【英語論文の書き方】第75回 「Plagiarism(剽窃)を避ける」について
2020年6月23日 09時32分
第74回では「Liner regression(線形回帰)は慎重に」を取り上げました。
第75(今回)のテーマは
「Plagiarism(剽窃)を避ける」についてです。
弊社に論文の英文校閲をご依頼くださるお客様から、剽窃チェッカーによって表現が類似した文章があると検知された、
そして、類似しているとみなされたのはご自分の過去の論文だった、というお話を聞くことがあります。
なんとか意味を変えずに、書き方だけ変更できないかというご相談をいただくことがあるのですが、場合によっては、ネイティブチェッカーも対応出来かねるケースがあるのが現状です。
この問題でお悩みの方はたくさんいらっしゃるかと思いますが、解決方法としては、どのようなことが考えられるのでしょうか。
一人の力では根本的な解決はなかなか難しいかもしれませんが、Geoffさんの提案から何かヒントを得ていただければ嬉しいです。
記事の最後にはちょっとしたtipsもありますので、ぜひお読みいただければと思います。
第75(今回)のテーマは
「Plagiarism(剽窃)を避ける」についてです。
弊社に論文の英文校閲をご依頼くださるお客様から、剽窃チェッカーによって表現が類似した文章があると検知された、
そして、類似しているとみなされたのはご自分の過去の論文だった、というお話を聞くことがあります。
なんとか意味を変えずに、書き方だけ変更できないかというご相談をいただくことがあるのですが、場合によっては、ネイティブチェッカーも対応出来かねるケースがあるのが現状です。
この問題でお悩みの方はたくさんいらっしゃるかと思いますが、解決方法としては、どのようなことが考えられるのでしょうか。
一人の力では根本的な解決はなかなか難しいかもしれませんが、Geoffさんの提案から何かヒントを得ていただければ嬉しいです。
記事の最後にはちょっとしたtipsもありますので、ぜひお読みいただければと思います。
Avoiding plagiarism By Geoffrey Hart
Plagiarism is most defined as using another author’s thoughts, and specifically their words and sentences, but presenting them as if they were your own thoughts. This is a complex subject for scientists, since it involves both ethical and legal considerations. From an ethical perspective, all modern science relies on the thoughts of previous researchers, which form our collective heritage; that is, these thoughts create the body of scientific knowledge that should be shared freely and openly among all researchers. To give credit for the hard work of previous researchers, we use literature citations to acknowledge their contribution to that heritage.
From a legal perspective, complications arise as a result of the constraints imposed by international copyright law. Simply citing someone’s work as the source does not give you the right to repeat their words exactly, since those exact words are protected by copyright law. When you write a paper, you therefore cannot create the entire text of your paper by copying the words of other authors, even if you cite the source of each group of copied words.
Note: “Fair use” guidelines exist to define how much of another author’s words it is legal to repeat in your own manuscripts. This is a complex issue, and details vary between academic fields and countries. It’s safer if you do not rely on fair use to justify copying another author’s words.
To protect themselves against the legal consequences from intentional or accidental copyright violations, journal publishers increasingly use plagiarism-detection software to prevent authors from copying published (thus, copyrighted) manuscripts. There is an obvious problem with this approach: There is a finite number of ways that you can communicate a given concept in any language, and the number of ways can be very small for very specific descriptions. At some point, it may become impossible to describe something without using the copyrighted words that someone has already published. This problem is particularly series for descriptions of experimental methods, since there is a very small number of ways to describe procedures such as adding a specific concentration of a chemical to a specific laboratory solution or performing a specific measurement with a specific instrument. Although you can increase this number by using synonyms (words with similar meanings), this adds little value; stating that you magnified or enhanced the temperature of a reaction offers no benefit over stating that you increased the temperature; on the contrary, synonyms usually communicate less clearly and effectively than the one best word for a given concept. Yet if you use those best words often enough, you increase the risk that a journal’s plagiarism-detection software will describe your manuscript as plagiarism.
This problem occurs even when you are only quoting your own words from a previous paper. Although the words are yours, it is generally necessary to transfer the copyright for those words to the journal that published your paper. In theory, and sometimes in practice, that journal can accuse you of violating their copyright if you repeat your own words in a subsequent paper. This is problematic if you are performing a long-term study of a single phenomenon or a single study system. For example, it’s difficult to vary the wording if you use the same crop cultivar for several years of research and must describe its genetic characteristics, if you perform long-term research at a specific site and must describe its climate, or if you examine the electrical properties of a given ceramic capacitor with different dopants added to alter its behavior.
The ideal solution would be to fix the plagiarism-detection software so that it accounts for the unique characteristics of how scientific authors must write a manuscript. For example, repeating descriptions of standard methodologies should not be treated as plagiarism because scientists understand that these methods are shared among all researchers. Unfortunately, there are strong economic incentives for journal publishers to not fix their software.
