Is paraphrasing with citation considered plagiarism?

Question

As part of a thesis, I paraphrased a text from a peer-reviewed research paper and cited it at the end. But one of my friends thinks it's plagiarism. I wonder if anyone can make a comparison between the source and paraphrased sentences and let me know if that can be considered plagiarism.

Main source

Resorption begins with the migration of partially differentiated mononuclear preosteoclasts to the bone surface where they form multinucleated osteoclasts. After the completion of osteoclastic resorption, there is a reversal phase when mononuclear cells appear on the bone surface. These cells prepare the surface for new osteoblasts to begin bone formation and provide signals for osteoblast differentiation and migration. The formation phase follows with osteoblasts laying down bone until the resorbed bone is completely replaced by new. When this phase is complete, the surface is covered with flattened lining cells and a prolonged resting period begins until a new remodeling cycle is initiated. The stages of the remodeling cycle have different lengths. Resorption probably continues for about 2 weeks, the reversal phase may last up to 4 or 5 weeks, while formation can continue for 4 months until the new bone structural unit is completely created.

Paraphrased text

The migration of partly differentiated mononuclear preosteoclasts to the bone surface, where they become multinucleated osteoclasts (OCs), starts the resorption process. There is a reversal process after osteoclastic resorption is complete, where mononuclear cells emerge on the bone surface. These cells provide cues for osteoblast (OBs) differentiation and migration, as well as preparing the surface for new osteoblasts to begin bone forming. Osteoblasts lay down bone until the resorbed bone is fully replaced by new bone in the development process. After this process, the surface is coated with flattened lining cells (LCs), and a long resting period occurs before a new remodeling cycle starts. The lengths of the steps in the remodeling period vary. The resorption process lasts around 2 weeks, the reversal period up to 4 or 5 weeks, and the forming phase up to 4 months before the new bone structure is fully formed \parencite{hadjidakis2006bone}.

Answer 1

The single citation mark at the end of the paragraph does not fully convey just how close your paraphrased text is to the original paragraph. It would make a lot of sense to assume that the reference is just the source for the numerical values in the last sentence. As such, the charge of plagiarism isn't absurd here, as one could consider you to be misleading the reader into thinking that much more of the paragraph should be credited to you than it really should.

If you take an entire paragraph almost literally from a source, you should ideally make it much clearer. I'd usually recommend having a (half)-sentence at the beginning of the paragraph explaining its relationship to the source material.

Answer 2

This is where different styles of writing and standard bump into each other in unpleasant ways.

In scientific writing, we generally do not directly quote unless the exact words of the original author have some importance. The strong preference is to paraphrase and cite.

That said, some assert fairly arbitrary rules, such as "four words that are the same require direct quotation". I think that's silly, as sometimes there really is no other cogent way to say something, but if a prof, institution, or journal wants to write down such a silly rule in official guidelines, I'll certainly enforce it that way if it comes before me in an honesty hearing.

Arno offers a perfectly valid point. I think in this case, because the synopsis offered by your source is so succinct, and it looks like you're bending over backwards to avoid directly quoting, a block quote might certainly be in order. To make it look less silly, I might start it with something like: "Source X offers a succinct synopsis of this process:" and then go on to block quote.

If you choose NOT to block quote, you can address Arno's point by starting out the same way, and then adding "In brief, ....", and that way everyone knows the whole summary comes from your source (though, in this particular case, that looks a bit silly to me, as well). Just make sure that you're not working under a silly set of "not four or more consecutive words"

Copyright and plagiarism are two distinct issues having little to do with each other. You can violate copyright without plagiarizing, and vice versa. I don't see any real copyright issues in any approach in this particular thread.

Answer 3

No, citation is proof against charges of plagiarism. Plagiarism is misattributing the ideas of others to yourself. It has nothing to do with whether you quote or paraphrase. It is about the underlying ideas.

So, if you say, more or less, that idea x comes from author(s) y, then you haven't plagiarized.

You still need to consider copyright, however, and some forms of paraphrasing can violate copyright. Usually this happens when too much of an original work is included. Perhaps your friend is confusing copyright and plagiarism, which is too often done.

---

WRT the final paragraph above. Note that lots of "fan fiction", especially videos and games get DMCA takedown notices for copyright violations.

Also note that this is an answer to the general question. Biology/medicine isn't my field, so I don't attempt to analyze the specifics of your paraphrase.