Archive for the 'Plagiarism Case Studies' Category

Perspectives on Plagiarism

The New York Times recently published a piece that discussed today’s younger generation and their views on plagiarism.  The article analyzes several perspectives on plagiarism, coming from college students to teachers to parents.  One primary perspective that could explain a recent increase in cases of plagiarism is that the younger generation simply doesn’t know what plagiarism is, and overall has a more laissez faire attitude towards copying content without proper citations.

From the New York Times: “But these cases — typical ones, according to writing tutors and officials responsible for discipline at the three schools who described the plagiarism — suggest that many students simply do not grasp that using words they did not write is a serious misdeed. It is a disconnect that is growing in the Internet age as concepts of intellectual property, copyright and originality are under assault in the unbridled exchange of online information, say educators who study plagiarism.

The article also discusses a second possibility: kids know what plagiarism is, but are lazy and don’t have the writing skills to keep up with a vigorous load of college courses.  To keep up the pace they make a conscious decision to plagiarize even though they know it’s wrong.  For this viewpoint, the writer interviews Sarah Wilensky, a Senior at Indiana University who has written on the topic of plagiarism: “If you’re taught how to closely read sources and synthesize them into your own original argument in middle and high school, you’re not going to be tempted to plagiarize in college, and you certainly won’t do so unknowingly,” she said.

There is a third scenario that the article doesn’t discuss:  the possibility that even though people know they are doing wrong, they simply don’t think they will be caught.  For some, plagiarism may be a gamble, but a risk worth taking due to the notion that they have good chance of getting away with it.  For these students, it could be akin to breaking the speed limit in a car:  if they don’t see any traffic cops around they may take the risk.

That’s why one possible solution to the plagiarism problem is to let the new generation know that technologies are in place to ensure students (and authors) are employing best practices in writing.  Modern plagiarism detection software like Turnitin and iThenticate are leading the way in detecting instances of plagiarism by scanning both massive databases of archived content along with more recent internet sources.  Many iThenticate users have seen a similar scenario:  letting people know that their submitted content is going to be scanned by a sophisticated plagiarism detection solution in many cases serves to further curb instances of plagiarism. In a sense, plagiarism detection software can act like a cop on the side of road – the simple presence of the squad car makes drivers slow down.

Citations:

Gabriel, Trip. “Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age” The New York Times 1 August 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html?_r=2&hp

Medical Plagiarism – Residency Applications

Doctors have always been held in high regard in our society, for good reasons.  Medical doctors are considered some of the most qualified professionals in any field or industry.  Doctors undergo years, sometimes even a decade, of study, training and practice before they are fully qualified.  Residency is often considered the most important part of a doctor’s training, providing a time to practice medicine while developing a specialization.

We also demand a massive amount of qualification from doctors because we put our lives in their hands everyday.  It is extremely dangerous to the public if a practicing doctor who isn’t qualified slips through – either by deceit or a lapse in judgment within a specific medical governing body.

A recent study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine revealed that 1 out of 20 residency applications to the Harvard Teaching Hospital were found to be plagiarized.  Residents of the Harvard Teaching Hospital end up actively practicing at some of the most highly regarded hospitals in the world, including Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston. Those plagiarized residency essays that go undetected are essentially letting unqualified doctors through the doors, into the practicing medical field.

Boston.com recently reported on how the study came upon their findings: “To reach their conclusion, the authors examined almost 5,000 personal statements submitted as part of applications to the five largest residency programs — internal medicine, anesthesiology, general surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, and emergency medicine — at the hospital between September 2005 and March 2007. Depending on the specialty, between 28 and 45 percent of applicants nationwide sent their applications to the Brigham, so the authors believe their results mirror what may be happening across the country.”

If this is a trend within residency applications across the country, it is certainly alarming.  Imagine the uproar if a hospital declared that one out of twenty of its practicing doctors were unqualified; they had skipped some integral portion of their training, and yet they would still be treating patients.  The residency application is an integral portion of a doctor’s training and admittance to a prestigious medical program – they would normally be considered unqualified if their essay didn’t ‘cut the mustard.’  Plagiarized essays are falsely representing residents who are accepted into the program and then go on to practice.

