53

Yes. Such a grave case of academic misconduct should have publicly visible consequences. Let the editor know; the journal should issue a retraction as the whole article can be deemed to be unreliable. As retractions can take a long time, it would also be useful if you comment on the suspicion of plagiarism on PubPeer. (The authors could respond with a ...


41

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 ...


38

Self-citations are valid, but too much is a bad sign: On the one hand, an author with an ongoing research program will generally have significant prior work that needs to be cited. On the other hand, all scientific work exists in a larger intellectual context for which Joy's law applies: lots of other smart people are doing related work that needs to be ...


17

Citations are neither a competition, nor a prize. They are simply a tool to refer to previous scientific work in order to establish the scientific case of the paper. The fact that some people have decided that citations are in fact a good measure for "success", or a good case for "promotion", does not mean that citations should be ...


16

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 ...


10

Lying is a bad habit to get in to. Slippery slope and all that. It is also unnecessary in a case like this, but there won't be a penalty as no one but you will know. There are even good reasons to use a late date for some things like web resources, since you point to the most recent resource. And, it has nothing to do with plagiarism.


8

86 self-citations out of 106 is definitely abnormal. Most (all?) editors would want to investigate. It's not necessarily malicious, but it's something to check out.


7

I don't understand whether you paraphrased (restated in your own words) or reproduced (quoted verbatim) the book section. If the former, just start the section in your report with something akin to: "The following section is based on Smith (2006, pp. 98-99)." If the second, clearly mark the whole section as quotation (e.g. with quote marks and ...


7

Yes, draw it to relevant attention. Not least because if its a mistake the authors should have a chance to fix it; if (more likely) it isn't then who knows what the implications will be, down the line, of dishonest papers. People could spend years of their life doing work, only to find its invalidated and wasted, because underlying material was unreliable. ...


6

While you have to cite every source that you reference properly, you defenitely don't have to discuss every source in the literature review. Some sources you cite might only be needed for little things like an equation, a standard used for testing, or a confirmation of an hypothesis you make, market projections, single statistical results, etc. Other sources ...


5

There is a difference between plagiarism and cheating. Plagiarism is taking someone else's work or ideas and representing them as your own (no matter whether verbatim or with some modification to hide their origin). Cheating during an exam, on the other hand, is using any help or sources of information you are not supposed to use (like peeking at a hidden ...


5

Title in quotes / italics and journal name in italics. This means, one cannot just look for the italic words and have the title of the publication. You can, actually. The journal name is the name of the publication, and the article is an element in the publication. The title of the work is in italics, and subparts are quoted. Likewise, if you were citing a ...


5

As cases of academic misconduct go, falsifying the date of access to a resource for such a stupid reason certainly would not be the biggest case ever, but it would still be a considered to be misconduct. Intentionally falsifying information about sources is a giant red flag for more general academic dishonesty --- it shows that the researcher is willing to ...


3

With hindsight, did I do the right thing to discourage this practice of irrelevant self-citation Not necessarily. Citation is not a prize or a favour. It's a scientific tool to help the reader or to justify the claims. Therefore, it is certainly right to discourage the practice of irrelevant citations. But if your concern is only irrelevant self-citation, ...


3

It is unlikely that you need to specify in your references which system of transliteration was used. The purpose of the references is for the reader to be able to look up the paper, and this should be possible regardless of the system used. If you do need to to specify the system anyway for some reason I am unaware of, a footnote attached to the reference(s) ...


2

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 ...


2

Occasionally, when I've recalled an odd fact to support an argument and remembered more or less where I got it I've thrown in a partial citation like this: Snails are very slow (from course textbook "Introduction to Zoology") But I would imagine that a professor is more likely to be concerned that you were looking at the textbook rather than not ...


2

This is a very old question. I would like to add that in my experience, this is actually quite a common occurrence in mathematics, counter to the belief of the previous answer. It's not usually that Famous Mathematician E whispered their conjecture into the ear of Professor S in secret. Rather, that Famous Mathematician E (potentially in an informal context, ...


2

No, for a bibliography you don't need permission. The information is public knowledge. If you quote or paraphrase specific information from within the book you also need to cite that at the place where you use it. But that goes in the text itself, not the bibliography. Generally, though, if the book you use is at the level of, say, an undergraduate text, ...


2

Do not lie. If you are an academic, people will assume you procrastinated until they see you work ahead many times. Access dates in references are among the least important things about your academic writing.


2

It depends on what exactly you need, but a good starting point is to use the DOI of your paper and access the API of CrossRef. You will then see the metadata attached to that paper. Most publishers also provide so-called 'open citations' with these metadata. Here is one example: https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102386 (Note: This is a ...


1

Your question is very specific in a way that makes it unlikely to be useful to anyone but yourself, so let’s generalize it a bit. You are really asking whether it’s a big deal in an academic context to lie a pointless lie about a matter that has no significance whatsoever. For example, if I submit an assignment and write my name as “Dan Balthasar Romik III”, ...


1

The underlying issue here seems to be that you either (a) are engaging in this thought exercise over a trifling matter as a way of further procrastinating, or (b) have an outsized fear of being judged for procrastination. In reality, no-one is going to notice. If they do notice, they are not going to conclude that you procrastinated. And finally and most ...


1

Let me say first that I think you should strive for integrity in any academic work. Lying is never acceptable, regardless of whether or not there are any consequences. Having said that, I think you are worried about the wrong thing here. Procrastinating is not necessarily a problem in itself, as long as one is meeting deadlines and producing quality work. ...


1

Yes, it is normal and it is the equivalent of doping in sport. If your competing organisation is self-citing, and both your competitor and you are equally piffle in doing research, then the only way to survive for you is to self-cite as well. This has two interesting consequences: the larger the research group the higher the number of artificial citations ...


1

There are certainly cases where a researcher is a pioneer in a specialty field, where they may have produced a large volume of work on a "niche" topic that comprises a large fraction of all of the work. There are certainly cases where a researcher is invited to write a survey or review paper or one that covers the evolution of a specific research ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible