Везде
Problem of plagiarism in the context of academic ethics
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Problem of plagiarism in the context of academic ethics
Annotation
PII
S2413-90840000616-5-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Vyacheslav Danilov  Daria Alekseeva
Edition
Volume 25 Issue 1
Pages
52-64
Abstract
The paper deals the problem of plagiarism in the context of academic ethics. The authors take into considerations recent discussions (such as those surrounding Zygmunt Bauman, a famous sociologist who was accused of plagiarism), interpretations of plagiarism in criminal law, interpretations of intellectual property in civil law, as well as ethical codes of reputable organizations of scientists and publishers. The analysis reveals significant discrepancies between the concept of plagiarism in law, on the one hand, and interpretations of plagiarism in codes of ethics and in current usage of the word “plagiarism” in scientific and “about scientific” communities - on the other hand. People in scientific and “about scientific” communities use too broad notion of plagiarism. They tend to include in plagiarism not only misappropriation of texts by another author but also “stealing ideas”. In fact, a scientist who charges somebody with “theft of the idea” defends the right to be the recognized pioneer, and does not aspires to have exclusive right to the idea. In this case it makes sense to discuss the problem of prioritization instead of the problem of plagiarism. As for the word “self-plagiarism” (“auto-plagiarism”) that recently began to be used, its sense is self-controversial. A person can’t steal anything from herself (himself) or misappropriate his (her) authorship. It makes sense to support the opinion that “redundant publication” is more suitable expression for the case when the author reproduces too much of his (her) previously published texts in the new paper. However to decide if the new text is redundant we should evaluate essence of the text. Even the text consisted of previously published texts of the same author may have a new essence. “Industry” of plagiarism as well as “industry” of exposing (true or pretend) plagiarism is due to development of information and communication technologies. Excessive emphasis on plagiarism and plagiary pushes to the fore “publicability” minimum verified with computer program. As for norms of scientific activity generating new knowledge, they are relegated to the sideline.
Keywords
plagiarism, “Bauman case”, academic ethics, ethics of science, ethics and law, intellectual property, “redundant publication”, new knowledge
Date of publication
01.06.2020
Number of purchasers
22
Views
525
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

References



Additional sources and materials

    

  1. Alekseeva, D.A. “Intellektual’naya sobstvennost’ i obshhestvennoe razvitie: problemy` e`ffektivnosti i spravedlivosti” [Intellectual property and social development: issues of effectiveness and justice], Voprosy filosofii, 2015, no. 3, pp. 63‒71. (In Russian)
    2. 

  2. Bailey, J. “Self Plagiarism, Ethics and the Case of Jonah Lehrer”, Plagiarism Today, 21.06.2012. [https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2012/06/21/self-plagiarism-ethics-and-the-case-ofjonah-lehrer/, accessed on 17.07.2019].
    3. 

  3. Bauman, Z. Idet li bogatstvo nemnogix na pol’zu vsem prochim [Does the richeness of the few benefit us all?], trans. by N. Eidelman. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publ., 2015. 105 pp. (In Russian)
    4. 

  4. Belyackin, S.A. Novoe avtorskoe pravo v ego osnovny`x principax [New copyright in its principles]. Saint-Petersburg: Pravo Publ., 2012. 151 pp. (In Russian)
    5. 

  5. Bliznec, I.A., Leontiev K.B. “Plagiat i zaimstvovaniya: pravovoj aspekt” [Plagiarism and borrowing: law aspect], Kopirajt. Vestnik Akademii intellektual`noj sobstvennosti, 2013, no. 3, pp. 84‒ 94. (In Russian)
    6. 

  6. Jump, P. “Zygmunt Bauman rebuffs plagiarism accusation”, Times Higher Education, 03.04.2014. [https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/zygmunt-bauman-rebuffs-plagiarismaccusation/2012405.article, accessed on 17.07.2019].
    7. 

  7. Kralechkin, D. “Ghostbusters protiv Ghostwriters” [Ghostbusters vs. Ghostwriters], Gefter, 12.04.2013. [http://gefter.ru/archive/8308, accessed on 14.06.2019]. (In Russian)
    8. 

  8. Lusher, A. “Zygmunt Bauman: World’s leading sociologist accused of copying his own work”, Independent, 20.08.2015. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/zygmunt-bauman-worlds-leading-sociologist-accused-of-copying-his-own-work-10464486.html, accessed on 17.07.2019].
    9. 

  9. McBride, K. “What’s wrong with Jonah Lehrer plagiarizing himself (at least 13 times)”, Poynter.org, 19.06.2012. [http://www.poynter.org/2012/whats-wrong-with-jonah-lehrer-plagiarizinghimself/177809/, accessed on 17.07.2019].
    10. 

  10. Metodicheskie rekomendacii po podgotovke i oformleniyu nauchny`x statej v zhurnalax, indeksiruemy`x v mezhdunarodny`x naukometricheskix bazax danny`x. Associaciya nauchny`x redaktorov i izdatelej. [Methodical recommendations on scientific articles in journals indexed in bases of Association of scientific editors and publishes]. Moscow: Association of scientific editors and publishers, 2017. 144 pp. (In Russian)
    11. 

  11. Pickett, K. & Wilkinson, R. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. London: Allen Lane, 2009. 345 pp.
    12. 

  12. “Plagiarism, copyright and intellectual property”, The Royal Society. [https://royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/plagiarism-copyright-ip/, accessed on 17.07.2019].
    13. 

  13. Postanovlenie Plenuma Verxovnogo Suda RF ot 23.04.2019 № 10 “O primenenii chasti chetvertoj Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii”. [Judgment of the Supreme Court of the RF]. [https://www.vsrf.ru/files/27771, accessed on 14.06.2019]. (In Russian)
    14. 

  14. Postanovlenie Plenuma Verxovnogo Suda Rossijskoj Federacii ot 26 aprelya 2007 g. № 14 “O primenenii sudami nekotory`x polozhenij razdela I chasti pervoj Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii”, p. 2. [Judgment of the Supreme Court of the RF] [https://www.vsrf.ru/documents/own/8435/, accessed on 14.06.2019]. (In Russian)
    15. 

  15. “Redundant publication”, Publicationethics.org. [https://publicationethics.org/category/keywords/redundant-publication, accessed on 17.07.2019].
    16. 

  16. Seife, Ch. “Jonah Lehrer’s Journalistic Misdeeds at Wired.com”, Slate, 31.08.2012. [http:// www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/jonah_lehrer_plagiarism_in_wired_com_an_investigation_into_plagiarism_quotes_and_factual_inaccuracies_.html, accessed on 17.07.2019].
    17. 

  17. Walsh, P.W, Lehmann, D. “Problematic Elements in the Scholarship of Zygmunt Bauman”, Academia.edu. [https://www.academia.edu/15031047/Problematic_Elements_in_the_Scholarship_ of_Zygmunt_Bauman, accessed on 17.07.2019].
    18. 

  18. Wolters, E. “Slavoj Zizek Accused of Plagiarizing White Supremacist Magazine”, Critical Theory, 11.07.2014. [http://www.critical-theory.com/slavoj-zizek-accused-of-plagiarizing-whitesupremacist-magazine/, accessed on 17.07.2019].
    19. 

  19. Zenkin, S. “Nauka i plagiat: truzheniki i parazity” [Science and plagiarism: workers and parasits], Gefter, 18.04.2013. [http://gefter.ru/archive/8364, accessed on 14.06.2019]. (In Russian)
    20.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate