Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and otherquestionable writing practices: A guide toethical writingMiguel Roig, Ph.D.First on-line version published in September, 2003Revised on-line version published in August, 2006http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/Index.htmlPlease send any questions, omments, or suggestions to !iguel Roig, Ph"#"In recognizing the importance of educating aspiring scientists in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) the !ffice of Research Integrit" (!RI) began sponsoring in #$$# the creation of instructional resources to address this pressing need.%he present guide on a&oiding plagiarism and other inappropriate 'riting practices 'as created in partto meet this need.Its purpose is to help students as 'ell as professionals identif" and pre&ent such practices and to de&elop an a'areness of ethical 'riting.%his guide is one ofthe man" products stemming from !RIs educational initiati&es in the RCR.INTRODUCTION(cientific 'riting can be a complex and arduous process for it simultaneousl" demands clarit" and conciseness) t'o elements that often clash 'ith each other. In addition accurac" and integrit" are fundamental components of the scientific enterprise and therefore of scientific 'riting. %hus good scientific 'riting must be characterized b" clear expression conciseness accurac" of 'hat is being reported and perhaps most importantl" honest". *nfortunatel" 'riting or for that matter the entire scientific process often occurs 'ithin the constraints of tight deadlines and other competing pressures. +s a result of these constraints scientific papers 'hether generated b" science students or b" seasoned professionals 'ill at times be deficient in one or more of the abo&e components. Insufficient clarit" or lac, of conciseness are t"picall" unintentional and relati&el" eas" to remed" b" standard educational or editorial steps. -apses in the accurac" of 'hat isreported (e.g. fault" obser&ations incorrect interpretation of results) are also assumed to be most often unintentional in nature but such lapses e&en if unintentional can ha&e significant undesirable conse.uences if not corrected. Intentional lapses in integrit" e&en ifseemingl" minor are b" far the most serious t"pe of problem because such misconduct runs contrar" to the primar" goal of the scientific enterprise 'hich is the search for truth. /In scientific 'riting perhaps the most 'idel" recognized unethical lapse is plagiarism. 0lagiarism can occur in man" forms and some of the more subtle instances 'hile arguabl" unethical in nature ma" not be classified as scientific misconduct b" federal agencies such as the 1ational (cience 2oundation (1(2) or the !ffice of Research Integrit" (!RI). 1e&ertheless the ethical professional is expected to operate at the highest le&els of scientific integrit" and therefore must a&oid all forms of 'riting that could be conceptualized as plagiarism. %here are other .uestionable 'riting practices some of 'hich ma" be .uite common in professional scientific 'riting. !ne example is reporting and discussing results of one3s research in the context of literature that is supporti&e of our conclusions 'hile at the same time ignoring e&idence that is contrar" to our findings.+nother 'riting 4malpractice3 occurs 'hen another author3s re&ie' of a literature is used "et the reader is led to belie&e that the current author has conducted the actual re&ie'.On ethical writing+ general principle underl"ing ethical 'riting is the notion that the 'ritten 'or, of an author be it a manuscript for a magazine or scientific journal a research paper submitted for a course or a grant proposal submitted to a funding agenc" represents an implicit contract bet'een the author of that 'or, and its readers. +ccording to this implicit contract the reader assumes that the author is the sole originator of the 'ritten 'or, that an" text or ideas borro'ed from others are clearl" identified as such b" established scholarl" con&entions and that the ideas con&e"ed therein are accuratel" represented to thebest of the author3s abilities. In sum as 5olin (#$$#) points out 67thical 'riting is clear accurate fair and honest8. It also con&e"s to the reader that 'e stri&e for ethical conduct as 'ell as ethical practice. +s is the case 'ith most other human acti&ities errors in 'riting 'hich &iolate the spirit of the contract do occur. 2or example in proposing a ne' idea or data an author ma"dismiss a certain line of e&idence as unimportant and thus .uite unintentionall" ignore other established data or other e&idence that fail to support or outright contradict his/her o'n ideas or data thereb" misleading the reader. 