Determining with certainty what is unique and original and what has been gained from other sources but claimed to be one’s own can lead an editor into murky waters.
Writing an editorial on plagiarism is both difficult and intimidating. Although this topic is well-defined in the academic literature, there are several factors that confuse the issue and can lead to conflicting interpretations of a generally understood, I-know-it-when-I-see-it definition.
Having read numerous articles, books, dissertations and Internet discussions on the topic, I am left pondering whether what I write here truly is an expression of my own ideas in my own words. I believe it is, but could I be guilty of cryptomnesia—unconscious or unwitting plagiarism?
In essence, plagiarism is wrongfully appropriating someone else’s ideas, theories, research results, or even words and phrases and presenting them as one’s own. For a student, plagiarism can lead to an accusation of cheating and, eventually, a failing grade. For an academician, it can be grounds for disciplinary actions ranging from salary reduction and demotion to revocation of tenure and dismissal. In the world of academics, the plagiarist is branded for egregious violations of ethical standards and scientific misconduct.1
An editor of a professional journal needs to acknowledge such transgressions and take action against people trying to publish wrongfully appropriated material. However, determining with certainty what is unique and original and what has been gained from other sources but claimed to be one’s own can lead an editor into murky waters.
I did not invent the concept of "publish or perish," nor did I coin the phrase. So can I use it without attribution? It is, of course, an expression in common use, and it can be argued that such a prevalent phrase may be used without acknowledgment. What about the term "medically complex patients"? This is a designation I have been using for almost 20 years, both in my lectures and in my writing. I do not remember having heard this expression before I started using it. In recent years, however, I have heard this classification of dental patients used by other lecturers, and I’ve seen it written, without attribution, by other authors in numerous publications. Is it plagiarism if a phrase cannot be traced to its primary source and is widely used by others? I doubt it.
If plagiarism is partly defined as using someone else’s words and phrases, can reusing one’s own words be plagiaristic or self-plagiarism? Or is this perhaps a case of copyright infringement rather than plagiarism? Authors customarily transfer the copyright of an article to the publisher, which means the author no longer "owns" the material. This can be awkward, especially when a researcher wants to split the findings from one project into several manuscripts—a practice often referred to as "salami publishing," cutting thinner slices to get more pieces. Trying to explain the same research method or definition in more than one publication without plagiarizing can be difficult. There are only so many ways a specific activity—measuring salivary flow, for example—can be explained.
Many writers erroneously believe they can sidestep an accusation of plagiarism simply by paraphrasing. Not so. Borrowing words and phrases may be judged as both plagiarism and copyright infringement. Borrowing concepts and ideas, on the other hand, is plagiarism but not copyright infringement.
Most recently, it has come to light in the public press that certain pharmaceutical companies have used their own writers to author scientific articles. These so-called ghostwriters were not listed as authors of these texts. Instead, prominent researchers were given that honor, sometimes without even having read the manuscript. Is this plagiarism? Although this practice may not adhere to the highest ethical standards and moral norms of academia, it is not plagiarism. The text and ideas were not stolen from the original author, the ghostwriter, who is paid to provide a service.
Detecting plagiarism is difficult. The first line of defense customarily is the peer review process. Reviewers for scholarly journals usually are very familiar with their areas of expertise and many times can recognize texts and ideas from other sources. There also is software available to authenticate original scholarly contributions (see "www.plagiarism.org" and "www.turnitin.com"). Some journals, like The Journal of Medical Internet Research, use this technology to screen all accepted manuscripts.
With the rapid growth of e-journals and plenteous sources of articles and material, the unauthorized use of another individual’s material has spawned new and ingenious ways of obtaining information. It also has introduced new terminology. "Cyberplagiarism" and "web-napping" refer to lifting information off the Internet or Web sites for use in scholarly articles or on other Web sites.3
Avoiding plagiarism is fairly simple. Attribute sources, use references and footnotes, give credit where it’s due and use quotations when indicated. Most journals, including JADA, adhere to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in defining what qualifies as acceptable source material.3
The English word "plagiarism" derives from the Latin "plagiarius" (meaning kidnapper) and the Greek "plagion" (something that is not direct). It is interesting to note that the term originally referred to stealing someone’s most precious possession, a child. Viewed from that perspective, it is hard to argue that plagiarism is any form of flattery.
