The document discusses plagiarism, its definitions, forms, and consequences, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense. It highlights the challenges faced by students, particularly non-native English speakers, and suggests solutions for preventing plagiarism through education and institutional policies. The importance of originality and properly attributing sources to avoid academic misconduct is emphasized throughout.

1. Plagiarism and Techniques to
Avoid Plagiarism
Dr. Bhaswat S. Chakraborty
Emeritus Professor, Institute of Pharmacy, Nirma University
Former Senior VP & Chair, R&D Core Committee, Cadila Pharma
Former Senior Reviewer, TPD Health Canada (Canadian FDA)

2. Can there be Two (or >2) Originals of the
Same Idea?
2

3. 3Mail Online, Saturday, Jun 2nd 2018

4. 4https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/28mar_gamma.html

5. • “The secret to creativity is
knowing how to hide your
sources
• Creativity is knowing how
to hide your sources
• The key to originality is
hiding your sources”
Popularly attributed to
Albert Einstein
5

6. 6

7. PART 1: Problem and the Vulnerables
7

8. ”Plagiarism” according to Mariam-Webster
• Plgiarize
• transitive verb
• to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production)
without crediting the source
• intransitive verb
• to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing
source
• Etymology
• Plagiarize (and plagiarism) comes from the Latin plagiarius “kidnapper”
• Derived from the Latin plaga (“a net used by hunters to catch game”), extended its
meaning in Latin to include a person who stole the words, rather than the children,
of another
• A SERIOUS offence-- isn't it?
8

9. Middle Tennessee State University Judicial Affairs
• “The adoption or reproduction of ideas, words, statements, images, or works of
another person as one’s own without proper acknowledgment.”
• Copying another’s entire paper and claiming it as one’s own.
• Copying a part of another’s paper and claiming it as one’s own.
• Copying information from a source and pretending that information is one’s own.
• Copying information from a source word for word without putting quotes around those
words— whether or not the source is cited there in the paper or on the bibliography page.
• Copying information from a source but changing the words around without providing an in-
text citation—whether or not the source is cited on the bibliography page.
• Copying information incorrectly, putting quotation marks around it, including a proper in-text
citation, and citing it properly on the bibliography page.
• Copying information correctly with quotation marks, including a proper in-text citation, but
nocitation on the bibliography page.
• ..
9

10. Middle Tennessee State University Judicial Affairs..
• Copying information correctly with quotation marks, but including an improper in-text
citation,while providing a correct citation on the bibliography page.
• Copying information correctly with quotation marks, including a proper in-text citation,
butproviding an incorrect citation on the bibliography page.
• Paraphrasing information incorrectly, including a proper in-text citation, and citing it properly on
the bibliography page.
• Paraphrasing information correctly, including a proper in-text citation, but no citation on the
bibliography page.
• Paraphrasing information correctly, but including an improper in-text citation, while providing a
correct citation on the bibliography page.
• Paraphrasing information correctly, including a proper in-text citation, but providing an incorrect
citation on the bibliography page.
• Changing the spelling of a word, changing a letter from upper to lower case, or changing the verb
tense in an exact quotation without indicating it as such with brackets or ellipses.
10

11. Example: Original Paper
11

12. Example: Plagiarized Paper
12

13. 13

14. Plagiarizing Words vs. Data
• Don't misunderstand -- both are evil, but a common perception
among many scientists is that Data plagiarism is worse
• Probably because of harsher consequenses and
• Word plagiarism can be unintentional and even accidental but data
plagirism is always deliberately intentional
• Stealing ideas, fake and cooked data are also data plagiarizing
• There are some un-nerving examples of datplagiarism on ORI
website
• https://ori.hhs.gov/
• https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case_summary/
• Stay away from both!
14

15. Patchwriting
• Original:
• “[Patchwriting is] copying from a source text and then deleting
some words, altering grammatical structures, or plugging in
onesynonym for another.”
• Patchwriting:
• A student who patchwrites copies from a source and then deletes
words, altersgrammatical structures, or uses one synonym for
another.
Kraft, Diane B., (2014). Law Faculty Popular Media. 9. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub_pop/9 15

16. Perspective on the Scale of the Problem
• “The New Plagiarism requires little effort and is
geometrically more powerful. While the pre-modem
student might misappropriate a dozen ideas from a handful
of thinkers, the post-modem student can download and
save hundreds of pages per hour. We have moved from the
horse and buggy days of plagiarism to the Space Age
without stopping for the horseless carriage.”
McKenzie (1998),The Educational Technology Journal, vol. 7, no. 8, online at
http://www.fno.org/may98/cov98may.html (last accessed 31 May 2018).16

17. 17RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA and JESS BIDGOOD,The New York Times AUG. 30, 2012

18. 18

19. US ORI Case Study 1
• Misconduct
A previous notice of research misconduct findings based on
Respondent’s prior admission (Fed. Reg. 82(117):28078-
28079, 2017 July 20) included eleven (11) figures in PLoS
One 11 10):e0164378, 2016 in research supported by the
National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences
(NIEHS), NIH, and the National Institute of Diabetes and
Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), NIH. The
Respondent has signed a statement confirming that she
committed no additional instances of data manipulation.
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research
misconduct by falsifying data that were included in the first
submission of a manuscript to ACS Chem. Biol. (hereafter
referred to as the “Manuscript”) and in the final published
version: Baughman, B.M., Pattenden, S.G., Norris, J.L.,
James, L.I., & Frye, S.V. “The L3MBTL3 methyl-lysine reader
domain functions as a dimer.” ACS Chem. Biol. 11:722-728,
2016 (hereafter referred to as “ACS 2016”). The paper was
retracted in: ACS Chem. Biol. 13(1):281, 2018 Jan 19.
• Consequence
Because Dr. Baughman knew when she signed the 2017
Agreement with ORI that there was an additional paper with
falsified figures, she agreed to exclude herself voluntarily
from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of
the United States Government and from eligibility or
involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United
States Government referred to as “covered transactions”
pursuant to HHS’ Implementation (2 C.F.R. Part 376) of OMB
Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and
Suspension, 2 C.F.R. Part 180 (collectively the “Debarment
Regulations”); this Agreement supersedes the terms of the
previous supervision Agreement that included three (3) years
of research supervision, which began on May 17, 2017; and
Dr. Baughman agreed to exclude herself voluntarily from
serving in any advisory capacity to the U.S. Public Health
Service (PHS) including, but not limited to, service on any PHS
advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or
as a consultant.
https://ori.hhs.gov/case-summary-baughman-brandi-m19

20. US ORI Case Study 2
• Misconduct
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research
misconduct by intentionally and knowingly falsifying
and/or fabricating data that were included in the following
two (2) published papers and two (2) grant progress
reports submitted to NIDCR, NIH:
PLoS One 10(6):e0128753, 2015 Jun 2 (hereafter referred
to as “PLoS One 2015”)
Cancer 121(14):2367-74, 2015 Jul 15 (hereafter referred to
as “Cancer 2015”) Retracted in: Cancer 124(4):869, 2018
Specifically, ORI found that Respondent engaged in
research misconduct by recording dates and providing her
own blood samples to cause these samples to be falsely
labeled as samples from ninety-eight (98) study subjects in
a cancer genetics study ... This resulted in the reporting of
false data in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 in PLoS One 2015, in
Figure 1 and Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Cancer 2015, and in the
Results sections of Project 2 progress reports for NIDCR,
NIH, grants 5 U01 DE019765-04 and 5 U01 DE019765-05.
• Consequence
(1) to have her research supervised for a period of three (3)
years; Respondent agreed to ensure that ... the institution
employing her must submit a plan for supervision of
Respondent’s duties to ORI for approval; ...
(2) that for a period of three (3) years, any institution
employing her must submit, in conjunction with each
application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract
involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is
involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by
Respondent are based on actual experiments ...
(3) if no supervisory plan is provided to ORI, to provide
certification to ORI on an annual basis for a period of three
(3) years ...
(4) to exclude herself voluntarily from serving in any advisory
capacity to PHS ...
(5) to the correction or retraction of PLoS One
10(6):e0128753, 2015 Jun 2.
https://ori.hhs.gov/case-summary-elqutub-maria-cristina-miron20

