Plagiarism is an ethical issue with many different facets and very pertinent effects on education and the scientific communities and institutions. Plagiarism at its base level is the use of someone else’s ideas without credit but it can appear in many ways most do not expect. 

The form of plagiarism most people likely think of first is “verbatim copying” in which the malefactor simply copy and pasted from another source and without giving any indication that it is unoriginal including the lack of quotation marks (Foltýnek, Meuschke, and Gipp, 2020). This is the laziest, most obvious, and easily detectable way to plagiarize. Paraphrasing, or using your own words to express information from a source without directly quoting it, is an acceptable way to avoid plagiarism, however, done improperly is the same as just directly copying. Most people know that verbatim copying is easily detectable, and instead try to disguise their plagiarism by stitching together smaller copied pieces of text and swapping out words in between to make the sentence structure differ from the original (Foltýnek, Meuschke and Gipp 2020). This form of plagiarism deliberately tries to make use of the weaknesses in plagiarism detection technology.

Since plagiarism is typically seen as an act of thievery, many people question how you could possibly steal from yourself? Self-plagiarism is the “reuse of one’s own work without quotation and permission to reproduce text” (Masic 2012). Recycling text, data, images, etc. from previous papers, even though it is the same creator, is still considered plagiarism. The issue is when researchers try to pass off old data, images, etc. as though it is new and original. For example, a group of geological researchers in China published four separates yet very similar papers over the course of 2013 to early 2014 (Marcus 2015). They were later found guilty of recycling parts of the same data, as well as text, in order to divide it into multiple papers (Marcus 2015). “The “slicing” of research that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers represents an abuse of the scientific publishing system” (Marcus 2015). In another example, a bone researcher, Dr. Yoshihiro Sato, published a paper in which a large written portion was taken from another paper he published 6 years prior, which in turn warranted his sixth retraction (McCook 2016). “They have confirmed that a significant and unacceptable amount of duplication of wording, although not data, is present in the article published in this journal” (McCook 2016).

Causes of Plagiarism  

The article “Academic Plagiarism: Explanatory Factors from Students’ Perspective” provides insights into the what drives students to commit plagiarism. The article lists reasons such as students’ inability to manage their time, their making too many mistakes and/or not knowing the source material enough to be able to produce meaningful work as driving causes of plagiarism (Comas-Fordas & Sureda-Negre, 2010). The ease in which information is located on the internet and the presence of “copy-and-paste information” is also a large problem with plagiarism today (Comas-Fordas & Sureda-Negre, 2010). Lastly one of the largest causes explained by this article has to do with lectures in university being heavily theory based (Comas-Fordas & Sureda-Negre, 2010). Theory based lectures are much harder to understand for students thus driving them to plagiarize as they have never experienced these types of lectures before (Comas-Fordas & Sureda-Negre, 2010).

To address the aforementioned causes, schools and universities should make drastic changes to their curriculums. For example, the specific problem of theory-based assignments leading to more frequent incidents of plagiarism can be tackled by introducing more theory-based classes, exercises, and assignments to middle and high schools. Students must be prepared and equipped with the ability to provide in-depth analyses, discussions, etc. to theoretical questions. The International Baccalaureate program is one such method that can be used and better implemented.  In this program, questions in writing assignments are provided with specific keywords attached that indicate what type of answer it is expecting the student to give (whether it be analyzing, discussing, evaluating, etc.). It requires its students to write multiple essays and lab reports in the form of Internal Assessments (and an Extended Essay that must be composed of 4000 words). Finally, it adds a lesson named Theory of Knowledge, which is entirely based on theory. 

Additionally, classes must not include “copy-and-paste information”, where students are made to regurgitate information they’ve learned in their lessons on exams, as this is a contributing factor to them relying solely on the words of the author(s) they cite in their work. They must therefore be taught what is and is not considered plagiarism, and how to cite references correctly. Similarly, techniques for time management must be taught to students from an early age, perhaps starting from elementary school. Methods such as setting multiple small, easily-attainable goals, as well as dividing work into manageable chunks and devoting time entirely to them for a set time must be taught and heavily implemented in lessons. Teachers must be monitored by administration to ensure that classes/lectures are being taught in a way that is engaging, with emphasis placed on the manner in which lecturers conduct themselves. Schools may consider hiring new and/or younger teaching staff in order to keep energy levels high in the classroom. New teachers will also be more closely acquainted with modern studying techniques and methods used by students in their studies.