Not only is the ratio of plagiarized essays alarming, but also the specific portions of the essays that were found to be plagiarized.   Some of the most personal segments which included stories and anecdotes of student experiences with illness and death were found to be completely fabricated.  Although the medical profession is often considered to be strictly scientific and data-driven, in reality it is incredibly personal.  In many cases, a good doctor should not only be able to diagnose and cure, but also be able to deal with patients on a ‘human level.’ A resident who completely disregarded this portion of the essay and plagiarized somebody else’s work should not be considered fit to practice.

Plagiarism prevention can come about in two ways.  The residency program first needs to educate potential residents on what plagiarism is.  In many cases, a resident may simply be unaware of plagiarism and the reason it is wrong. The second step is to create a ’safety net’ using plagiarism software.  Any applications that are still plagiarized can be weeded out using modern day plagiarism detection software that can cross check any submitted content with archived works and online content.  Using these plagiarism prevention methods, we can ensure the integrity and quality of medical practitioners.

Citations:

Cooney, Elizabeth. “1 in 20 residency applications contain plagiarism, study finds.” The Boston Globe, NY Times Co. 19 July 2010.  http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2010/07/_dr_scott_segal.html

Science Publishers Focus on Plagiarism

Plagiarism detection software took center stage as Nature recently published a revealing article that details how science publishers are equipping themselves to fight a growing trend in plagiarism within the research community.  The Nature article follows several publishers, including Nature Publishing Group itself, and their journey over the past two years utilizing CrossCheck, a plagiarism detection service that has revealed some eye opening figures.

CrossCheck employs iThenticate’s technology as the backbone of its service, allowing it to reference databases of deeply archived content along with more recent ’shallow’ content.  CrossRef, a non-profit consortium of thousands of research groups and publishers, operates the CrossCheck service.  As more publishers submit their material to an already massive database of content within CrossCheck (over 25.5 million articles), the service becomes consistently more efficient at catching plagiarism.

Some of the plagiarism figures from publishers testing the CrossCheck and iThenticate service are ground-breaking.  From Nature:  Taylor & Francis has been testing CrossCheck for 6 months on submissions to three of its science journals. In one, 21 of 216 submissions, or almost 10%, had to be rejected because they contained plagiarism; in the second journal, that rate was 6%; and in the third, 13 of 56 of articles (23%) were rejected after testing, according to Rachael Lammey, a publishing manager at Taylor & Francis’s offices in Abingdon, UK.

The data from the journals still has its variables, including the question of whether more people are plagiarizing or whether the technology is simply allowing publishers to discover instances at a higher rate. Either way, CrossCheck and iThenticate have already proven to be a valuable asset for science journals. The real difference between iThenticate and any other plagiarism detection service is its ability to access incredibly massive databases of content.  So far journals have made use of the technology on several levels, including discovering smaller instances of paraphrasing to entirely plagiarized works that match articles from long ago.

Over the next several years as more journals adopt similar technologies within their editorial processes, we’ll likely have even more accurate numbers on the levels of plagiarism out there.   Journals that have already adopted the plagiarism detection software are likely to see a drop in cases of plagiarized work over the next several years;  any potential plagiarizer that knows they probably will be caught is far less likely to commit the act in the first place.

Citations:

Butler, Declan “‘Journals step up plagiarism policing.” Nature Publishing Group. 5 July 2010. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100705/full/466167a.html

Plagiarism in the Cyber World

A new book said to be written by former hacker turned security consultant, Gregory D. Evans, has been recently marred by plagiarism accusations.    ‘World No. 1 Hacker,’ which was published by Cyber Crime Media Publishing House, is said to have several large portions duplicated from Armando Romeo’s content, which was previously published on hackercenter.com.

From The New New Internet: “However, vast portions of the book, published by Cyber Crime Media publishing house, appear to have been plagiarized. The majority of chapter 12 is, in fact, identical to a previously published tutorial by Armando Romeo published on hackerscenter.com in 2008. Portions of chapter 9 were also taken from another manual published on ethicalhacker.net.”

