sources
admissable
or
not.
These
same
parties,
academic
institutions
and
publishers,
should,
have
a
wider
and
greater
knowledge
of
the
existence
of
other
works
on
the
same
topic
than
the
author,
and
will
have
their
own
resources
to
consult.
An
academic
publishers'
editorial
on
this
topic
states
"Self
plagiarism
comes
down
to
the
central
issue
of
deception,
were
the
authors
trying
to
deceive
the
editors,
the
referees,
and
the
readers
into
presenting
recycled
data,
text
and
figures
as
entirely
new
material
?"(10)
Electronic
software
can
provide
users
with
a
'copying'
and
'similarity'
report
through
online
searches
and
the
most
widely
used
is
"Turnitin"
(11).
While
these
are
good
first
line
tools
for
publishers,
institutions
and
academics
they
can
actually
encourage
fraud
and
plagiarism,
including
self
plagiarism.
A
quick
check
by
running
your
material
through
such
software,
readily
highlights
what
needs
to
be
changed
or
paraphrased.
This
does
not
alter
the
content,
or
the
source
of
the
content,
rather
it
assists
in
veiling
it.
An
articulate
person,
such
as
an
academic,
can
be
quite
skilled
at
re-presenting
written
work.
While
a
good
first
line
tool,
the
issue
goes
way
beyond
running
work
through
electronic
software.
Electronic
software
while
giving
a
lot
of
detail
does
not
show
'intention
to
deceive'
and
much
implied
deception,
especially
in
the
non
English
speaking
world,
can
come
down
to
lack
of
language
skills
and
lack
of
availability
of
proper
and
relevant
information
and
assumed
inherent
knowledge(17).
Attribution,
referencing,
showing
sources
and
particularly
discussion
with
all
parties
concerned
would
be
the
ideal
approach
and
this
currently
happens
to
a
fair
degree
but
it
cannot
show
intention
to
deceive.
Currently
the
best
and
fairest
way
to
do
that
would
be
psychological
assessment
and
indeed
a
court
of
law.
For
practical
reasons
this
does
not
occur,
leaving
the
process
somewhat
subjective
and
open
to
bias
or
influence.
DEALING
WITH
PLAGIARISM
AND
MISCONDUCT |
While
details
of
dealings
and
consequences
can
be
found
clearly
and
in
full
in
journals
and
on
their
websites
the
current
accepted
processes
are
listed
as
follows:
Pursuing
misconduct
Editors
have
a
duty
to
act
if
they
suspect
misconduct.
This
duty
extends
to
both
published
and
unpublished
papers.
Editors
should
not
simply
reject
papers
that
raise
concerns
about
possible
misconduct.
They
are
ethically
obliged
to
pursue
alleged
cases.
Editors
should
first
seek
a
response
from
those
accused.
If
they
are
not
satisfied
with
the
response,
they
should
ask
the
relevant
employers
or
some
appropriate
body
(perhaps
a
regulatory
body)
to
investigate.
Editors
should
follow
the
COPE
flowcharts
where
applicable
(7,8).
Editors
should
make
all
reasonable
efforts
to
ensure
that
a
proper
investigation
is
conducted;
if
this
does
not
happen,
Editors
should
make
all
reasonable
attempts
to
persist
in
obtaining
a
resolution
to
the
problem.
This
is
an
onerous
but
important
duty.
Ensuring
the
integrity
of
the
academic
record:
Whenever
it
is
recognised
that
a
significant
inaccuracy,
misleading
statement
or
distorted
report
has
been
published,
it
must
be
corrected
promptly
and
with
due
prominence.
If,
after
an
appropriate
investigation,
an
item
proves
to
be
fraudulent,
it
should
be
retracted.
The
retraction
should
be
clearly
identifiable
to
readers
and
indexing
systems.
Relations
with
journal
owners
and
publishers.
The
relationship
of
Editors
to
publishers
and
owners
is
often
complex
but
should
in
each
case
be
based
firmly
on
the
principle
of
Editorial
independence.
Notwithstanding
the
economic
and
political
realities
of
their
journals,
Editors
should
make
decisions
on
which
articles
to
publish
based
on
quality
and
suitability
for
readers
rather
than
for
immediate
financial
or
political
gain.
(7,8)
If
the
intention
to
deceive
is
the
defining
quality,
especially
when
it
comes
to
something
nebulous
like
writing
up
of
"ideas
and
knowledge"
we
are
right
to
ask,
who
is
qualified
to
judge?
It
would
seem
the
job
of
a
psychologist
or
an
expert
legal
team
in
defining
the
intention
to
deceive
if
maximum
fairness
is
to
be
achieved.
This
can
happen.
If
plagiarism
or
self
plagiarism
is
unintended
authors
can
still
feasibly
have
their
work
rejected
on
other
grounds,
legal
and
copyright.
People's
lives
and
livelihood
are
at
stake
in
these
cases.
If
there
is
no
'direct
evidence'
of
intention
to
deceive
(one
way
or
the
other)
rulings
can
only
be
subjective.
The
rule
of
law
adopted
by
most
countries
is
the
assumption
of
innocence
until
guilt
is
proved.
The
International
Copyright
Act
under
which
most
journals
are
published,
while
inherently
sensible
is
somewhat
more
mechanical
and
driven
by
process,
rather
than
relying
on
absolute
truth.
"Ireland's
(2009)
editorial
guidance
to
authors,
whose
work
has
been
initially
rejected
by
reviewers,
may
be
useful
in
this
context.
Ireland
states
that
for
a
paper
to
be
considered
a
'new
submission',
it
must
meet
all
three
of
the
following
criteria:
"(1)
address
modified
or
new
research
questions,
(2)
use
new
theoretical
arguments,
and
(3)
use
additional
or
new
data
to
test
the
proposed
relationships
(Ireland
2009,
p.
10)."
(9)
In
seeking
a
definition
of
self-plagiarism
in
an
Australian
pilot
study,
lack
of
clear
guidelines
led
the
publishers
to
rely
on
the
concept
of
'fair
use'
according
to
the
Australian
Copyright
Act
which
considers
10%
textual
re-use
as
acceptable.
The
British
Medical
Journal
also
uses
a
baseline
of
10%,
by
requiring
authors
to
send
previous
publications
that
overlap
by
more
than
10%
(9,12)
The
above
quotes
are
a
question
in
point.
They
do
not
identify
'intention
to
deceive'
and
do
not
clearly
identify
the
purpose
or
type
of
article,
or
the
purpose
or
the
way
in
which
the
material
has
been
re-used,
rather
it
is
an
arbitrary
percentage,
a
convenient
process.
In
essence
if
we
are
going
to
be
completely
fair
to
all
concerned
then
each
case
of
student,
academic
or
commercial
plagiarism,
needs
to
be
worked
out
on
its
own
merits
in
a
court
of
law.
Marking
a
student
or
academic
'down'
for
perceived
and
subjective
intentional
plagiarism
can
be
just
as
much
a
crime
against
them
and
their
future
prospects
in
life
and
their
academic
reputations
so
should
never
be
less
than
fully
studied.
Unfortunately
most
of
this
is
argument
and
conjecture
and
does
not
provide
an
answer
-
rather
it
shows
that
without
an
exact
and
legal
process
that
is
fully
adhered
to
and
consistent
across
all
academic
institutions
and
academic
publications,
there
is
no
answer
and
the
system
may
be
flawed
and
subjective
as
a
result.
Also
the
heavy
requirements
on
academics
to
publish
whether
there
is
research
of
any
importance
or
repute
happening
at
their
institution
or
if
there
is
anything
of
significant
merit
to
report
or
not,
may
be
causing
the
problem.
Maybe
there
should
be
less
emphasis
on
number
of
publications
and
more
on
the
merit
of
publishing
particular
research
or
study.
While
deliberate
fraud
is
unacceptable
one
major
and
seemingly
obvious
issue
argued
here
is
the
assumed
deception
by
authors
in
self
plagiarism
cases,
when
we
should
assume
the
opposite,
that
most
academic
authors
have
high
integrity.
