1

I cited a review article which divided a specific architecture into two categories. For each category the authors of the review paper cite a number of different related paper and explain them.

My problem is that my own section contains for each category some of the paper they cited in their review article. Is this considered as structural plagiarism?

To summarize:

1.) I cited the structural classification of the review article.

2.) For each category I only cited the original work and not that I acquired this subset of related work in the section of the review article.

Should I do that in addition?

1

1 Answer 1

3

It's possibly implied a bit that the other papers came from the review, depending on how exactly you phrased things. You might be able to add a few extra words to make this more clear, though, which might look something like:

Simon, et al.[1], characterized woodland creatures as either Elves[2,3,4] or Fairies[5,6,7].

Then, in your subsequent Elves section, you can freely refer to references [2,3,4] individually for their specific content, and do the same for the Fairies section, without needing to refer back to [1] in either, assuming you aren't taking any more ideas from [1] besides the categorization.

I would consider, though, whether you need to present a review of all that work the same way that the previous review did; it's possible it's critical enough to your current work that it is necessary, but I'd make sure you're actually presenting what is most relevant to the rest of the paper and not just recapitulating the review.

8
  • Certainly enough of a review to assure that no incorrect claims were being made.
    – Boba Fit
    Commented Jan 4, 2023 at 21:05
  • 1
    @BobaFit By "re-review" in this context I mean written in the paper; yes, absolutely, OP should check the accuracy of statements they make in the original sources and not merely take the review's word for it; minor mistakes like the wrong year on a paper by the same authors can easily get propagated that way, or sometimes worse.
    – Bryan Krause
    Commented Jan 4, 2023 at 21:08
  • @BryanKrause: What it be still necessary to cite it as: characterized woodland creatures as either Elves[2,3,4] or Fairies[5,6,7].
    – Simon
    Commented Jan 4, 2023 at 21:10
  • @Simon If you haven't actually used the review to find the sources then it isn't plagiarism to cite them without crediting the review, though it is probably safest to acknowledge the review had all those sources, anyways, such as in the manner I suggest here. If it's really just 4 references where 2 are references to canonical papers, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that you'd ever have such an accusation, though, and if it isn't really that review paper that's doing the categorizing (for example, if the references already refer to themselves as Elves and Fairies) there's nothing to credit.
    – Bryan Krause
    Commented Jan 4, 2023 at 21:10
  • Maybe I should only keep the baselines to be on the safe side and discard the others?
    – Simon
    Commented Jan 4, 2023 at 21:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .