If I had copied the full text of this article from another editorial, would it cause
you concern? Hopefully it would, for it would be the theft of somebody else's intellectual
property and therefore, as Mike
Todd, 1998
the editor of Anesthesiology describes it, ‘a serious challenge to the integrity of any publishing effort’. It
would be a waste of white space (and trees), much editorial work and perhaps most
importantly to you, your precious time. Plagiarism is considered a substitute for
writing and so as Cottrell said in his complaint to
Todd, 1998
‘a substitute for thinking’. But if I had copied just one paragraph or one figure
of another author's work into this text without acknowledgement, would it trouble
you as much? I hope so, but I fear not. You might think ‘Ca fais rien’, and read on, unconcerned. But you should not take this laissez-faire approach, as turning a blind eye will not eradicate plagiarism: indeed, it will promote
it. In contrast, editors of scientific journals live in dread of a serious episode
of plagiarism. There is no doubt, however, that they still become aware of only a
small percent of the true incidence of such misdemeanours, which is often referred
to as the tip of the iceberg (
Lock, 1988
;
Mojon-Azzi and Mojon, 2004
). Indeed, it is usually assessors of scientific manuscripts, or readers of these
articles, who can be the original authors, who bring the transgression to an editor's
attention.To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Veterinary Anaesthesia and AnalgesiaAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Consortium of otolaryngology - head and neck surgery journals to collaborate in maintenance of high ethical standards.Audiol Neurotol. 2005; 10: 303-304
- Guidelines on Good Publication Practice.The COPE Report. BMJ Publishing Group, London1999 (1999)
- Complacency about misconduct.Nature. 2004; 427: 6969
- Policing Integrity.Nature. 2005; 435: 248
- Time to redefine authorship (Editorial).Br Med J. 1996; 312: 723
- Ethics in publishing: are we practising to the highest possible standards?.Br J Anaesth. 2000; 85: 341-343
- Misconduct in medical research: Does it exist in Britain?.Br Med J. 1988; 297: 1531-1535
- Policy and procedure for inquiring into allegations of scientific misconduct. MRC, London1997
- Scientific misconduct: from salami slicing to data fabrication.Ophthalmic Res. 2004; 36: 1-3
- Plagiarism and authorship (letter).Anesthesiology. 1999; 91: 324
- Plagiarism criteria ignore the way research evolves (letter).Nature. 2005; 436: 24
- Plagiarism (Editorial Views and Reply from Bhardwaj A and Kirsch JR).Anesthesiology. 1998; 89: 1307-1308
- In reply (letter).Anesthesiology. 1999; 91: 325
- A lesson learned. (Correspondence: letter and reply).Anesthesiology. 2005; 103: 442
- Different patterns of duplicate publication: An analysis of articles used in systematic reviews.JAMA. 2004; 291: 974-980
- China science foundation takes action against 60 grantees.Science. 2005; 309: 1798-1799
Article info
Identification
Copyright
© 2006 Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists and American College of Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