9udging b" some of the readers3 letters and commentaries published in scientific journals in response to certain published articles this t"pe of o&ersight appears to be not all that uncommon in the sciences particularl" 'hen dealing 'ith contro&ersial topics. !ther errors include situations in 'hich an idea claimed b" its author to be completel" original ma" ha&e actuall" been articulated earlier b" someone else. (uch 6redisco&er"8 of ideas is a relati&el" 'ell:,no'n phenomenon in the sciences often occurring 'ithin a &er" close timeframe. Cogniti&e ps"chologists ha&e pro&ided considerable e&idence for the existence of cr"ptomnesia or unconscious plagiarism 'hichrefers to the notion that indi&iduals pre&iousl" exposed to others3 ideas 'ill often remember the idea but not its source and mista,enl" belie&e that the" themsel&es originated the idea. #!ther unintentional errors occur such as 'hen authors borro' hea&il" from a source and in careless o&ersight fail to full" credit the source. %hese and other t"pes of inad&ertent lapses are thought to occur 'ith some fre.uenc" in the sciences.*nfortunatel" in some cases such lapses are thought to be intentional and therefore constitute clear instances of unethical 'riting. ;ithout a doubt plagiarism is the most 'idel" recognized and one of the most serious &iolations of the contract bet'een the readerand the 'riter. E>). + reader of the scientific literature might assume that H# (see for example (hatz />>A) >>).G!ideline "#+n ethical 'riter +-;+I( ac,no'ledges the contributions of others and the source of his/her ideas.Plagiarism of te$t Copying a portion of text from another source without giving credit to its author and without enclosing the borrowed text in quotation marks. ;hen it comes to using others3 'ord:for:'ord (&erbatim) text in our 'riting the uni&ersall" accepted rule is to enclose that information in .uotations and to indicate the specific source of that text. ;hen .uoting text from other sources "ou must pro&ide a reference citation and the page number indicating 'here the text comes from. +lthough theuse of direct .uotes is uncommon in the biomedical literature there ma" be occasions 'hen it is 'arranted. %he material .uoted earlier from Dilchrist (/>E>) ser&es as a good example of 'hen to use .uotations. +lthough the e&idence indicates that most authors including college students are a'are of rules regarding the use of .uotation mar,s plagiarism of text is probabl" the mostcommon t"pe of plagiarism.=o'e&er plagiarism of text can occur in a &ariet" of forms. %he follo'ing re&ie' 'ill allo' the reader to become familiar 'ith the &arious subtle forms of plagiarism of text.G!ideline %: +n" &erbatim text ta,en from another author must be enclosed in .uotation mar,s.-et3s consider the follo'ing &ariet": G Copying a portion of text from one or more sources, inserting andor deleting some of the words, or substituting some words with synonyms, but never giving credit to its author nor enclosing the verbatim material in quotation marks.%he abo&e form of plagiarism is relati&el" 'ell ,no'n and has been gi&en names such as patch'riting (=o'ard />>>) and paraphragiarism (-e&in B >A). I&erson et al. (/>>?) in the +merican In their attempts at paraphrasing sometimes authors commit 4near plagiarism3 (or plagiarism depending on 'ho is doing the judging) because the" fail to sufficientl" modif"the original text and thus produce an inappropriatel" paraphrased &ersion. @epending on the extent of modifications to the original the extent of text in&ol&ed and on 'ho is doing the judging inappropriate paraphrasing ma" constitute an instance of plagiarism. 2or example the follo'ing &ersions of the >#) lists the follo'ing s"non"ms for affinity' accord, agreement, attraction, friendship, inclination, marriage relationship, preference, relationship, similarity, and tendency. +lthough it might be possible to re'rite the first sentence using the s"non"m /attraction8 this alternati&e fails to capture the precise meaning con&e"ed b" the original sentence gi&en ho' the term is used in this area of biomedical research. %he fact of the matter is that/Athe 'ord affinity has a &er" specific denotation in the context in 'hich is being used in the -cience paragraph and it is the onl" practical and meaningful alternati&e a&ailable. %he same can be said for other 'ords that might ha&e s"non"ms (e.g. binding silencing site). !ther terms such as methylation and antibodies are uni.ue and do not ha&e s"non"ms a&ailable. In sum most of the terms (e.g. immunoprecipitation endogenous coimmunoprecipitated) and expressions (e.g. =+:tagged high:affinit" mammalian histone l"sing meth"ltransferase) in the abo&e paragraph are extremel" difficult if not impossible to substitute 'ithout altering the intended meaning of the paragraph. +s a result the paraphrased &ersion loo,s some'hat similar to the original and thus appl"ing the strict definitions of paraphrasing such as those pro&ided b" some 'riting guides 'ouldrender our paragraph as a borderline or an outright case of plagiarism.0erhaps in recognition of the fact that highl" technical descriptions of a methodolog" phenomena etc. can be extremel" difficult if not impossible to properl" paraphrase !RI3s definition of plagiarism pro&ides the follo'ing ca&eat:2!H) generally does not pursue the limited use of identical or nearlyGidentical phrases which describe a commonlyGused methodology or previous research because !H) does not consider such use as substantially misleading to the reader or of great significance.5 %he abo&e considerations ma" underlie the reason for the absence of an operationaldefinition of proper paraphrasing.1e&ertheless and in spite of the abo&e clarification pro&ided