Is Plagiarism Understood?

Defining and explaining the intricacies of plagiarism is important because the more knowledgeable the more likely students and future researchers are to avoid it. After all, the cause of plagiarism may not be blatant deception by those looking for personal gain, but a misunderstanding by those who do not fully grasp what is considered good practice. In a study conducted at the University of Split in Croatia, researchers tested overall understanding of these concepts, by distributing a questionnaire to both undergraduate and graduate students (Bašić et al. 2018). “The percentage of correct answers… ranged from 25 to 88.7%… [and] questions related to proper citing and referencing was between 22.4 and 82.2%” (Bašić et al. 2018). Indeed, the overall knowledge of plagiarism tends to vary greatly, therefore it is hard to say that students truly understand how to properly utilize sources without falling into this pitfall. General concepts such as quoting and paraphrasing are well covered in most introductory level classes in higher education institutions, but more nuanced concepts such as self-plagiarism fall by the wayside (Bašić et al. 2018). The introduction of these subjects as well as citation help resources in the classroom would likely reduce the amount of unintentional plagiarism.

Plagiarism of Ideas  

We have previously discussed plagiarism of text, but is it possible to plagiarize ideas? One way someone’s idea can be plagiarized is through what is called a priority dispute (Bos J. 2020).  This is when a certain person believes they have the right to a certain intellectual property or idea because they were the one who first discovered or invented said property or idea (Bos J. 2020). Here is an example of this idea: Imagine that you are working a job and your boss needs a problem solved. You have an idea of what the solution could be and you discuss this with a coworker. All seems well until your coworker goes to your boss and exclaims that he has solved the problem. You hear that his solution is heavily influenced by what you told them but your coworker gives you no credit. Your coworker gets a promotion while you do not, although the ‘solution’ was mainly your idea.

A real world example of this concept is shown with the invention of the telephone. When you think of who invented the telephone, the name that comes to mind is Alexander Graham Bell. However, Alexander Graham Bell was not the individual who actually first created the device. The actual creator of the first telephone was Italian inventor Antonio Meucci. Meucci began designing the telephone in 1849 and attempted to file a caveat in 1871 (Magdalia, 2018). However due to financial issues, he was unable to renew this caveat before filing a patent. Bell, who briefly worked in the same lab as Meucci, began his work on creating a telephone which was strikingly similar to the design that Meucci had worked on (Magdalia, 2018). Finally in 1876, Bell rushed to the patent office to get a patent on his ‘invention’. Meucci was furious, Bell had patented a device that he did not invent while Meucci, the actual inventor was left with nothing. Meucci sued Bell for fraud as he claimed that he plagiarized his invention. While nearing a victory in his case through his allegation that Bell had found his designs and copied them, Meucci died in 1889 and the case was subsequently dropped (Magdalia, 2018). Meucci believed he had the right to the invention as he had discovered it first and that Bell had plagiarized him. 

Plagiarism vs. General Knowledge 

However, it can be difficult to know where to draw the line when it comes to plagiarism of ideas and intellectual property. What do we have to cite and what do we not have to cite? For example, do we need to cite Isaac Newton every time we use calculus? Or are some things in the scope of general knowledge, so we do not have to cite? The answer is not night and day, it requires a bit of thinking to find this out. Generally, things that are such a large part of society and culture can be considered general knowledge while more borderline and new developments in science and technology are someone’s or something’s intellectual property. Here are some examples to see if you can decide for yourself what you think is general knowledge and what is intellectual property. Give yourself a minute to read over the previous examples and ask whether it would be considered plagiarism or would fall in the scope of general knowledge. 

Example 1: A student states in an academic paper that the earth is round without citing a source.

Example 2: A chemical engineering student in a lab assignment uses the same experimental procedure as another student.

Example 3 : A student writes in an academic paper carbon emissions are causing climate change without citing a source. 

Example 4: A robotics engineering student creates a robot based off of a robot he saw on the news.

Example 1 would be an example of general knowledge. Everybody knows the earth is round and it is a fundamental scientific fact. Therefore, it would not need to be cited and would fall in the scope of general knowledge. Example 2 would be an example of plagiarism of ideas as the other students laboratory procedure is not common knowledge nor is it a fundamental scientific fact: it was created by the other student. Therefore, copying the procedure would be plagiarizing their idea. Example 3 again focuses on citing conventions in academic papers. This is a little more complex but would still be considered general knowledge because it is so deeply embedded into society.  Finally, despite being on the news, the robot in Example 4 would not be part of general knowledge and the student would be plagiarizing from the original creator of this robot. 

What are the Consequences of Plagiarism?

The detection of plagiarism in a piece of writing does significant damage to an individual’s academic career. The paper will be retracted, or removed, from the journal it was published in and, the culprit will likely be barred from research, terminated from the institution, and possibly face legal action as well as losing all credibility as a scientist (Masic 2012). Consider the case of Takuma Hara, previously Dr. Takuma Hara, in April 2020 after allegations of plagiarism surfaced and investigated, had his doctorate revoked, certainly a very harsh punishment (McCarty 2021).

The weight of publication can be looked at from a quantifiable perspective as there is a direct correlation between the number of papers a scientist has published and the amount of grants and funding they receive (Foltýnek, Meuschke and Gipp 2020). Now what if said scientist has acclimated such a significant number of published papers because they have been reusing the same data from previous studies they worked on. Plenty of resources that could have been directed to honest researchers and scientists have been funneled into a “false idol” so to speak, in which the scientist or scientists that only made themselves appear to be successful.

Plagiarism Prevention in Universities 

In universities across the United States, plagiarism is dealt with using protocols that vary across institutions. In the article “Institutional models for adjudicating plagiarism in the United States”, Garner & Hubbell discuss the three types of models used for addressing plagiarism. In private and highly-selective liberal arts colleges, the decision-making process is left to the students while in public institutions and large universities, it is in the hands of faculty and administration (Garner & Hubbell, 2013). The authors also consider the presence of a third type of model in which professors handle academic dishonesty independently from official institutions (Garner & Hubbell, 2013). The third model appears to be a middle ground between faculty and administration having most of the control and decisive power, which can be viewed as being “too rigid”; and students having most of the control, to which some may argue that it can be too lax (Garner & Hubbell, 2013).

The balance between the two models must have enough freedom to allow students to utilize self-monitoring skills (which is an important skill in all sections of life), while allowing the faculty to be “in control” and punish offenders as necessary (Garner & Hubbell, 2013). Professors also should have a role in the detection of and retribution for plagiarism, with Garner & Hubbell stating that professors either try to solve the issue themselves or not report it (Garner & Hubbell, 2013).

Issues with Plagiarism Prevention in Universities 

With the emergence of the internet in the early 21st century, plagiarism has skyrocketed in the academic scene due to the plethora of online articles, textbooks, and information that is easy to access and copy. This rise of plagiarism required universities to adapt to how they catch and respond to plagiarism in their institutions. One popular method in universities to prevent and catch students plagiarizing is the use of plagiarism detection software. These programs take students’ essays and attempt to search the internet to find any possible matches from any electronically published article or book. While it may seem as though this is an efficient way to prevent students from academic dishonesty, this may not be the case. Two studies done at California State University studied the effect of telling students that they are going to run their assignments through a plagiarism checker (Youmans, 2018). In the first study, half the students were told their papers were going to be checked by the plagiarism detection software Turnitin.com while the other half was not told this (Youmans 2018). This was done in an attempt to identify if students were less likely to plagiarize if they were told that their papers would be checked by a plagiarism program. The study found that there was no correlation between being told that the paper would be checked for plagiarism and the amount of students who plagiarized (Youmans 2018). A follow up study was conducted and a relationship was established between the amount of student plagiarism and their respective knowledge on how plagiarism software like Turnitin.com works (Youmans 2018). This outlines the fact that education about plagiarism is shockingly low. Many of the students who plagiarized in the first study may or may not have known exactly what the software was looking for, and more importantly, what the software considered plagiarism. Furthermore, a study conducted testing students on their knowledge about plagiarism showed that 40%-50% did not fully understand what is considered plagiarism as they did not complete the exercise correctly (Bretag 2013). This outlines the need for better education  in universities about what is considered plagiarism. If students are unaware of what is considered plagiarism, they will more likely, even subconsciously, plagiarize without knowing what they are doing is academically dishonest. Universities, on a students first plagiarism incident should take it as an opportunity to educate the student on the issues with their work rather than just punishing them. That student would be less likely to plagiarize in the future if they know exactly what the university considers plagiarism. 

