1. Plagiarism is passing off someone else’s work as your own. It involves copying, extracting, paraphrasing one’s work and declaring it as my own. Borrowing is considered stealing. But if some content is used from another source and if it is cited appropriately then it is not considered as plagiarism. Plagiarism is a serious problem and the number of cases are increasing every year. It has destroyed the careers of many individuals who have put in all their effort in conducting research for their work.
Plagiarism cannot be taken lightly as the usually have negative consequences like a verbal warning or expulsion from college. As mentioned in the Pennycook article, one must understand the complicated relationship between text, memory and learning. This helps us understand the relationships between learning, literacy and cultural difference. These relationships can be confusing and difficult to understand and often lead to borrowing of texts. Hence it is important to know the concept of plagiarism and the consequences that results from it. Pennycook mentions that the concept of text ownership is complex since it is necessary for the individual to memorize the texts for his learning [6]. If a content is widely used the ownership of these ideas can be questioned. Pennycook believed that the concept of “author” came for the individualization in the ideas, knowledge, science, literature and philosophy [6].
Due to the electronic media, Pennycook agrees that the academic texts are built on many layers of texts available on the internet making the concept of authorship limitedly characterized. To guard the originality of the texts, the teachers began assuming some degree of “conceptual incoherence” related to the language [6].
Hence, to avoid plagiarism we must make sure that our work is done in our own words. For this, taking notes and noting down the important points during the lectures can help. Reading different books, materials and journals will gives us several different ideas about what we want to work on. Paraphrasing and citing must be done accurately and proper references must be mentioned. And finally, speaking to the professors and seeking their help with the course material and research will help us avoid plagiarism.
2) Plagiarism
Plagiarism is passing off someone else’s work as your own. It involves copying, extracting, paraphrasing one’s work and declaring it as their own work. But if some content is used from another source and if it is cited appropriately then it is not considered as plagiarism. Plagiarism is a serious problem and the number of cases are increasing every year. [1] (Merriam Webster, n.d.)
The following aspects reveal that plagiarism generally means:
• Stealing and give away (the thoughts or expressions of another) as one's original work
• Utilizing someone else's work without crediting the source
• Making theft of abstract
• Presenting as new and unique a thought or item got from a current source
[2] (What is Plagiarism? n.d.).
Types of Plagiarism
There are distinctive sorts of plagiarizing and all are vital infringement of scholarly genuineness. We have characterized the most widely recognized sorts beneath and have given connections to Illustrations.
• Direct Plagiarism
It is the word-for-word interpretation of an area of another person's work, without attribution and without quotes. The consider written falsification of another person's work is deceptive, scholastically exploitative, and justification for disciplinary activities, along with the expulsion.
• Self-Plagiarism
Self-literary theft happens when an understudy presents his or her own past work, or blends parts of past works, without consent from all educators included. For instance, it is unsatisfactory to fuse part of a research paper you wrote in secondary school into a paper relegated in a school course. Self-literary theft additionally applies to presenting a similar bit of work for assignments in various classes without past consent from both educators.
• Mosaic Plagiarism
Mosaic Plagiarism happens when an understudy obtains phrases from a source without utilizing quotes, or discovers equivalent words for the creator's dialect while keeping to a similar general structure and importance of the first. Now and again called "fix composing," this sort of rewording, whether deliberate or not, is scholastically untrustworthy and culpable – regardless of the possibility of your commentary your source
• Coincidental Plagiarism
Coincidental literary theft happens when a man fails to refer to their sources, or misrepresents their sources, or accidentally summarizes a source by utilizing comparative words, gatherings of words, and additionally sentence structure without attribution. Students must figure out how to refer to their sources and to take watchful and exact notes while doing research. (See the Note-Taking area on the Avoiding Plagiarism page.) Lack of purpose does not pardon the understudy of obligation regarding copyright infringement. Instances of unplanned copyright infringement are considered as important as some other literary theft and are liable to an indistinguishable scope of outcomes from different sorts of written falsification.
[3] (Office of the Dean of Student Affairs, n.d.).
