Discussion on answer by Massimo Ortolano: If I receive written permission to use content from a paper without citing, is it plagiarism?

Stack Exchange

06:46

218

A: If I receive written permission to use content from a paper without citing, is it plagiarism?

It doesn't really matter that the author gave you "unrestricted rights to use any portion of their article" without the need of citing it. We, the readers, want to know that you're using it. Because I have all the rights to do this, would this be considered plagiarism? Yes.

BPND

Might be important to note that plagiarism does not necessarily have to violate a law (which could be avoided by such a 'contract') but in science is mostly seen as a violation of science ethics which on its own might have repercussions, e.g. rectraction of an article / revocation of an academic degree.

lighthouse keeper

Also, the common-sense defintion of plagariasm includes "representing someone else's ideas as one's own", which still applies when that other person is okay with it.

Captain Emacs

The key is: the author permits you to use the graphics etc. Ok. However, the reader needs to know who created them. The reason being that, if you are ever hired, they want to know whether you were able to create them yourself or you were just able to find a way of getting them (done). It is more about what you are able to do than what you did (even if the author is forgoing their moral rights, as a ghostwriter might do; that does not change your duties, especially in an academic context).

Jeutnarg

For what it's worth, you can expect criticism for plagiarizing even yourself, and that's a situation where you have full rights.

MissMonicaE

@Jeutnarg I've never heard of this--can you elaborate? Like, if I write a paper building on a previous paper of mine, would it be considered inethical unless I formally cite the first paper, or what?

Jeutnarg

06:46

@MissMonicaE you can google 'self-plagiarism' for more references. I feel like ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/bid/52948/… has a good summary, including a few example cases. If you wrote a paper building on another paper, you should cite it just as you would if somebody else had written it (assuming permission was granted), especially if it was co-authored. Ethical? depends on where the paper was published, the presence of co-authors, etc.

Jörg W Mittag

@Jeutnarg: That article only confuses me. The first example mixes self-plagiarism with plagiarism (because of the presence of co-authors) and then the article starts talking about copyright, which is an issue orthogonal to plagiarism, as I tried to argue in my answer and which I discovered after writing my answer has already been discussed on this site. It would be better if there were an example of pure self-plagiarism without additional plagiarism and copyright violations, and an …

… elaboration of what and why exactly that is un-ethical.

Jeutnarg

@JörgWMittag Copyright concerns are not orthogonal to plagiarism of a published work in this context. From the article I cited: "There are some cases where the copyright of a previously published work has been transferred away from the original owner." OP says that the author gave permission, but I doubt that they or the original author checked the publisher agreement for copyright restrictions.

@JörgWMittag also, the article is an introductory piece. It gives you multiple synonyms for 'self-plagiarism', it highlights several serious potential pitfalls, notes that self-plagiarism is "is not nearly as cut-and-dry as standard plagiarism", and points out that self-plagiarism can be considered for even extremely small sections. What more do you want in less than 500 words? Finally, the point was to answer MissMonica's question about 'what it is', not to address the ethics of the practice.

R..

+1 for getting the key point: plagarism is a "crime" against the readers of your publication and the community at large, quite the opposite of copyright infringement which is a "crime" against the original author.

Cc Dd

What Frank asked is NOT plagiarism. Plagiarism specifically has to be stolen, or taken, or pilfered, and claimed as your own. If it is given then it is not plagiarism. This is regardless of whether or not what Frank is talking about is ethical or avoided in academia. The key word is the and between taken and claimed as your own. If it becomes given to you as your own and claimed as your own this is no longer plagiarism.

Matthew Read

@CcDd Just because something is given to you doesn't mean that accepting it and using it improperly is not taking it, or plagiarism. Consent is simply not the only issue.

Cc Dd

06:46

@MatthewRead if something is given to you as your own then you wouldn't be taking it but merely accepting it. and plagiarism is about taking without permission aka stealing. For it to be plagiarism there must not be consent else it is no longer plagiarism.

Matthew Read

@CcDd Ideas aren't physical objects. When talking about plagiarism we also care about where the ideas originated from, not only who has "rights" to them. That's why Jörg's answer points out the differences from copyright violations. Plagiarism is not purely about theft.

TheGreatDuck

I feel I should point this out. In a formal class setting, reusing a paper you wrote prior to the class for an assignment is considered self-plagiarism and is a form of cheating. Recycling your own ideas is never plagiarism if you and only you wrote/published the paper. The reason for this is that they are your ideas and you cannot be expected to look for every place you used your own original ideas. Stealing or using another person's ideas is different than using your own ideas in multiple works purely published/authored by yourself without them being citation-ally related.