21. US ORI Case Study 3
• Misconduct
...(Respondent), former Research Associate Professor,
Department of Vision Sciences, UAB, committed research
misconduct in research supported by PHS grants,
specifically NIAID, NIH, grants R01 AI051615, R01 AI032078,
and R01 AI045623; NHLBI, NIH, grants P01 HL034343 and
R01 HL064272; and NIDDK, NIH, grant R01 DK046900.
..... intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engaged in
research misconduct by falsifying and/or fabricating X-ray
crystallographic data for eleven (11) protein structures and
falsely reporting them as experimentally derived from X-ray
diffraction experiments in nine (9) publications and in
twelve (12) deposits in the PDB. ORI found that Respondent
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly falsified and/or
fabricated the PDB coordinate files deposited for all of the
eleven (11) structures (PDB entries 2HR0, 1BEF, 1RID, 1Y8E,
2A01, 1CMW, 1G40, 1G44, 2OU1, 1L6L, 2QID, and 1DF9)
and the X-ray diffraction data (structure factors)
corresponding to six (6) of the eleven (11) structures (PDB
entries 2HR0, 1BEF, 1RID, 1Y8E, 2A01, and 1CMW).
• Consequence
.. is debarred for a period of ten (10) years from eligibility for
any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the
United States Government and from eligibility for or
involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United
States Government, referred to as “covered transactions,”
pursuant to HHS’ Implementation (2 C.F.R. Part 376) of Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on
Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (2 C.F.R. Part
180);
.. is prohibited from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS
including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory
committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a
consultant for a period of ten (10) years; and
ORI will send a notice to the pertinent journals of the
following publications that require retraction or correction ...
§ 93.411(b):
Cell 104:301-311, 2001
Biochem. 41:11681-11691, 2002
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101:8924-8929, 2004
...
https://ori.hhs.gov/case-summary-murthy-krishna-hm21

22. Unintentional Plagiarism: when Native Language is not
English
• Believe it or not, “One of the most difficult tasks in writing in a second
language is paraphrasing— putting someone else’s ideas into your own
words.”1
• Plagiarism was not believed to be addressed in classrooms in Hong
Kong and South Korea because teachers were not concerned about it.2
• In traditional Chinese rhetoric, 1,2 writers (second language writers)
could combine their own ideas with those of others without attribution
because it was understood that readers would be familiar with the
sources.3
• However, there is no consensus that “culturaldifferences predispose
writers to write in a way that is likely to be called plagiarism”4
1Kraft, Diane B., (2014). Law Faculty Popular Media. 9. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub_pop/9.2Diane Pecorari, Teaching to Avoid
Plagiarism 109 (2013). 3Joel Bloch, Plagiarism, Intellectual Property and the Teaching of L2 Writing 3, 19 (2012). 4Pecorari, supra note 2, at 111.22

23. PART 2: Solutions
23

24. Understanding Root Causes (Intrapersonal)
• Dull unawareeness
• No idea whatsoever about the issue or consequences
• Disregard for consesquence
• Somewhat aware but who cares
• Intentful overconfidence
• Knows but indulges in devilish over-courage
• Intellectual or gross greed
• Greed to be called “mine” overpowers the ability to paraphrase or
summarize
• Low self esteem
• Does not know the loss of one's personal worth, reputation
24

25. Understanding Root Causes (Technical, Compulsive & Cultural)
• Poor time management skills and an inability to cope with the
workload
• Lack of motivation to excel because of perception that the Professor
of the class has little enthusiasm for the subject
• Increased external pressure to succeed From parents are fears or for
financial reasons
• An innate desire to take on and test the system
• Cultural differences in learning and presenting
• in some setting it is considered normal custom and practice to quote
the experts without citation
William J., 2005,Plagiarism: Deterrence, Prevention and Detection,Universitas 21Global, p 725

26. Simple Strategies to Overcome Plagiarism
• “Quotations
• must be identical to the original, using a narrow segment of the source. They must
match the source document word for word and must be attributed to the original
author. Paraphrasing involves putting a passagefrom source material into your own
words. A paraphrase must also be attributed to the originalsource.
• Paraphrases
• Paraphrased material is usually shorter than the original passage, taking a somewhat
broader segment of the source and condensing it slightly. Summarizing involves putting
the main idea(s) into your own words, including only the main point(s). Once again, it is
necessary to attribute summarized ideas to the original source.
• Summaries
• are significantly shorter than the original and take a broad overview of the source
material.”
Source: Purdue OWL, “Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing”
26