It
could
be
argued
that
some
aspects
of
what
is
deemed
self
plagiarism
may
in
fact
be
restrictions
of
academics'
rights
(restriction
of
fair
trade)
by
institutions
and
publishers
along
with
normal
human
issues,
like
impaired
memory
over
time.
Additionally
an
author
may
find
very
valid
reasons
to
build
on
and
further
develop
a
work
already
done.
Such
is
the
way
in
the
pursuit
of
knowledge.
Regarding
who
is
qualified
to
judge
the
intention
to
deceive,
currently
it
seems
to
be
the
one
seen
to
have
the
most
to
gain
or
lose
from
that
judgement,
e.g.
the
university
or
journal
to
which
the
paper
was
submitted.
Too
often
authors
are
left
in
legal
and
copyright
limbo
and
there
has
been
little
to
no
discussion
on
the
rights
of
the
academic
author.
Most
arguments
relate
to
legal
and
copyright
issues
of
publishers.
There
are
very
few
'new
ideas'
in
this
world.
Indeed
in
medicine,
Updates
are
an
essential
part
of
medical
practice,
as
new
medical
techniques
and
therapeutics,
are
devised
and
Continuing
Medical
Education
and
proper
patient
care
depend
on
this
constant
re-assessment.
The
'shelf
life'
of
medical
education
and
publications
therefore
is
deemed
to
be
2-5
years
from
a
medical
publisher's
perspective.
If
the
time
factor
in
this
case
was
also
incorporated
with
the
10%
re-use
limit
there
should
be
a
different
set
of
rules
for
plagiarising
in
the
medical
publishing
field.
An
author
may
be
remiss
not
to
re-visit
their
own
and
other's
previous
published
work.
Rather
than
labelling
re-use
of
what
is
essentially
ongoing
research
and
development,
i.e.
an
author's
intellectual
property
and
ideas,
as
academic
fraud,
we
may
need
more
common
sense
and
justice
applied.
There
seems
to
be
some
consensus
that
'individual'
or
'manual'
assessment
of
an
academic's
publication
is
the
preferred
route
where
a
multiplicity
of
factors
can
be
viewed,
but
this
does
not
help
the
academic
author
prior
to
the
writing
of
the
paper
and
the
'personal,
manual'
approach
is
still
subjective
and
open
to
bias,
be
it
academic
or
personal
bias
or
publisher
bias.
Authors
therefore
need
to
be
seen
less
as
potential
criminals,
rather,
the
positive
aspects
of
clearly
presenting
their
(new)
work
and
making
it
easier
for
them
to
adapt
to
the
many
situations
academic
authors
face,
should
be
the
focus
from
all
concerned
in
the
process.
Evaluation
of
what
is
self
plagiarism
still
carries
a
certain
amount
of
luck
over
fairness.
If
an
author
is
writing
in
a
particular
field
and
necessarily
using
commonly
accepted
jargon
and
terms,
a
simple
similarity
assessment
is
hardly
solid
evidence.
We
may
be
stifling
aspects
of
growth
and
development
in
certain
disciplines
accordingly,
just
so
an
institution
can
'tabulate'
an
academic's
progress
within
the
academic
promotional
system.
Additionally
novel
work
may
be
deliberately
stymied
due
to
lack
of
promotional
advancement
opportunities
within
an
institution
e.g.
there
may
be
more
than
enough
Professors
in
that
discipline
already
at
that
institution.
There
may
also
be
more
or
less
opportunities,
professional
or
financial
resources,
within
any
given
institution
for
academics
to
develop
their
ideas
and
protocols
to
meet
arbitrary
judgements.
Are
the
needs
of
universities
and
publishers
for
example,
the
needs
of
academics
and
their
students
-
not
necessarily.
Is
no
idea
worthy
of
going
into
print
somewhere
unless
it
is
say
90%
different
to
another
idea.
Ongoing
thought
is
natural
and
we
are
all
influenced
by
outside
forces
and
other's
knowledge
thoughts
and
opinions.