Conclusion

Plagiarism is a major ethical dilemma in which dishonest scientists, or students are able to gain credit, resources, positions, etc. while greatly jeopardizing the honest work and contributions of their institutions. Scientists and inventors can get credit and profit off of other peoples inventions as shown by the example with Alexander Graham Bell. With plagiarism, students are able to gain unfair advantages against their peers by passing in work that is not their own, or is very deceptive as to where the information came from. However, the response to plagiarism, especially in schools and universities, has not been perfected. As we discussed, plagiarism detection software may not be the perfect solution for plagiarism prevention and that the solution could be in better plagiarism education and awareness. If plagiarism response is too lax, students and scientists may plagiarize more. But, if the response is to strict, students and scientists will never learn strategies to recognize and  avoid plagiarism. This is the ethical issue in which we are currently faced with. While it may take time, we all can work towards an academic sphere that is unburdened with the issue of plagiarism.

Works Cited

Bašić, Željana, Ivana Kružić, Ivan Jerković, Ivan Buljan, and Ana Marušić. 2018. “Attitudes And Knowledge About Plagiarism Among University Students: Cross-Sectional Survey At The University Of Split, Croatia”. Science And Engineering Ethics 25 (5): 1467-1483. doi:10.1007/s11948-018-0073-x.

Bos J. 2020 “Plagiarism. In: Research Ethics for Students in the Social Sciences. Springer, Cham.” (4): 55-80, 15 September 2020  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6_4

Bretag, Tracey. “Challenges in Addressing Plagiarism in Education.” PLOS Medicine, Public    Library of Science, 31 Dec. 2013, www.journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001574.

Comas-Forgas, Rubén, ve Jaume Sureda-Negre. 2010. “Academic Plagiarism: Explanatory Factors from Students’ Perspective”. Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (3): 217-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-010-9121-0.

Foltýnek, Tomáš, Norman Meuschke, and Bela Gipp. 2020. “Academic Plagiarism Detection: A Systematic Literature Review”. ACM Computing Surveys 52 (6): 1-42. doi:10.1145/3345317.

Garner, Andrew D, ve Larry Hubbell. 2013. “Institutional Models for Adjudicating Plagiarism in the United States”. International Journal for Educational Integrity 9 (1).

Geraldi, Joana. “Plagiarism in Project Studies – Joana Geraldi, 2021.” SAGE Journals, 5 Jan. 2021, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/8756972820982443

HaCohen-Kerner, Yaakov, ve Aharon Tayeb. 2017. “Rapid detection of similar peer-reviewed scientific papers via a constant number of randomized fingerprints”. Information Processing & Management 53 (1): 70-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2016.06.007.

Magdalia. “Plagiarism – Alexander Graham Bell.” Sites at Penn State, Penn State , 1 Mar. 2018, sites.psu.edu/magdaliapassionblog/2018/03/01/alexander-graham-bell/. 

Marcus, Adam. 2015. “Castle Made Of Sand: Self-Plagiarism Washes Away Paper On Dune Particles”. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2015/03/17/castle-made-of-sand-self-plagiarism-washes-away-paper-on-dune-particles/.

Masic, Izet. 2012. “Plagiarism In Scientific Publishing”. Acta Informatica Medica 20 (4): 208. doi:10.5455/aim.2012.20.208-213.

McCarty, Niko. 2021. “University In Japan Revokes Doctorate For Plagiarism Of Text, Image”. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/14/university-in-japan-revokes-doctorate-for-plagiarism-of-text-image/.

McCook, Alison. 2016. “Sixth Retraction Appears For Bone Researcher Due To “Extensive Self-Plagiarism””. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/30/sixth-retraction-appears-for-bone-researcher-due-to-extensive-self-plagiarism/.

Yam Roka. 2017. “Plagiarism: Types, Causes and How to Avoid This Worldwide Problem”. Nepal Journal of Neuroscience 14 (3). https://doi.org/10.3126/njn.v14i3.20517.

Youmans, Robert J. “Does the Adoption of Plagiarism-Detection Software in Higher Education Reduce Plagiarism?” Taylor & Francis, 12 May 2011, www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2010.523457.