How do you make sure you don't plagiarize unintentionally?

Question

Forgive my complete newbieness, but I truly don't to know the answer to this question.

If you decide to write a scientific paper for possible publication in a conference/journal (in engineering, for instance), you'd obviously need to choose a subject that adds something new to the status quo, but then, in doing so, you very certainly will have to tap into the existing research too. And as I understand, most publishing organization have access to special search engines that helps them identify plagiarism.

So where does the line between plagiarism and authentic work lie exactly? Stated otherwise, how do you avoid "unintentional plagiarism" so that the paper you submit doesn't look like you essentially copied existing work? What is considered new and authentic work? Because I have seen many many articles published by IEEE, for example, (especially conference papers) where the original/new contribution was very slight (like a 'new' model/technique that modifies ever so slightly a previous one), isn't this considered plagiarism?

Answer 1

• Use citations for relatively recent work that is not your own (an exception to this is the idea of "common knowledge". For example, you don't need to reference Newton or Leibniz when you employ calculus).
• You are not plagiarizing when you develop layers of references and then build on that body of knowledge to add a contribution to it (and hence, becoming part of the body).
• When you state a fact, result, argument, assertion, etc, that is not your own but that of someone and do not use a citation, then you are plagiarizing because your readership will interpret that part of the paper as an original thought of your own.
• Using citations properly is a skill you will develop over time, so do your best to cite everything that you think requires a citation early on and then you can always edit down things later. As time goes on, you'll understand what does and does not require citation.

Answer 2

There are two kinds of plagiarism, ordinary and "self". It is pretty much impossible to plagiarize unintentionally. It is an intentional act. Let me explain.

Ordinary plagiarism has two aspects. One is knowingly attributing the work of others to yourself. We avoid it by citing the work we use, giving credit to the originator of ideas that we depend on. But you have to know that the work belongs to another in order to be at fault here. Independently reinventing something yourself isn't plagiarism, though it may appear so. You may still be at fault if you don't know something that you should have known, but the fault isn't plagiarism. Something more like laziness. But intentionally appropriating the ideas of others is seen as an act of malice.

Again, reinvention isn't plagiarism. If I, as a kid, rediscover the Pythagorean Theorem without the help of books or teachers, or anything, just starting with the idea of a triangle, it is reinvention. It isn't plagiarism. It isn't likely publishable, of course, and if I try, people will laugh.

The other aspect of ordinary plagiarism is that we cite the work we use so that readers can trace ideas back to their source, finding complete context for the ideas, their origin and use along the way. The papers that originated the idea have a context, including the papers they cite, and it is sometimes necessary to go back and examine that. If you don't cite, you break the chain.

Self plagiarism is when you use your own previously published work without citing it. Only the second aspect, above, applies here, but it is no less important. Don't just copy-paste (or even paraphrase) from your own old (published) work without citation. But some people do this out of laziness, rather than malice.

But, aside from the technical details, a scholar will spend a fair amount of time researching what is known already about things they wish to explore. This gives the advantage of being able to catapult off of the earlier work (citing it) and deepening your knowledge. It also, hopefully, shows you what is yet to be done in a field, so that you can direct your efforts in meaningful ways.

But ignoring the literature is normally a fault if you wish to publish. People expect you to know the field to the point at which your own explorations begin. If you don't, then your papers will likely get rejected and charges of plagiarism might be made, even if incorrectly. But that is carelessness masquerading as plagiarism, not plagiarism.

As I said in a comment to another post, you don't need to cite things that are "common knowledge". This is a bit hard to define, but generally things taught in, for example, secondary school are common knowledge, though not universal knowledge. But, if in doubt, citing is safer than making assumptions.

Do your homework reading the literature, and, then, cite it if you use it.

Answer 3

There are two parts to answering your question.

One deals with explicit plagiarism which is copying text from another paper and showing it as your own. You clearly do not wish to do that. Now if you take inspiration from another work or build on another work, you should rewrite in your own word while citing another work.

The second part of the answer which is more relevant to your question is implicitly plagiarizing by reinventing something which already existed but you are not aware of. Firstly, if you are trying to get published in top conferences or journals you could be sure of reviewers pointing out lack of novelty in your work if someone has already done it. So you will do good to avoid plagiarism by always targeting reputed conferences and journals.

And of course, to ensure novelty you should read more papers from top journals and conferences.

Your observation that IEEE has a lot of work which is not of high quality is correct. Always look for A* conferences and journals to publish with. You will hardly find such issues with them. Look for CORE ranking portal to find such rankings in engineering and computer science area.

Answer 4

You reference all the work that you use (however you use it) that is by other people which is why some papers have lots of references.

Some papers are part of a series produced as the work, and results, progress. This is normal and expected, but you are expected to reference your earlier publications (based on the comment).