b" !RI the follo'ing guideline is offered: G!ideline 8# + responsible 'riter has an ethical responsibilit" to readers and to the author/s from 'hom s/he is borro'ing to respectothers3 ideas and 'ords to credit those from 'hom 'e borro' and 'hene&er possible to use one3s o'n 'ords 'hen paraphrasing. Plagiarism and common nowledge +s has been pointed earlier one must gi&e credit to those 'hose ideas and facts 'e are using. !ne general exception to this principle occurs 'hen the ideas 'e are discussing represent 4common ,no'ledge3. If the material 'e are discussing is assumed to be ,no'n b" the readership then one need not cite its origin. (uppose "ou are an +merican student 'riting a paper on the histor" of the *nited (tates for a college course and in "our paper "ou mention the fact that Deorge ;ashington 'as the first president of the *nited (tates and that the @eclaration of Independence 'as signed in the "ear /EEG. H) and most of the major scientific 'riting guides caution against them (e.g. I&erson et al. />>?). ;hile the accepted practice for authors of manuscripts that are intended to be published as trade boo,s is to send their manuscript to se&eral publishers the standard practice for authors of scientific or scholarl" papers is to submit their paper for publication to a single journal. +n author ma" submit the same paper or a re&ised &ersion of it to another journal once it is determined that the first journal 'ill not publish it. !nl" under exceptional circumstances 'ould it be acceptable for a paper published in one journal to appear in another journal. In spite of these uni&ersall" accepted practices redundant publication/N/O continues to be a problem in the biomedical sciences. 2or example in a recent editorial (chein (#$$/) describes the results of a stud" he and a colleague carried out in 'hich the authors found that ># out of GG$ studies ta,en from A major surgical journals 'ere actual cases of redundant publication. ;hile some authors ha&e estimated that bet'een /$P to #$P of the biomedical literature is laden 'ith redundant publications (9efferson />>?) a recent re&ie' of the literature suggests the more conser&ati&e figure of //Eapproximatel" /$P ((tenec, #$$$). %he current situation has become so serious ho'e&erthat man" biomedical journals ha&e begun to publish policies clarif"ing their opposition to multiple submissions of the same paper. (ome journals no' re.uest that authors 'ho submit a manuscript for re&ie' must also submit pre&iousl" published papers or those that are currentl" under re&ie' that are related to the topic of the manuscript under consideration. %his re.uirement has been implemented to allo' editors to determine 'hether the extent of o&erlap bet'een such papers 'arrants the publication of "et another paper.If in the opinion of the editor the extent of o&erlap 'ere substantial the paper 'ould li,el" not be published. Instances in which d!al '!4lication ma, 4e acce'ta4le(ome authors 'ho submit the same article to more than one journal do so 'ith the rationale that their paper 'ould be of interest to each set of readers 'ho 'ould probabl" not other'ise be a'are of the other publication. Indeed circumstances ha&e been identified'hich 'ould justif" the dual publication of a paper. =o'e&er the editors of both journals 'ould ha&e to agree to this arrangement and the existence of each &ersion of the published paper 'ould ha&e to be made clear to each set of readers. Flancett 2lanagin B Ioung (/>>H) cited in I&erson et al. />>?) pro&ide a number of scenarios 'here dual publication ma" be acceptable (see also the International Committee of ?>). If the results of a single complex stud" are best presented as a 4cohesi&e3 single 'hole the" should not be partitioned into indi&idual papers. 2urthermore if there is an" doubt as to 'hether a paper submitted for publication represents fragmented data authors should enclose other papers (published or unpublished) that might be part of the paper under consideration (5assirer B +ngell />>H). (imilarl" old data that has been merel" augmented 'ith additional data points andthat is subse.uentl" presented as a ne' stud" is an e.uall" serious ethical breach.

!ne element li,el" to be common to both redundant publication and salami publication is the potential for cop"right infringement. %his is because data or text (or both elements) appearing in one cop"righted publication 'ill also appear in another publication 'hose cop"right is o'ned b" a different entit".-et3s turn our attention no' to this topic.Co',right Law#$Fecause some instances of plagiarism and self:plagiarism (e.g. redundant publication) ha&e the potential for &iolating cop"right la' the follo'ing section is de&otedto a brief re&ie' of the concept of cop"right. Cop"right la' is based on +rticle / sec. ? cl. ? of the *nited (tates Constitution. It3s fundamental purpose 'as to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. !nce o'ners of an artistic (e.g. song l"rics films) or an intellectual 'or, (e.g. boo, article) cop"right a product the" ha&e the exclusi&e right to publish reproduce sell distribute or modif" those products. 