Plagiarism is not acceptable in science or for Cancer Biology & Therapy

Abstract

Webster’s dictionary defines plagiarism as the act of stealing and using the ideas or writings of another as one’s own.

In science authors build upon past efforts and can quote or paraphrase ideas with acknowledgement of the source through proper citation. It is the obligation of authors to search the literature in their area of focus and to cite prior work. There are times when new findings are discovered simultaneously by two or more investigators or groups working independently and this becomes recognized eventually by a particular field in part through reading the literature.

Is it difficult to cite prior work or acknowledge that important contributions were made by others in the past that are directly relevant to one’s new findings? The answer is no. It really generally doesn’t diminish novel findings but may in the opinions of some suggest a particular work only adds incremental knowledge as opposed to the impression that might result if one didn’t know about prior work in the area. It is far preferable to live with others thinking a particular work provides an incremental advance than for the work to be known as plagiarized.

Is there a good excuse for not citing an original prior work that is directly relevant to an original publication particularly if the prior work was performed and published several years earlier? The answer is generally no. There are times when there are multiple original citations or too many citations and authors choose to cite reviews rather than citing the original citations. Authors need to use their judgment on whether citing a review is adequate or whether citing the original source would be more appropriate. I think proper citation has to do with the specifics of a given situation and how much is really derived from what source and what exactly is stated in the new document.

A Google search performed on May 26, 2005 on “Avoiding plagiarism” yielded back 140,000 results in 0.3 seconds.

At the top of the list is a web site through Purdue University “Avoiding Plagiarism” through the Purdue University Online Writing Lab (‘the Purdue site’):

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_plagiar.html

The Purdue site points out that while some cultures “do not insist heavily on documenting sources, American institutions do.” This can clearly present a problem for international journals such as Cancer Biology and Therapy where some authors may not appreciate the seriousness of plagiarism.

A second useful point made by the Purdue site is that there is a spectrum ranging from “deliberate plagiarism” to “possibly accidental plagiarism.” Possibly accidental plagiarism may occur when using a source too closely when paraphrasing. A key to avoiding plagiarism suggested by the Purdue site is to “make sure you give credit where it is due.” The site goes on to give examples where there is no need to cite original sources as well as examples where it is important to document sources.

A site through UC Davis http://sja.ucdavis.edu/avoid.htm provides specific guidelines for avoiding plagiarism as well as several examples for how to cite properly. A site through Indiana University http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml provides specific examples of paraphrased text which are considered unacceptable forms of plagiarism for specific listed reasons, as well as examples of acceptable paraphrasing again for specific listed reasons. Duke University has a site http://library.duke.edu/research/guides/citing/ that provides strategies for avoiding plagiarism as well as a section on the nature and consequences of plagiarism http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/plagiarism.htm

There are many other web sites that address the issue of plagiarism that can be easily found by doing web searches.

One of the issues that is facing scientific journals is to develop methods to detect plagiarism. One of the methods is intrinsic in the peer review process where reviewers of a manuscript in a particular field may recognize material in a new manuscript as possibly not original. They can check up on this and inform the editors about exactly what may be going on. This however is not a fail-safe method and it can be very difficult to uncover for a variety of reasons including the fact that sometimes work is copied into different languages.

Interestingly, one web site through Queen’s University http://library.queensu.ca/inforef/plagiarism/detection.htm suggests using Google or Altavista to check on phrases that may be plagiarized. A site through the American University in Beirut (AUB) http://wwwlb.aub.edu.lb/~eplagio/Anti_plag.htm lists additional electronic tools for detecting plagiarism. These include additional search engines such as GigaBlast or Hotbot as well as an online method to search PDF files http://searchpdf.adobe.com and a method to search the “invisible web” http://www.freepint.com/gary/direct.htm. Another useful set of resources mentioned at the AUB site are a number of softwares that can detect plagiarism in written text. Some of these include softwares such as Wcopyfind 2.5 or EVE 2 that compares material saved on one’s computer with material on the internet.

The field has no standards currently for how publishers or editors or reviewers should go about detecting plagiarism beyond using their own suspicion or memories for pattern recognition.

Cancer Biology & Therapy strives for excellence and as such we want to educate authors about the potential dangers of overusing or not properly citing original sources. At the same time we want to maintain vigilance in the review process to detect cases of suspected plagiarism and to take appropriate action. Depending on the specific situation, a manuscript may be rejected or returned to the authors for revision based on comments provided by reviewers, if the suspected plagiarism is discovered prior to acceptance. It is useful if in doubt to look into the many available resources to avoid plagiarism and to even err on the side of crediting the ideas of others. As in the case of cancer it is far preferable to prevent plagiarism than to have to treat it when it occurs. However when it does occur, and there is always a chance that it will given the lack of a fail-safe mechanism to eradicate the many forms it can take, we will take action to diagnose it, point it out and to remedy the situation. Authors will have an opportunity to provide an explanation because it is clear there are cases where citations are unintentionally omitted. However, without a clear and satisfactory explanation, in cases with unambiguous evidence of plagiarism a manuscript may need to be retracted from Cancer Biology and Therapy. Hopefully better tools will be developed to allow journals and publishers to screen manuscripts more easily for evidence of plagiarism to minimize its adverse impact and to eventually eliminate it.

Wafik S. El-Deiry

Editor-in-Chief

Cancer Biology and Therapy