27. The Writer’s Burden of Transparency
• The writer should competently know:
a) the identity of the text’s origins
b) the language of the text
c) the content of a source
• Readers make a number of assumptions based on the principle of
transparency; related to plagiarism include the following:
1. that language which is not signaled as quotation is original to the writer;
2. that if no citation is present, both the content and the form are original to
the writer;
3. that the writer consulted the source which is cited.
D. Pecorari, Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 317–34527

28. Strategies that Institues Use to
Minimize Plagiarism
• Encouage and reinforce originality
• Promoting and administering clear
institution-wide policies for academic
honesty
• Using electronic detection tools (next
slide) to find sources of plagiarized data
orphrases
• Teaching the proper use of sources by
defining plagiarism and methods of
citation
• Designing unique assignments to
minimize opportunity for plagiarism
Adapted from Salmons J, Expect Originality, in Student
Plagirism..., Information Science Reference,28-226 28

29. Teaching Originality at Institutes
• Just absence of plagiarism is not enough; one can change the words
and paraphrase well not to be detected by Turnitin
• The real achievement is to write with some degree of originality and it
can be taught!
• Students can be taught and encuraged to:
• Develop their own viewpoint; develop their own writing especially long hand
writing
• Discuss with peers what they have written
• Not be afraid of making mistakes in writing
• Never to consider plagiarism as an alternative
• Have supervised group writing without access to intenet or hardcopy texts
29

30. Policies of Academic Honesty
• Have a dedicated team for the purpose
• Every Institute should carfully and stringently formulate policies for
academic honesty and no plagiarism
• Introduce them, display them, teach them and reinforce them
• Implement warning, reprimand and punishments
• Emulate the universities and institutes who have strong antiplagiarism
policies and practice them
• Of course Match the offence and punishment
30

31. 31

32. Online Websites to Catch Plagiarism
• http://www.turnitin.com/
• http://www.ithenticate.com/
• http://www.duplichecker.com/
• http://smallseotools.com/plagiarism-checker/
• http://www.plagium.com/
• www.articlechecker.com/
• ....
Various internet sources32

33. How to Cite Sources
• plagiarism.org says:
• When sources are very important to your ideas, mention the author & work in a
sentence that introduces your citation; if making a minor point, use references,
footnotes, or endnotes
• There are also different forms of citation for different disciplines and journals
• Quote when the original author expresses an idea is the most effective means of
communicating the point
• List References: the authors' names; titles of the works; journal or publisher; dates
of publication and page numbers
• Footnotes are often used to make an interesting comment to a sentence but the
comment is not directly related to the argument of your paragraph
• Annotated bibliography, used sometimes, where the bibliographic information is
followed by a brief description of the content, quality, and usefulness
http://www.plagiarism.org/article/how-do-i-cite-sources33

34. 34Dr.Davis Tobac, Texas AM University, http://slideplayer.com/slide/5210755/

35. • The secret to creativity is
knowing how to cite your
sources
• Creativity is knowing how to
cite your sources
•The beauty of originality
is knowing that cheating
can kill your creativity
and Pay tribute to Albert
Einstein35

36. Designing Unique Assignments to Minimize Opportunity
for Plagiarism
• Prevent plagiarism by designing assignments that expect learners to
respect others ideas and strive to create original work
• Cognitive and Affective means of Bloom's Taxonomy or the authors'
Taxonomy of Collaborative e-Learning can serve as conceptual
frameworks for designing assignments that
1. Expect learners to present original work;
2. Provide opportunities for learners to develop new ideas through
meaningful online interaction; and
3. Value learners ideas while respecting published authors intellectual
property
Adapted from Salmons J, Expect Originality, in Student Plagirism..., Information Science Reference,28-22636

37. Bloom's Taxonomy
Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.
Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.
37

38. Concluding Remarks
• Plagiarism is indeed a big problem in academia these days and has various types and
levels
• The scale of the problem is huge mainly because of the easy availability of internet
sources
• There areserious consequenes of plagiarism including harsh personal and career
losses
• An understanding of the root causes and writers' responsibilities is necessary
• For preventing and minimizing plagiarism, institutescan use the following strategies:
• Encouage and reinforce originality
• Promoting and administering clear institution-wide policies for academic honesty
• Using electronic detection tools to find sources of plagiarized data orphrases
• Teaching the proper use of sources by defining plagiarism and methods of citation
• Designing unique assignments to minimize opportunity for plagiarism
38

39. 39

40. “Thank you very much”
Source??
40