And
this
makes
the
topic
of
self
plagiarism
a
much
bigger
topic.
Thought
can
be
developed
and
refined
over
time.
Life
is
a
natural
and
continual
process
of
learning
and
while
we
need
to
attribute
academic
work
and
development
fairly
we
also
need
to
recognise
and
accommodate
the
realities.
Innovation
mainly
comes
from
reviewing,
applying,
developing
and
refining
knowledge
and
processes.
It
is
well
known
that
the
human
mind
can
be
quite
deceptive,
particularly
so,
to
those
who
own
that
mind.
Neuroscientists
have
shown
that
each
time
we
remember
something,
we
are
reconstructing
the
event,
reassembling
it
from
traces
throughout
the
brain.
Psychologists
have
pointed
out
that
we
also
suppress
memories
that
are
painful
or
damaging
to
self-esteem.
We
could
say
that,
as
a
result,
memory
is
unreliable.
We
could
also
say
it
is
adaptive,
reshaping
itself
to
accommodate
the
new
situations
we
find
ourselves
facing.
."
(13,
14,
15)
Also
what
is
the
correct
copyright
and
reference
attribution
to
education
and
ideas.
We
remember
many
facts
from
our
university
days.
Do
we
have
to
evaluate
our
lifetime's
education
and
attribute
and
reference
it.
It
can
verge
on
gross
silliness
taken
to
extremes.
The
facts
we
learnt
at
school
and
university,
in
general
press,
news
items
and
documentaries
tend
to
be
lumped
together
in
the
memory.
This
makes
it
very
hard
to
judge
intention
to
deceive
if
the
mind
itself
cannot
place
facts
and
may
alter
them
over
time.
Currently
academic
institutions
and
publishers
control
the
processes
and
hand
out
the
judgments.
We
all
need
to
rely
on
the
integrity
of
academic
publications
and
not
waste
our
or
authors'
time
in
reinventing
the
wheel,
however
these
matters
should
not
be
judged
flippantly
and
proper
process
as
well
as
reasoning
needs
to
be
applied.
The
best
way
for
academics
to
avoid
plagiarism
and
self
plagiarism
particularly
is
to
publish
original
research
or
original
developments
or
substantial
updates
on
existing
research.
This
does
not
get
around
the
problem
of
other
authors
concurrently
working
on
the
same
topics
however
if
you
have
done
your
own
research
and
have
the
data
to
show,
your
intention
not
to
deceive
should
be
plain.
It
is
a
common
practice
in
academic
publishing
to
also
look
at
other
studies
and
compare
your
results
with
theirs
-
whether
they
agree
or
disagree.
Most
of
the
problems
may
be
circumvented
by
making
your
full
intentions
clear
in
the
abstract
and
to
outline
how
you
particularly
got
to
your
conclusions,
the
date
that
these
processes
occurred
and
whether
it
was
previous
work,
new
work
and
developments
on
existing
work.
If
you
anticipate
some
resistance
from
your
academic
institution
there
should
be
a
method
or
protocol
within
that
institution
to
properly
evaluate
the
project
prior
to
writing
up
the
results
and
subsequent
paper.
We
provide
our
own
checklist
as
follows:
Recommendations
Checklist
1.
Firstly
check
the
author
information
on
the
website
of
the
journal
you
are
submitting
to.
They
should
have
a
complete
list
of
author
requirements.
2.
Also
if
English
is
your
second
language
consult
if
necessary
a
qualified
English
speaker
and
writer
both
to
fully
explain
written
requirements
and
to
check
the
manuscript
itself.
There
may
be
well
known
cultural
references
in
other
languages
that
are
not
familiar
to
you.
3.
Keep
and
date
all
your
original
work,
research,
surveys,
data
collected
and
so
on.
4.
Make
sure
your
abstract
outlines
the
process
of
how
you
gathered
the
data
for
your
article.
If
it
is,
for
example,
an
argumentative
essay
and
you
have
not
overtly
referenced
any
other
published
work
or
your
previous
work,
still
check
that
you
or
others
have
not
previously
covered
this
ground.