2or authors 'ho 'ishto ha&e their papers published in traditional journals the t"pical arrangement is for the cop"right of the author3s 'or, to be transferred to the publisher of the journal. %he journal can then reproduce and distribute the author3s 'or, legall". +n increasing number of journals no' allo' the author to maintain o'nership of their 'or, but both entities sign an agreement specif"ing the journals3 right to publish and re:use the author3s material. In the case of 6!pen +ccess8 journals (freel" a&ailable to the public 'ithout expectation of pa"ment) the author agrees to allo' for the free dissemination of his/her 'or,s 'ithout prior permission. ;ith some exceptions the unauthorized use of cop"righted 'or, &iolates cop"rightla' and represents cop"right infringement.7xceptions to cop"right infringement fall under the doctrine of 62air *se8 of cop"right la' and represent instances in 'hich the acti&it" is largel" for nonprofit educational scholarship or research purposes (see *( Cop"right !ffice />>G).2or example in some situations a student or indi&idual researcher ma" ma,e a cop" of a journal article or boo, chapter for his/her o'n personal use 'ithout as,ing permission. -i,e'ise an author describing the results of a published stud" ma" ta,e a couple of lines of data from a table from a journal article include a citation and reproduce it in his/her paper. %he +merican >?) cautions the reader that the amount of text that can be ta,en from a cop"righted source 'ithout permission depends on its proportion to the entire 'or,.=o'e&er the reader should also note that some publishers ha&e established 'ord limits forborro'ing text.2or example according to the 0ublication A). %hese constraints sometimes present a real challenge for authors 'ho must al'a"s ma,e an effort to simplif" their literature re&ie's and onl" include a &er" concise summar" of highl" rele&ant papers. !b&iousl" literature that is cited in support of our point of &ie' must be grounded in sound arguments tight research methodologies and fla'less data. Citing references in support of our 'or, that are ,no'n to be methodologicall" or logicall" deficient and that fail to mention these shortcomings is ethicall" inappropriate. -i,e'ise if in our search for rele&ant literature 'e become a'are of important rele&ant e&idence that runs contrar" to our data or point of &ie' 'e ha&e an ethical obligation to cite such e&idence either in the introduction or the discussion section of our paper and to do so objecti&el". !f course there are instances in 'hich the extent of our re&ie' is extremel" limited as for example 'hen reporting in the format of a short communication or brief report. (pace limitations in such contexts ma" be such that it is impractical to pro&ide ade.uate co&erage of rele&ant literature let alone contrar" e&idence. Di&en that the main purpose of a literature re&ie' is to find e&idence in support of our research it is not uncommon to find instances in 'hich authors fail to cite rele&ant literature that runs contrar" to their thesis. Fased on the pace at 'hich science and scholarship continues to gro' that man" of these lapses ma" be due to authors3 inabilit" to,eep up 'ith the burgeoning literature. =o'e&er a perusal of scholarl" journals that acceptletters to the editor as commentaries to recentl" published articles 'ill re&eal instances in 'hich such 'riting practices appear intentional (see Doodman />>?) 0er,in />>>) 1athan />>C). GUID/LIN/ %>#;hen appropriate authors ha&e an ethical responsibilit" to report e&idence that runs contrar" to their point of &ie'.In addition e&idence that 'e use in support of our position must be methodologicall" sound.;hen citing supporting studies that suffer from methodological statistical or other t"pes of shortcomings such fla's must be pointed out to the reader.Selecti1e re'orting of Methodolog,AAReplication of others3 research is one of the hallmar,s of the scientific enterprise. +s such scientists and scholars ha&e a responsibilit" to inform others about the specific procedures used in their research. %his information is t"picall" found in the methods section of a research paper the purpose of 'hich is to pro&ide other researchers 'ith sufficient details about the stud" so that in the e&ent that an"one 'ishes to replicate the stud" the" 'ill ha&e enough information to do so. 2or example 'e identif" the subjects ofour stud" (e.g. select clinical population specific species of animals) and pro&ide important details about characteristics of the sample such as ho' subjects 'ere recruited that are rele&ant to the ,inds of &ariables that are being manipulated and measured.%he >A) 'ho ha&e 'ritten on these issues. +ccording to theseauthors:/!o be included as an author on a scholarly publication, a student should, in a cumulative sense, make a professional contribution that is creative and intellectual in nature, that is integral to completion of the paper, and that requires an overarching perspective of the pro$ect. &xamples of professional contributions include developing the research design, writing portions of the manuscript, AEintegrating diverse theoretical perspectives, developing new conceptual models, designing assessments, contributing to data analysis decision and interpreting results 01 (p. //CH).2acult" mentors might thin, of the abo&e guidelines for students as being rather harsh. =o'e&er consider part of the rationale for these authors3 position that a'arding authorship to an undeser&ing student is unethical:/%irst, a publication on one+s record that is not legitimately earned may falsely represent the individual+s scholarly expertise.