The instance of plagiarism was verified using iThenticate’s plagiarism detection software, which enabled the user to clearly see incidents of duplicate material between ‘World No. 1 Hacker’ and Romeo’s published content.  iThenticate is made to provide both powerful plagiarism detection features along with ease of use.  One of these features allowed all submitted content to be cross-checked against  new content that appears on the web – which is how this particular instance of plagiarism was discovered.  In addition, iThenticate allows submitted content to be referenced against deep repositories of older content from offline sources like research journals.

Cyber Security is clearly an important  frontier on the web – the well-being of large organizations depends on their ability to protect their proprietary information.   Although often overlooked, Content Security is also extremely important.  An author’s content – whether it is a blog post or a formal publishing – is their proprietary information.  Protecting an author’s content and preventing people from illicitly duplicating it is one of  iThenticate’s goals.

It is also iThenticate’s goal to help small and large publishing houses to protect their reputations by preventing any plagiarized content from getting out.  Although most authors are trustworthy, Cyber Crime Media should have made it a policy to run a content check on any materials before publishing them.  Using iThenticate before a problem existed would have saved the publisher money and time dealing with legal problems and bad press recovery.

Citations:

Cheek, Michael  “‘World No. 1 Hacker’ Marred by Plagiarism Allegations” The New New Internet,  Executive Mosaic LLC. 24 June 2010. http://www.thenewnewinternet.com/2010/06/24/world-no-1-hacker-marred-by-plagiarism-allegations/

Film Critic Plagiarism

There recently was an online plagiarism fiasco that involved a YouTube movie reviewer ripping off a number of film reviews straight from the website JoBlo.com.   The UK plagiarist, named Tom Perkins, was caught red-handed and admitted to stealing word for word transcripts of a large number of movie reviews and reading them back on his own YouTube show.  The worst part was that Perkins was an official YouTube contributor, which means he was making money by illegally duplicating other people’s hard work.

From joblo.com in response to the incident:  It’s kind of eerie to see that, and personally, as a writer, I just don’t see A) why anyone would fake reviews, as most of us do what we do because we love giving OUR opinions on movies and B) how do you think you’re going to get away with that indefinitely?

This case brings to light the realm of film critics and the danger plagiarism poses to their livelihood.  Giving the low-down on recent films has been a long standing tradition; movie reviews provide a great way to catch up on anything from big budget blockbusters to coffee house indie flicks.   Film critics include big names and publications like the Chicago Sun-Time’s Roger Ebert and the New York Time’s A.O. Scott.  Small niche publications like online blogs also have taken to giving their unique opinions on films.

The value add of a true film critic is putting a unique spin on a movie. A critic isn’t required to have an un-biased take on a film like the journalists in many other fields.  A film critic has the unique ability to tell a story within a story, providing their own creative input on a movie and letting readers decide whether or not to agree with them. This creativity is exactly why film critics face a growing danger from having their work plagiarized.

Roger Ebert relies on his unique literary voice to distinguish himself from the many other film critics out there.  If a plagiarist steals Ebert’s work from under his nose, it greatly diminishes the content’s value.  Not only does plagiarism detract from a film critic’s value, but it also hurt’s the associated publication.  The film review sections in the Chicago Sun-Times or the New York Times are some of the most read and useful parts of these papers.  These sections are one of the few places where publications can still distinguish themselves with well known critics and lengthy reviews that offer more substance than a simple ‘thumbs up or down’.

It would behoove any serious film critic or publication to ensure their intellectual property is properly protected by utilizing a plagiarism detection solution to cross check a variety of on and offline sources for any duplicate matches to their work.  It also would make sense that a large publication utilizes a plagiarism checker to ensures no plagiarized film reviews are coming out of their distribution.  A single plagiarized film review could seriously cripple a publication’s reputation.

Citations:

Tassi, Paul  “Meet the guy who plagiarized JoBlo.com’s entire review collection in 2010″ Joblo Media Inc. 10 May 2010. http://www.joblo.com/meet-the-guy-who-plagiarized-joblocoms-entire-review-collection-in-2010