To write a review, does the author must find some "implication" over the papers it based on?


Suppose author 1 has a theory or a proposal or framework but the language is unclear, not very comprehensible, not pointwise. Author 2 did a lot of improvement by adding short notes, definitions, points, illustrations etc; but all are to reflect the sayings of author 1 (not even a single new implications over author 1). Author2 gave proper reference to author1.

Would the author 2 be convicted of plagiarism/ some other academic misconduct?


Example 2 :

Suppose another situation, Author 1, 2 and 3 has some publications, containing various informations (say respectively information ABC, BCD, CDA)

Author 4 compiled all those informations, also summerised and simplified the language, but again; no new implication is added. Author 4 gave reference to author 1, 2, 3.


Would author 4 be convicted of plagiarism/ someother misconduct due to not having "new implications"?


Prior study: I have read the wikipedia article on Review article and for Plagiarism. Apparently the wikipedia article on review article says

"A review article is an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic."

But everyone in person I ask about it, emphasise on

ideas of where research might go next

or some other "implication".

Now my question is; is it absolutely a prerequisite to have a new implication if to write a review?

2 Answers 2


You are mistaking a variety of concepts. "Plagiarism" is if you use someone else's text or figures and present it as your own. "Copyright violation" is if you use someone else's creative contribution (say, a page of text, or a piece of music) and you replicate it for any other use than what the author gave you permission for (e.g., you copy a chapter of a book and give it to your students, or you play a CD in a public performance without the publisher's consent).

None of the examples you present fall in this category. They're not academic misconduct.

What might, however, happen is that you write a paper that is legal in all regards but otherwise has nothing new in it that anyone might find interesting. For example, a paper that just says "A did this [1] and B did that [2]. Then C did a variation [3]." is rather boring: What's the added value that a reader can't figure out by themselves? Such a paper is legally all fine and good, but will unlikely be published.

  • There are many such papers. They are called tutorials/comments (case 1) or reviews (case 2) and they can be quite useful. In the first case, the second paper may become more cited than the first, because it is more accessible and easier to read. As long as all citations are clear and it's clear that the idea comes from author 1, this is a welcome addition and service to science (assuming they really improved clarity and quality of the exposition). Jun 6, 2020 at 12:39

As long as you properly cite the work on which yours is based it isn't plagiarism. As long as you quote properly (clear indication, observing limits) it isn't copyright infringement.

But without some sort of conclusion or statement of implications it has little value and would be unlikely to be publishable other than as an extended bibliography. (Sometimes extended bibliographies have some value, actually, though they don't add to a body of work. But in such cases they tend to be extensive and/or comprehensive)

But, no, plagiarism would only come in to it if you attribute ideas of others to yourself, either by copying or paraphrasing.

The worst you would be "convicted of" (strange concept here) is being boring.

You must log in to answer this question.