If
you
have,
attribute
it
and
verify
for
yourself
that
your
new
work
is
not
designed
for
the
same
purpose
or
to
come
to
the
same
conclusions.
5.
Make
sure
you
have
attributed/referenced
any
work,
directly
taken
from
your
previous
articles,
or
another
publication
or
author.
6.
If
you
are
unsure
that
your
work
is
not
self
plagiarism
check
with
your
academic
institutions
and
peers
about
any
concerns
you
may
have.
7.
If
still
unsure,
seek
the
opinion
of
the
journal
you
intend
and
wish
to
publish
with
and
obtain
their
opinion
and
outline
any
concerns
you
may
have,
presenting
your
data
and
processes
at
the
same
time.
8.
Don't
send
your
paper
to
multiple
publishers
at
the
same
time.
If
concerned
about
any
possible
delays
in
receiving
an
answer
from
your
chosen
publisher
do
prior
research
on
how
long
the
review
and
evaluation
process
takes
at
your
chosen
publishing
house.
9.
Finally,
if
you
are
acting
with
full
integrity
you
should
not
have
many
concerns.
If
it
turns
out
that
you
have
inadvertently
plagiarised
or
self
plagiarised
because
of
the
many
issues
we
have
discussed
in
this
paper,
be
full
and
frank
with
those
publishers
and
your
academic
institution,
and
also
remind
them
of
your
own
legal
and
ethical
approach
and
your
own
rights.
You
should
not
be
assumed
guilty
unless
proven
to
be
so.
Rezaeian,
M.
A
review
on
the
diverse
types
of
research
misconduct.
Middle
East
Journal
of
Family
Medicine,
Volume
12,
Issue
7,
September
2014
Rezaeian,
M.
How
to
select
and
cite
scientific
works.
Middle
East
J
Family
Med.
2014;
12(8)
:
52-53
(1)
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2011/10/04/the-world%E2%80%99s-first-plagiarism-case/
(2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
(1-7
above)
(3)
http://www.plagiarism.org/
(4)
Thomas
Mallon.
Stolen
Words
-
The
Classic
Book
on
Plagiarism
Second
Edition
(5)
A
history
of
plagiarism
(not
my
own
work)
Stephen
Moss
The
Guardian
(6)
Charles
Darwin
-
Biologist,
Scientist
-
Biography.com
;
www.biography.com/people/charles-darwin-9266433
(7)
Recommendations
for
the
Conduct,
Reporting,
Editing,
and
Publication
of
Scholarly
Work
in
Medical
Journals
www.icmje.org
(8)
COPE
Code
of
Conduct
http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/New_Code.pdf.
(9)
Tracey
Bretag
&
Saadia
Mahmud,
J
Acad
Ethics
(2009)
7:193-205
DOI
10.1007/s10805-009-9092-1
(10)
Urologic
Oncology:
Seminars
and
Original
Investigations
30
(2012)
547-548
Editorial
Plagiarism
(11)
Turnitin
http://turnitin.com/
(12)
Robin
H.
Thurman,
MBBS;
Frank
A.
Chervenak,
MD;
Laurence
B.
McCullough,
PhD;
Sana
Halwani,
JD;
Dan
Farine
,
MD
Self-plagiarism:
a
misnomer.
Ajog.org
(13)
Ken
Eisold
Ph.D.
Hidden
Motives
Unreliable
Memory
Why
memory's
unreliable,
and
what
we
can
do
about
it.
(14)
Elsevier
Neuropsychopharmacology
Volume
18,
Issue
3,
March
1998,
Pages
186-196
American
College
of
Neuropsychopharmacology
(15)
Rachel
Barclay.
Your
Memory
Is
Unreliable,
and
Science
Could
Make
It
More
So.
Published
on
13
September
2013
(16)
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/beyond-thought/
(17)
Rezaeian,
M.
Disadvantages
of
publishing
biomedical
research
articles
in
English
for
non-native
speakers
of
English.
Epidemiol
Health.
2015;
37:e2015021
|