New answers tagged

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 ...


3

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 ...


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, ...


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 ...


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. ...


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.


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 ...


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.


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, ...


0

You don't monitor. You let them do. It looks unfair, and yes it has negative consequences on researchers morale, though no matter the amount of self-citations and citations obtained on the shoulders of other researchers work, only due to having placed their name on others papers they haven't read, they will not get anywhere near the number of citations of ...


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 ...


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 ...


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

It depends on the journal style, so only the editorial office can give a definite answer. I'd suggest using the Acknowledgements section, which often sits between Conclusions and References.


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, ...


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 ...


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 ...


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.


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 ...


-5

As others suggest, I would report this, but - depending on the circumstances, and if you want to help the author save face somewhat, you might contact them first. You wouldn't ask "Have you plagiarized this section from that paper?" But rather "I've been reading your paper X and believe that sections Y might be a verbatim quote from paper Z. ...


-9

In cases of academic misconduct where you are not personally involved, it's often better to go do something useful instead of filing complaints. There's lots of plagiarized papers out there that nobody's going to read. Limit your complaints to academic misconduct that involves you personally or has importance to research or safety.


-10

I would also try to check if the 2 papers are both graduate student papers where the 2 authors were graduate students at the same time for the same advisor. There are some subjects where the first 6 pages is boilerplate as things are getting set up. If the advisor tells the 2nd student to copy the first 6 pages from the 1st student's paper, that is lazy but ...


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. ...


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 ...


Top 50 recent answers are included