Tag Archive for 'plagiarism prevention'

Perspectives on Plagiarism

Published on 2010/08/04 in Plagiarism, Plagiarism Case Studies, Plagiarism Discussion, Plagiarism News, plagiarism prevention and student plagiarism. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

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

Plagiarism Punishment

Published on 2010/06/23 in Plagiarism, Plagiarism Discussion, Plagiarism News, book publisher, plagiarism prevention and plagiarism punishment. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .
A recent article from Times Higher Education discusses a new ‘Tariff’ that academics in the UK are proposing that will lay out a universal system of penalties for university students that plagiarize.   The Tarriff proposal, which is posted in full on PlagiarismAdvice.org, states that the current penalties for plagiarism vary too much from university to university around the world.
From Times Higher Education: “Studies in this area have found high levels of inconsistency in the penalties universities employ to punish students who are found guilty of copying, with wide variations between, and even within, institutions.”
The outcome of such a system within the academic world brings up the plausibility  of a similar universal system of punishment for plagiarism within other sectors, such as publishing and research.  Plagiarism is a crime – that is a fact.  Just like with other forms of theft, the legal penalties for the crime vary depending on the severity.   Going into a store and stealing a pack of gum is a lesser offence compared with stealing a car.
From plagiarism.org:  Most cases of plagiarism are considered misdemeanors, punishable by fines of anywhere between $100 and $50,000 — and up to one year in jail. Plagiarism can also be considered a felony under certain state and federal laws. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail.
Although the legal ramifications of plagiarism are clearly spelled out, the actual outcome of such cases of plagiarism within industries like publishing and research aren’t always so clear.  For example, many recent cases of newspaper plagiarism simply end with the offender ‘resigning’ from their position at the company.   For the publisher, it’s usually best to make the story go away quietly to prevent the reputation of the company from being harmed.
What if a universal system of penalties was established within these industries?  The system could clearly spell out punishment for plagiarism – even determining which offenses would be ‘pushed’ toward criminal prosecution.  Although this seems like a sound idea, the effectiveness of the approach – bringing punishment to the forefront of the plagiarism problem – is debatable.
The situation falls within the realm of punishment vs. prevention.  Instead of spending resources to push penalties and punishments within these industries, the resources could be allocated towards preventing plagiarism from happening all together.
Plagiarism prevention can happen two ways:  education and technology.  The first step to preventing plagiarism is to educate people about what plagiarism is, why it is wrong and how to properly cite sources.  The second step to prevent plagiarism is to utilize detection software that can accurately weed out instances of duplicate content prior to distribution.   This effectively prevents any damage from being done because the plagiarized content never gets beyond a company’s walls.
Perhaps a two-fold approach would be best: moving towards a more universal system of plagiarism penalties within industries while also doubling up the effort by preventing plagiarism before it happens through education and technology.
Citations:

Attwood, Rebecca  ”Plagiarism tariff: let the punishment fit the demerit points” TLS Education Ltd. 17 June 2010.  http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=412088&c=1

Plagiarism Research Suggests Prevention is Better

Published on 2010/04/20 in Plagiarism Discussion, Plagiarism News and scientific research. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

Many of the current solutions aimed towards scientific misconduct (plagiarism in particular) revolve around what to do post-publication.   Dr. Malhar N. Kumar, a researcher out of Bangalore, suggests that this current model is ineffective.

Instead, he suggests a pro-active strategy for plagiarism prevention in the biomedical research field: “Science policing should not be limited to retrospective dissection of episodes of reported misconduct. A proactive method aimed at prevention should also become a part of the process,” he said.

In light of the  biomedical research field taking a hit in credibility due to cases of scientific misconduct, Kumar suggests several models that could proactively prevent such issues.  Some of these models include increasing ‘censorship’ over researchers, a regularly scheduled audit of scientific research activities, further educating researchers on scientific ethics, and maintaining a system of checking papers pre-publication.

A few of Kumar’s models, although perhaps effective, seem a bit Orwellian in nature.  Just as in any profession, scientific researchers would feel their creativity stifled if the level of censorship was dialed up too far.  In addition, having Big Brother look over a researcher’s shoulder or having regular audits would be time and capital intensive.

Of these proposed preemptive prevention models, two appear to be very feasible and potentially effective: providing researchers with a background in ethics as well as checking papers pre-publication.  Educating scientists on attribution, proper collaboration techniques and general research ethics is a long term strategy that could play a role in future generations of science.  Although this education may not cause an immediate drop in cases of misconduct, it would serve as a strategy to ensure a sound future in proper research.

Implementing a technology to check research papers prior to publication would provide immediate returns.   iThenticate has been developed to serve the scientific research field by cross checking any submitted work with a massive database of research that’s already out there.

This strategy would not be invasive to researchers like regular audits or any sort of censorship – it would simply require an editor to submit a paper to iThenticate’s easy-to-use online application prior to publication.  Any items of interest or misconduct would be highlighted, pre-screened and dealt with, preventing any potential post-publishing fallout.

Citations:

Kerur, Bhargavi  “Expert suggests models to tackle research misconduct”  DNA 12 Apr. 2010 http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_expert-suggests-models-to-tackle-research-misconduct_1370366

A Seal of Approval for News Publishers

Published on 2010/03/02 in Discussion and Plagiarism Discussion. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

There has been a recent series of plagiarism incidents coming out of news publications, from within large organizations like the New York Times to smaller ones like the Daily Beast.  In most cases the individual culprit ‘resigns’ and the publication maintains that it didn’t know about the misconduct until it was pointed out by some outside source.  The news organization usually says it will do everything possible to prevent something similar from occurring in the future, but more often than not they go back to doing things the same way as always.  Shouldn’t publishers show their readers that they are actually taking the due diligence to prevent plagiarism?

Utilizing a plagiarism checker like iThenticate doesn’t ensure a news publication a 100% guarantee against plagiarism; however it does drastically reduce the likelihood of something slipping through the cracks.   Making iThenticate a regular part of a publication’s editorial process allows all submitted content to be cross-checked with a massive online and offline database of content, instantly highlighting any duplicate content matches.    Not only does this process minimize the chance of a plagiarized article reaching distribution, it also serves as a ’seal of approval’ for readers.

Using a plagiarism checker says to readers that the quality and unique nature of the content they are reading is of the utmost importance to the publisher.  A publisher that says they care about catching plagiarism but doesn’t take the appropriate actions to back that up can’t truly tell the public that they are doing everything possible to prevent another incident from occurring.

Liken the process of consuming news content to buying produce at the supermarket. When you buy any sort of produce, it comes with a variety of labels that show it’s organic,  free range, healthy for the heart or any other number of certifications.  These labels are meant to guarantee that the produce has gone through some sort of externally organized certification process.  Utilizing iThenticate also certifies that a publisher has gone through an in-depth process to weed out the possibility of plagiarized content from reaching distribution.

In our current news climate, large papers are being threatened by new models of online distribution and smaller niche publications.  Standard subscriptions to papers are consistently dwindling and many large organizations are looking for new business models to stay afloat.   Most publications realize that in some shape or form they will need to transition the majority of their distribution to an online format within the next decade or so.

When the giants of the industry make this move, certifying that their content is truly unique becomes that much more important to their business model.   For readers that are potentially paying an online subscription fee to access content, they need to be ensured that this content cannot be found elsewhere in any shape or form (otherwise why pay?).  The seal of a plagiarism checker service helps to authenticate that the content truly is unique, and cannot be found elsewhere across the vast landscape of the internet or beyond.

In addition, if news publishers fully commit to the route of advertising as so many other online business do, the insurance that a plagiarism checker service provides also will come in handy.  Recently, we’ve seen celebrities like Tiger Woods dropped from endorsement deals because of a scandal that advertisers wanted nothing to do with.   The same goes for online advertising – no right minded advertiser would want their name or brand associated with a plagiarized piece of content.  Providing the proof that every piece of content has been run through a plagiarism checker can give advertisers the peace of mind that their money is well spent.

Citations:

Silverman, Craig. “To Catch a Plagiarist ” The Columbia Journalism Review 19 Feb. 2010 http://www.cjr.org/regret_the_error/to_catch_a_plagiarist.php

Poetry and Plagiarism

Published on 2010/02/02 in Plagiarism Discussion and Poetry. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

poetryPoetry is a literary form that depends on unique content.  Poems are distinguished on various levels of theme, verse, form and rhyme, with the end goal of leaving a reader with a message or emotional response to the written language.  There are several paths a poet can take to success, from publishing their work online to getting picked up by a professional journal or publisher.  No matter which direction a poet takes, their livelihood depends on maintaining the integrity of their work as their own.  If a poet’s work is plagiarized and republished without consent, it not only devalues the poem itself, but also undermines the writer’s vocation and livelihood.

Throughout history, there have been several cases of alleged plagiarism within the realm of the poetic.  Some of these cases range from verses of Shakespeare’s sonnets to T.S Elliot’s landmark piece ‘The Waste Land.’   Although it is important to look back and learn from these sensational cases, it also can be detrimental to get hung up on them.  Finger pointing has occurred, sometimes rightfully so, throughout the literary world for centuries – much of it doesn’t do any good in the end.  Although the integrity of the great historical works must be preserved by attributing them to a specific author, it is the content of today’s working poets that must be protected at all costs. Now more than ever, this content is at risk due to a growing threat of plagiarism.

Today’s Internet landscape presents both opportunity as well as risk for the poet.  Internet distribution allows a poet’s work to reach a global audience in a split second and gives them the ability to react to current events in near real-time. For example, in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake crisis, Poet Laureate Carol Ann Duffie mobilized a contingent of poets to write and raise money for the cause through a charity event called ‘Poetry Life for Haiti.’  This poetry served as a visceral and evocative way to raise awareness for the Haitian Crisis, which was amplified by the Internet’s ability to rapidly distribute the content.

Across the Internet there are various other examples of distribution methods for poets to publish their works and let the world see through their eyes, from individual websites and blogs to massive poetry directories.  However, just as the Internet makes distribution simple, it also makes potential poetry plagiarism that much easier.  A simple ‘copy-and-paste’ tactic can render a poet’s unique work  into an unattributed piece of online content.  On the Internet, content is king: a potential offender might plagiarize a poem not for its quality but rather to compile it with similarly themed poems and in the end profit from ad revenue based on a keyword or subject.

Reputable poetry distributors or publishers with an online presence face another problem with plagiarism.  If the publisher reviews and accepts pieces from a large number of poets, they need to be able to confirm that each poet’s submission is unique.  If a poet is facing a tight deadline (and doesn’t understand the gravity of plagiarism), they could easily clip a verse or full poem from another online source.   Letting any duplicate poems through the cracks can deplete the reputation of a publication as well as make them susceptible to costly litigation in the future.

For both the the individual freelance poet as well as the poetry publisher, it makes sense to invest in modern plagiarism checker technology.  iThenticate can cross-check poetry with a massive database of both archived as well as live online sources to root out instances of duplicate content.  It is important that modern technology like iThenticate is used to preserve the unique prose of today’s poets.

Citations:

Akbar, Arifa. “Poets Take up Pens in Aid of Haiti”  The Independent 29 Jan. 2010 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/poets-take-up-pens-in-aid-of-haiti-1882564.html