3) Misconduct Cases from the literature and news:
a) Plagiarism
Case Summary: Dr. Freisheim
Findings of Plagiarism Misconduct
NIH GUIDE, Volume 22, Number 23, June 25, 1993
P.T. 34
National Institutes of Health
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has started the final publication discoveries of logical offence including Public Health Service contemplation. This data will help with adjusting the logical writing, will fill an instructive and obstacle need, and will help institutional authorities in settling on educated choices influencing their establishment. Fourteen cases that have been shut since the ORI was set up on May 29, 1992 have been distributed in the Government Register (58FR33830, June 21, 1993).
To guarantee that authorities of establishments getting Public Health Benefit consider assets, or applying for such finances, are made mindful of these discoveries of logical unfortunate behavior, this data is too being distributed in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. Future cases will be distributed in the Federal Register and the NIH Guide separately as cases are shut.
Final discoveries of logical unfortunate behavior have been made under the following case:
James H. Freisheim, Ph.D., Medical College of Ohio. An investigation and an examination led by the University found that Dr. Freisheim had presented an examination give application to the National Institutes of Health which contained generous parts counterfeited from another scientist's application. Dr. Freisheim had served as a relegated analyst of different scientist's application when it was evaluated around two years before by a NIH Study Section. Amid the request, Dr. Freisheim delivered a manually written draft of the appropriated material that he guaranteed he had composed before the other researcher had presented his concede application, and that hence the other researcher had used and plagiarised Dr. Freisheim’s original work. The examination audited the written by hand draft and reasoned that it had been composed much later than implied by Dr. Freisheim, conceivably amid the request to set up the reason for his protection. The examination likewise reasoned that Dr. Freisheim had copied material for two postdoctoral association applications to the NIH.
The ORI agreed in the University’s discoveries, and Dr. Freisheim has been suspended from getting Federal give or contract stores for a time of three years starting May 5, 1993. He has likewise been required, for a ten-year time frame starting May 5, 1993, to ensure that future applications for research bolster submitted to the PHS are his own work, and he has been disallowed from serving on PHS Consultative Committees or audit bunches for a similar period.
[4] (Health, 1993)
b) Scientific misconduct
Case Summary: Malhotra, Ricky
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary
Discoveries of Misconduct of Scientific Research
Organization: Office of the Secretary, HHS
Ricky Malhotra, Ph.D., University of Michigan and University of Chicago: Based on the Respondent's admission to conferring research offense at the University of Michigan (UM) and thusly at the University of Chicago (UC), the reports of partitioned examinations directed by UM and UC, and extra investigation led by ORI in its oversight survey, ORI found that Dr. Ricky Malhotra, previous Research Assistant Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, UM, from 2005-2006, and Research Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, UC, from 2007-2011, occupied with research offense in research upheld by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), awards K08 HL081472 and R01 HL107949.
ORI found that distorted as well as created information were incorporated into the accompanying three NIH concede applications, one NIH permitted advance report, one invention, seven presentations, and one picture document:
♣ R03 AG029508-01
♣ R21 AG030361-01
♣ R01 HL102405-01
♣ K08 HL081472-05 Progress Report
♣ J Biol Chem. 285(18):13748-60, 2010 Apr 30 (in the future alluded to as "JBC 2010")
♣ Presentation: autophagy_pathway.ppt, MKK4_expression_after_UV.ppt, Oct_PPt.ppt, Ric_Dec.ppt, Ricky_Presentation 06.ppt, Ricky_STC.ppt, and RM.ppt
♣ Picture record: Final LC 3.jpg
ORI found that Respondent reused and dishonestly relabeled Western smudge gel pictures, adulterated the related densitometry estimations considering the distorted Western blotches, and misrepresented as well as manufactured information for analyses that were not performed. Respondent proceeded with this adulteration at UC, after the UM considered offense examination was ended.
Dr. Malhotra has gone into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement with ORI, in which he deliberately consented to the activities put forward with the prerequisites for Respondent's supervision plan that the respondent requested to be framed.
As a state of the Agreement, Respondent consented to the withdrawal of JBC 2010.
[5] (ORI,2015)