Page 36 - Academic and Research Book_WEB

paper in the conference, even if the paper for the Proceedings has not yet been accepted. This overlap
must be brought out very clearly by stating, “The work reported in this paper was presented earlier in
the following conference...” as a footnote in the manuscript submitted to the journal. If this is done
then it pre-empts any accusation of self-plagiarism. This is an increasing problem these days, but
would not be relevant if the Conference proceedings eventually do not get published.

Idea-plagiarism or Paraphrase-and-claim-as-original Plagiarism

As explained, plagiarism includes the appropriation of another person’s ideas without giving
appropriate credit, and passing them off as one’s own. If the idea is copied verbatim, then it amounts
to text-plagiarism and would be detected by standard software that UGC requires, and most reputed
publishers, utilize. “Idea-plagiarism” involves plagiarizing the idea while paraphrasing the text. We
classify it as of the “paraphrase-the-idea-and-claim-as-original” type, as distinct from the “cut-and-
paste” type. Since the text-similarity is intentionally destroyed, computer software cannot detect
the similarity of ideas. Plagiarism of an idea can be detected only by involving area-experts who go
through the contents of the errant paper of the perpetrators, and the original paper of the victims.

“Idea-plagiarism is worse than cut-and-paste plagiarism not just because it is intentional paraphrasing,
but also because scientists value the originality of ideas more than originality of language” (Chaddah,
2014, op. cit.). New ideas lead to breakthroughs, to innovation, to patents, while a particular way
of stating the idea does not. This form of plagiarism is of great concern because some articles are
exhorting researchers to paraphrase (Roig, 2012). The benefit of this suggestion will be reaped by
those who have good command over the language!
Novel ideas in a manuscript submitted for publication necessarily face some scepticism, and this is
compounded by referee bias if the authors and/or their institute is not well established. Unusual ideas
in the manuscripts of established researchers do not face the same level of referee bias. As discussed
earlier (Chaddah, 2014, op. cit.), established researchers can assess the validity of novel ideas when
they are exposed to them at a Conference when an enthusiastic young researcher describes his
ideas seeking a reaction, gets into an intense discussion in pursuit of a post-doctoral position, or
communicates an unpublished manuscript. God help us if the established expert has a weak moment
because such manuscripts from experts are accepted rapidly and frequently cited. It is important to
recognize that idea-plagiarism is not very uncommon.

Unlike the case of text-plagiarism, there is no quantitative measure by which a non-expert can
be convinced that ideas have been plagiarized. It is more hurting to the victims than cut-and-paste
plagiarism, and is in need of a corrective mechanism. It is quite common to find plagiarism of ideas
that have been already published in a reputed standard journal. We shall discuss specific examples
of this because original ownership of the ideas is well documented, and there is a possibility to fight
back. We shall discuss how one can fight back, and the limited corrections currently available.

Corrections for Plagiarism

1. Penalties for text-plagiarism

Earlier, we discussed a very serious case of fabrication and falsification of data in which some penalties
were imposed on the first author. The co-authors were not penalized, although their reputations could
have taken a mild hit.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND RESEARCH QUALITY | 25