-econd, if because he or she is now a published author, the student is perceived as being more skilled than a peer who is not published, the student is given an unfair advantage professionally. %inally, if the student is perceived to have a level of competence that he or she does not actually have, he or she will be expected to accomplish tasks that may be outside the student+s range of expertise1 (p. //CA). !n the other hand there is e&idence suggesting that students3 earned authorship credit is sometimes underrepresented or outright denied b" super&ising facult" (('aze" +nderson B -e'is />>A) %arno' />>>). Clearl" such outcomes are e.uall" unethical as the" rob the deser&ing student of their due credit. GUID/LIN/ %*#2acult":student collaborations should follo' the same criteria to establish authorship. >H)3s personal account as a Dhost'riter. (ituations in 'hich authors 'hether students or professionals find themsel&es in need of extensi&e external assistance 'ith their 'riting can also raise some interesting ethical dilemmas. 2or example consider the doctoral candidate 'ho because of limited 'riting s,ills relies hea&il" on an indi&idual or editorial ser&ice resulting in that indi&idual ma,ingsubstantial editorial changes to the 'riting of the thesis. (uch a situation ma" be acceptableas long as the named author indicates in a b"line or ac,no'ledgement section the full extent of others3 assistance. %his ho'e&er is not al'a"s done and one of the reasons is that such ac,no'ledgement ma" reflect negati&el" on the author as possibl" indicating thats/he does not ha&e the necessar" s,ills expected of a doctoral candidate. F" mischaracterizing or b" not ac,no'ledging altogether the high le&el of assistance recei&edstudents falsel" portra" a le&el of academic competenc" that the" trul" lac,. In instances in'hich doctoral students anticipate rel"ing on outside indi&iduals to help 'ith the 'riting ofa thesis or e&en term paper it is strongl" recommended that the" confer 'ith their thesis committee and super&isor to determine the accepted parameters of such assistance and to full" disclose the nature of the assistance recei&ed. Professional Ghost A!thorshi' In the literar" 'orld ghost authorship is most often associated 'ith celebrit":authored 'or,s in 'hich a celebrit" together 'ith a s,illed 'riter produce 'ritten products such as an autobiograph" or a sort of 6tell all8 boo,. +lthough much of the 'riting ma" be done b"the ghost 'riter his/her contributions are not al'a"s ac,no'ledged and conse.uentl" in those instances the reader ma" be mislead into belie&ing that the celebrit" is the sole authorof the 'or,. In the biomedical sciences ghost 'riting has become particularl" problematic (see 1gai Dold Dill B Rochon #$$H). 2or example in a t"pical scenario a pharmaceutical ormedical de&ice compan" 'ill hire an outside researcher 'ith ,no'n expertise in the compan"3s line of products (e.g. antidepressants) to 'rite an 6balanced 8 re&ie' of their product. %o facilitate the 'rite:up of the paper the compan" furnishes the expert 'ith a draft of the paper that had alread" been prepared b" a ghost author emplo"ed b" the compan". +nd as it often happens in these t"pes of cases the resulting paper ends up portra"ing the product in a more fa&orable light than in realit" it might deser&e. %he extent of ghost contributions can range from the initial draft framing of a manuscript to the complete or nearl" complete 'rite:up of the paper (see the distinction A>made b" Chalmers as cited b" +ltus #$$G). In either case the main concern is the extent to'hich the 'riting influences the reader to'ard a particular product or point of &ie' rather than presenting an unbiased position or data. In the past fe' "ears se&eral articles and editorials ha&e condemned the practice as ethicall" .uestionable. 2or example the ;orld +ssociation of >?) collected a sample of published reports (e.g. studies letters to the editor) on the safet" of calcium channel bloc,ers drugs used to treat cardio&ascular disease and correlated the authors3 conclusions about their efficac" 'ith 'hether or not the in&estigators had recei&ed financial support from companies that manufacture those t"pes of drugs. %he results re&ealed a strong association bet'een conclusions that 'ere supporti&e of the drugs and prior financial support from companies that 'ere associated 'ith those t"pes of drugs. %o ameliorate the situation research institutions professional societies and an increasing number of journals ha&e formulated guidelines for dealing 'ith potential conflicts of interest. 7ssentiall" most of these guidelines re.uire authors to disclose such conflicts either in the co&er letter to the editor of the journal to 'hich an in&estigator submits a manuscript and/or in a footnote on the manuscript itself.2or additional details consult the &arious statements listed in the !RI 'eb site (see next section). GUID/LIN/ %7: +uthors must become a'are of possible conflicts of interest in their o'n research and to ma,e e&er" effort to disclosethose situations (e.g. stoc, o'nership consulting agreements to thesponsoring organization) that ma" pose actual or potential conflicts of interest. Com'lete list of G!idelines C/Lins to reso!rces on Conflicts of Interest listed 4, ORIOn 0eing A Scientist# Res'onsi4le Cond!ct in ResearchDraft Interim G!idance on :inancial Relationshi's in Clinical Research# DAAS Re'ort on Indi1id!al :inancial Interest in A!man S!4Dects Research# AAMC Re'ort on Conflict of Interest in 0iomedical Research# GAOConflict of Interest Statement ; NIA /. +n ethical 'riter +-;+I( ac,no'ledges the contributions of others and the source of his/her ideas. #. +n" &erbatim text ta,en from another author must be enclosed in .uotation mar,s. A. ;e must al'a"s ac,no'ledge e&er" source that 'e use in our 'riting) 'hether 'e paraphrase it summarize it or enclose it .uotations. C. ;hen 'e summarize 'e condense in our o'n 'ords a substantial amount of material into a short paragraph or perhaps e&en into a sentence. H. ;hether 'e are paraphrasing or summarizing 'e must al'a"s identif" the source of our information. G. ;hen paraphrasing and/or summarizing others3 'or, 'e must reproduce the exact meaning of the other author3s ideas or facts using our 'ords and sentence structure. E. In order to ma,e substantial modifications to the original text that result in a proper paraphrase the author must ha&e a thorough understanding of the ideas and terminolog" being used. ?. + responsible 'riter has an ethical responsibilit" to readers and to the author/s from 'hom s/he is borro'ing to respect others3 ideas and 'ords to credit those from 'hom 'e borro' and 'hene&er possible to use one3s o'n 'ords 'hen paraphrasing. >. ;hen in doubt as to 'hether a concept or fact is common ,no'ledge pro&ide a citation. /$. +uthors 'ho submit a manuscript for publication containing data re&ie's conclusions etc. that ha&e alread" been disseminated in some significant manner (e.g. published as an article in another journal presented at a conference posted on the internet)must clearl" indicate to the editors and readers the nature of the pre&ious dissemination. //. +uthors of complex studies should heed the ad&ice pre&iousl" put forth b" +ngell B Relman (/>?>). If the results of a single complex stud" are best presented as a 4cohesi&e3 single 'hole the" should not be partitioned into indi&idual papers. 2urthermore if there is an" doubt as to 'hether a paper submitted for publication represents fragmented data authors should enclose other papers (published or unpublished) that might be part of the paper under consideration (5assirer B +ngell />>H) /#. Fecause some instances of plagiarism self:plagiarism and e&en some 'riting practicesthat might other'ise be acceptable (e.g. extensi&e paraphrasing or .uoting of ,e" elementsof a boo,) can constitute cop"right infringement authors are strongl" encouraged to become familiar 'ith basic elements of cop"right la'. /A. ;hile there are some situations 'here text rec"cling is an acceptable practice it ma" not be so in other situations. +uthors are urged to adhere to the spirit of ethical 'riting and C#a&oid reusing their o'n pre&iousl" published text unless it is done in a manner consistent 'ith standard scholarl" con&entions (e.g. b" using of .uotations and proper paraphrasing). /C. +uthors are strongl" urged to double:chec, their citations. (pecificall" authors should al'a"s ensure that each reference notation appearing in the bod" of the manuscript corresponds to the correct citation listed in the reference section and that each source listedin the reference section has been cited at some point in the manuscript. In addition authors should also ensure that all elements of a citation (e.g. spelling of authors3 names &olume number of journal pagination) are deri&ed directl" from the original paper rather than from a citation that appears on a secondar" source. 2inall" authors should ensure that credit is gi&en to those authors 'ho first reported the phenomenon being studied. /H. %he references used in a paper should onl" be those that are directl" related to its contents. %he intentional inclusion of references of .uestionable rele&ance for purposes of manipulating a journal3s or a paper3s impact factor or a paper3s chances of acceptance is anunacceptable practice. /G. +uthors should follo' a simple rule: (tri&e to obtain the actual published paper. ;hen the published paper cannot be obtained cite the specific &ersion of the material being used'hether it is conference presentation abstract or an unpublished manuscript. /E. Denerall" 'hen describing others3 'or, do not rel" on a secondar" summar" of that 'or,. It is a decepti&e practice reflects poor scholarl" standards and can lead to a fla'ed description of the 'or, described. /?. If an author must rel" on a secondar" source (e.g. textboo,) to describe the contents ofa primar" source (e.g. an empirical journal article) s/he should consult 'riting manuals used in her discipline to follo' the proper con&ention to do so. +bo&e all al'a"s indicate the actual source of the information being reported. />. ;hen borro'ing hea&il" from a source authors should al'a"s craft their 'riting in a 'a" that ma,es clear to readers 'hich ideas are their o'n and 'hich are deri&ed from the source being consulted. #$. ;hen appropriate authors ha&e an ethical responsibilit" to report e&idence that runs contrar" to their point of &ie'. In addition e&idence that 'e use in support of our position must be methodologicall" sound. ;hen citing supporting studies that suffer from methodological statistical or other t"pes of shortcomings such fla's must be pointed out to the reader. #/. +uthors ha&e an ethical obligation to report all aspects of the stud" that ma" impact theindependent replicabilit" of their research. ##. Researchers ha&e an ethical responsibilit" to report the results of their studies according to their a priori plans. +n" post hoc manipulations that ma" alter the results initiall" obtained such as the elimination of outliers or the use of alternati&e statistical CAtechni.ues must be clearl" described along 'ith an acceptable rationale for using such techni.ues. #A. +uthorship determination should be discussed prior to commencing a research collaboration and should be based on established guidelines such as those of the International Committee of ). Redundant publication. 6ew &ngland 2ournal of 3edicine, *)7, /#/#:/C. +merican +ssociation of *ni&ersit" 0rofessors ((eptember/!ctober />?>). R(tatement on 0lagiarism.R Academe, 85 H CE:C?. Flancett (. (. 2lanagin +. B Ioung R. 5. (/>>H). @uplicate publication in the nursing literature. #3A9& 2ournal of 6ursing -cholarship, )8 H/:HG. Firos >#). .oget+s #nternational thesaurus 5th edition. 1e' Ior,: =arperCollins. @orland ;. +. (#$$$). =orland+s illustrated medical dictionary, )>th edition. 0hiladelphia: ;. F. (aunders. 2ine >A). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on facult":student collaborations. American ?sychologist, @4 //C/://CE. Dilchrist +. (/>E>). %he perception of surface blac,s and 'hites. -cientific American, )@ ??:>E. Doodman 1. (/>>?). 0aper failed to mention earlier re&ie' (letter). :ritish 3edical 2ournal, *(8, ??C. =ac,er @. (#$$$). A pocket style manual, *rd edition. 1.I.: Fedford/(t. >>). !he plague of plagiarism. @epartment of Religious (tudies. %he *ni&ersit" of Calgar". Retrie&ed H). Redundant publication: + reminder. !he 6ew &ngland 2ournal of 3edicine, ***, CC>:CH$. Retrie&ed . 5olin 2. C. (#$$#). -uccessful Ariting at Aork, Bth &dition. =oughton A). 0ublishing in the 9ournal of 7ducational 0s"cholog": Reflections at midstream (7ditorial). 2ournal of &ducational ?sychology, 45 A:G. -ogan %. 5. ;al,er R. Cole 9. B -eu,efeld C. (#$$#). Tictimization and substance abuse among 'omen: Contributing factors inter&entions and implications. .eviewof 9eneral ?sychology, B A#H:A>E. -un"a, T. et al. (#$$#). Corepressor:dependent silencing of chromosomal regions encoding neuronal genes.-cience, )>4 /ECE:/EHG. >E). Credit 'here credit is due. Campus .eview, 8, //. Retrie&ed 2ebruar" Ard #$$A from http://'''.uo'.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/plagiarismfraud.html. $A/fulltext(tandler R. F. (#$$$). ?lagiarism in Colleges in ,-A. Retrie&ed 2ebruar" /Eth #$$A from http://'''.rbs#.com/plag.htm.(teinbo, 0. (/>>H). 7thical considerations relating to 'riting a medical scientific paper forpublication. Child+s 6ervous -ystem, ((, A#A:A#?. (telfox =. %. Chua D. !3Rour,e 5. @ets," +. (. (/>>?). Conflict of interest in the debate o&er calcium:channel antagonists. !he 6ew &ngland 2ournal of 3edicine, **4 /$/:/$G. Retrie&ed 9une #$th #$$A from http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/AA?/#//$/.(tenec, 1. =. (#$$$). +ssessing the integrit" of publicl" funded research. In ?roceedings of the %irst ".# .esearch Conference on .esearch #ntegrity. !ffice of Research Integrit" (pp. /:/G). Retrie&ed +ugust /Cth #$$G from CEhttp://''':personal.umich.edu/~nstenec,/publications/(tenec,U1U$#.pdf. ('aze" 9.0. +nderson >>. %he +uthorship -ist in (cience: 9unior 0h"sicistsV 0erceptions of ;ho +ppears and ;h". -cience and &ngineering &thics, H EA:?? retrie&ed +ugust /Cth #$$G from http://onlineethics.org/essa"s/author/authorship.html. %a"lor @. #. *.(. 0ublic =ealth (er&ice. (+ugust ? />?>).Responsibilit" of 0=( a'ardee and applicant institutions for dealing 'ith and reporting possible misconduct in science.5@ %ederal .egister /H/) C# CR2 0art H$ A#CCG:H/. ;atson 9. F. and Ra"ner R. (/>#$). Conditioned emotional reactions. 2ournal of &xperimental ?sychology, * /:/C. Retrie&ed on +ugust /Cth #$$G from http://ps"chclassics."or,u.ca/;atson/emotion.htm. ;heeler +. D. (/>?>). %he pressure to publish promotes disreputable science. !he -cientist, * (/C): //. Retrie&ed 7arlier 'hen 'e co&ered paraphrasing and plagiarism 'e offered &arious examples of properl" paraphrased and plagiarized text.Fecause inappropriate paraphrasing appears to be one of the most common forms of plagiarism it is important that contributors to the scientific literature become sensiti&e to this problem and integrate proper paraphrasing practices in their 'riting.%o that effect an exercise has been de&eloped for the purpose of offering instruction on acceptable paraphrasing strategies. 2or this exercise the reader is as,ed to imagine the follo'ing scenario:Iou are 'or,ing on a manuscript in 'hich "ou re&ie' published studies on the colon" raiding beha&ior of fire ants -. invicta.In one of the journal articles that "ou are reading for "our re&ie' there is a short paragraph that "ou deem &er" important and thus "ou decide that "ou 'ant to include the information in "our manuscript.=ere is the paragraph: !his study examines whether workers of -. invicta are able to assist their mothers in colony usurpations.%irst we tested whether FqueensG of -. invicta are better able to usurp colonies to which their daughters have moved.-econd, we tested whether the effect of daughters on usurpation success is due to familiarity with the queen or to genetic relatedness.Aggressive behavior during these usurpation attempts was observed to determine if thepresence of familiar or related workers influenced the aggressive response toward either the resident queen or the queen attempting usurpation.H.KFalas < +dams 7( />>G.Intraspecific usurpation of incipient fire ant colonies.Feha& 7col ?:>>:/$A.Iou could cop" the abo&e paragraph &erbatim enclose it in .uotation mar,s and include it in "our manuscript but as is generall" ,no'n in the biomedical sciences the use of .uoted text a fairl" common practice in certain disciplines 'ithin the humanities is t"picall" shunned b" most authors and editors of biomedical journals. +nother option 'ould be for "ou to summarize the important points of the abo&e paragraph b" condensing it into one or t'o shorter sentences that full" capture the essence of the ideas being con&e"ed.=o'e&er let3s assume that "our intention is to paraphrase the entire paragraph thereb" preser&ing all of the information contained in the paragraph.=o' 'ould "ou paraphrase the paragraph 'ithout committing plagiarism and in a manner that is consistent 'ith the principles of ethical 'ritingM2or the first part of this exercise please paraphrase the abo&e paragraph to the best of "our abilit".%a,e "our time and use 'hate&er resources "ou deem necessar" (e.g. dictionar" thesaurus).Fefore commencing ,eep in mind that 'hen paraphrasing "ou must substantiall" modif" the original text 'hile preser&ing the exact meaning of the ideas con&e"ed in the original paragraph.Iou should note that 'hen faced 'ith the tas, of paraphrasing text man" indi&iduals often complain that the reason their paraphrases are too close to the original is because there are onl" a limited number of 'a"s that one can express the same thought.+lthough this ma" be true to some extent 'hen the original text is comprised of highl" technical language such as the paragraph on mammalian histone l"sine meth"ltransferase used earlier in our discussion of plagiarism it is not true for most H$other 'riting.It is certainl" not true for the sample paragraph on fire ants that 'e ha&e selected.Iou should also remember that "our paraphrase must also indicate the source of theoriginal material. %his is t"picall" done 'ith either a footnote or 'ith some form of parenthetical notation indicating the source of the original.2or example in the st"le suggested b" the +merican 0s"chological +ssociation "ou might insert the follo'ing at the end of "our paraphrase: (Falas and +dams />>G).2or this exercise please assume that"our paraphrase contains the proper reference notation indicating the source of the material.Iou should also assume that a full citation has been placed in the reference section of "our paper.*se the space belo' to paraphrase the paragraph:UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU%he second part of the exercise 'ill help "ou to determine 'hether "our re'ritten &ersion of the paragraph meets the re.uirements of an appropriate paraphrase.2or this portion of the exercise "ou are to place "ourself in the same scenario as described abo&e: %hat "ou are 'riting a paper on the ecolog" and beha&ior of fire ants and that "ou disco&er a paragraph that "ou 'ish to paraphrase in "our paper. Felo' "ou 'ill find se&eral re'ritten &ersions of the original paragraph.0lease examine each &ersion and determine 'hether it has been properl" paraphrased or 'hether it constitutes an instance of potential plagiarism.+s "ou consider each re'ritten &ersion please assume that "ou ha&e alread" incorporated it into "our manuscript and that "ou are no' re&ie'ing that section of "our paper for accurac" and proper scholarship.Immediatel" after "ou select "our ans'er "ou 'ill be gi&en feedbac, as to the correctness of "our responses.!RIDI1+- 0+R+DR+0=/!his study examines whether workers of -. invicta are able to assist their mothers in colony usurpations.%irst we tested H/whether FqueensGof -. invicta are better able to usurp colonies to which their daughters have moved.-econd, we tested whether the effect of daughters on usurpation success is due to familiarity with the queen or to genetic relatedness.Aggressive behavior during these usurpation attempts was observed to determine if thepresence of familiar or related workers influenced the aggressive response toward either the resident queen or the queen attempting usurpation.1;/ . 1/7=;=A