Cc Dd

@MatthewRead plagiarism IS purely about theft of someone else's work that you claim as your own. Copyright is using someone else's work without permission without necessarily claiming it as your own work. "not citing your source" is not citing the source you used regardless of ownership or rights. Too many people get these confused 2 are bad / illegal-in-most-cases one is only frowned upon harshly if you are in certain settings such as academia.

@TheGreatDuck As I have pointed out if you do not have permission to claim something as your own and you do, key operator being and, you will have committed plagiarism. If the work was done for you and you are given that work as your own to claim as your own then it cannot be plagiarism since there is no theft involved. This could be considered cheating, unacceptable as a practice, not allowed in this setting, against the rules, but not plagiarizing. self plagiarising is an oxymoron and anyone who uses it should get a dictionary. Continued on next comment.

But you could argue that if you did the work for someone then did not cite what is now their work then this could be considered self plagiarising.

TheGreatDuck

@CcDd Most classrooms use the term self-plagiarism as a term referring to a certain form of cheating. It's when you actually resubmit a paper you wrote in the past. I.E. instead of doing the research work you just grab a paper from (let's say high school) and submit it cause you're lazy. A person mentioned self-plagiarism as a citation issue. That's why I said there is no reason to cite it unless you just want to emphasize a connection between your two papers (I.E. one might be an explanation of a new development you have made in your self-research).

Cc Dd

@TheGreatDuck good point on the citation I didn't catch that. They should just call it cheating since calling it self plagiarism is the same as saying rewinding to fast forward to the end of a film (RIP VHS). It just doesn't make sense.

TheGreatDuck

06:46

@CcDd I think they just call it that to make it more of an academic dishonesty thing rather than just a blatant cheating issue. After all, claiming you wrote something recently when it's in fact a paper from many years ago might get you in trouble.

Cc Dd

@TheGreatDuck Sure but they, especially being a school, should call it by what it is "recycling old papers" or "nothing new here" or "prepublished" or simply "reused" rather than contorting a word to try to make something sound bad and getting entire groups of people on stack exchange unable to see the meaning any longer. That is called lazy and a bit deceptive not to mention giving incorrect information / definitions is not something that belongs any where near a school of any type.

ff524

07:22

@CcDd There are multiple definitions of plagiarism. (1) "steal someone else's work and pass it off as your own without their permission" is one. (2) "misrepresent someone else's work as your own" is another.
For example, the Cambridge dictionary supplies the latter definition, without any mention of "stealing": "to use another person’s idea or a part of that person's work and pretend that it is your own" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/plagiarize

As does the American Heritage Dictionary: "To reproduce or otherwise use (the words, ideas, or other work of another) as one's own or without attribution" and "To present another's words or ideas as one's own or without attribution" https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=plagiarize
And the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: "when someone uses another person’s words, ideas, or work and pretends they are their own" http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/plagiarism

So does the Nolo Plain English Law dictionary: "Deliberately passing off somebody elses original expression or creative ideas as ones own." http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/plagiarism-term.html
And Merriam Webster gives both definitions: "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own" is (1) and "use (another's production) without crediting the source" is (2): http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizing (Merriam-Webster uses a colon to "separate two or more definitions of a single sense", so those are actually two definitions, not two parts of a single definition)

So while the definition you keep insisting on is one example of a definition of plagiarism, it's not the only one. And since there is no international governing body responsible for defining plagiarism, it's impossible to say that one commonly used definition is "correct" and another is "incorrect"; they are simply two different definitions that are both valid, and the appropriate one to use depends on the context.

Since the second definition is used rather widely in academia - it appears in many university codes of conduct, for example - it certainly seems appropriate to use it in this context.

ff524

08:04

Also of interest: the state of Illinois has a statue that makes it a civil offense to sell a paper when the seller/preparer "reasonably should have known would result in the submission of such academic papers, substantially unchanged, as original work" toward a degree. This statute is called the "Academic Plagiarism Act" and it agrees with definition (2) - after all, when the seller is also the author of the paper, he consents to the use.

So the State of Illinois seems to agree that something can be plagiarism even when there is no theft involved (or at least, a statute titled "Academic Plagiarism Act" describes a behavior where there is no theft)

ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1052&ChapterID=18

ff524

08:30

Although of course, statutes can sometimes have misleading names. But still, it's interesting :)

Transcript for

Discussion on answer by Massimo Ortol…