There are several ways to solve this problem. Possibly the strongest solution is to create an online database of descriptions that can be reused. For example, researchers could develop a database of standard methods for their field of research, and copyright the information in this database using the Creative Commons license (https://creativecommons.org/). The Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) specifies that text protected under this license can be copied and redistributed in any medium or format, even for commercial purposes, with three constraints: you must acknowledge the original source, provide a link to the license description, and clearly indicate any changes that you made to the original description. Under this approach, text from a database of standard methods could be freely reused in any journal article without any problems related to plagiarism. In practice, it will be difficult to accomplish this without modifying the plagiarism-detection software so that it accepts the repetition of text that is published under the Creative Commons license.
Note: The Public Library of Science, PLOS (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/) uses this approach.
This is not just a theoretical suggestion. The journals published by the Nature Publishing Group have begun to investigate the possibility of a “protocol exchange" (https://protocolexchange.researchsquare.com/). The database does not require peer-review of protocols, although they are screened to detect obvious problems such as health risks. Nonetheless, it’s in the interest of authors to rigorously review their protocols before publication, and update them if necessary after problems are detected. This both protects their professional reputation, and helps them to improve their methodology in response to feedback from the research community. For this approach to work, it will need to become an accepted part of the submission guidelines for all journals. As this is clearly in the interest of journal editors and readers, this should become an increasingly accepted part of the future journal publishing process.
Until this approach becomes universally accepted, and until all key methods have been included in such a repository, authors must look for compromise solutions. For example, when my authors are repeating their own published methods, I encourage them to add words such as the following in their letter to the journal editor: “The Methods section of this paper repeats text that was previously published in [one or more literature citations]. We have done this to ensure that the peer reviewers can fully understand the present study without having to find and read [this previous paper / these previous papers]. We will be happy to work with you and the reviewers to determine how much of this repetition should be retained in the final published manuscript.” (I encourage you to copy those words freely if they meet your needs; I am releasing them under a Creative Commons license!) By clearly indicating what text the journal’s software may identify as plagiarized, providing a strong justification for this repetition, and by emphasizing that you will work with the editor to solve any problems, you provide a strong argument for allowing the repetition.
From a legal perspective, complications arise as a result of the constraints imposed by international copyright law. Simply citing someone’s work as the source does not give you the right to repeat their words exactly, since those exact words are protected by copyright law. When you write a paper, you therefore cannot create the entire text of your paper by copying the words of other authors, even if you cite the source of each group of copied words.
Note: “Fair use” guidelines exist to define how much of another author’s words it is legal to repeat in your own manuscripts. This is a complex issue, and details vary between academic fields and countries. It’s safer if you do not rely on fair use to justify copying another author’s words.
To protect themselves against the legal consequences from intentional or accidental copyright violations, journal publishers increasingly use plagiarism-detection software to prevent authors from copying published (thus, copyrighted) manuscripts. There is an obvious problem with this approach: There is a finite number of ways that you can communicate a given concept in any language, and the number of ways can be very small for very specific descriptions. At some point, it may become impossible to describe something without using the copyrighted words that someone has already published. This problem is particularly series for descriptions of experimental methods, since there is a very small number of ways to describe procedures such as adding a specific concentration of a chemical to a specific laboratory solution or performing a specific measurement with a specific instrument. Although you can increase this number by using synonyms (words with similar meanings), this adds little value; stating that you magnified or enhanced the temperature of a reaction offers no benefit over stating that you increased the temperature; on the contrary, synonyms usually communicate less clearly and effectively than the one best word for a given concept. Yet if you use those best words often enough, you increase the risk that a journal’s plagiarism-detection software will describe your manuscript as plagiarism.
This problem occurs even when you are only quoting your own words from a previous paper. Although the words are yours, it is generally necessary to transfer the copyright for those words to the journal that published your paper. In theory, and sometimes in practice, that journal can accuse you of violating their copyright if you repeat your own words in a subsequent paper. This is problematic if you are performing a long-term study of a single phenomenon or a single study system. For example, it’s difficult to vary the wording if you use the same crop cultivar for several years of research and must describe its genetic characteristics, if you perform long-term research at a specific site and must describe its climate, or if you examine the electrical properties of a given ceramic capacitor with different dopants added to alter its behavior.
The ideal solution would be to fix the plagiarism-detection software so that it accounts for the unique characteristics of how scientific authors must write a manuscript. For example, repeating descriptions of standard methodologies should not be treated as plagiarism because scientists understand that these methods are shared among all researchers. Unfortunately, there are strong economic incentives for journal publishers to not fix their software.
There are several ways to solve this problem. Possibly the strongest solution is to create an online database of descriptions that can be reused. For example, researchers could develop a database of standard methods for their field of research, and copyright the information in this database using the Creative Commons license (https://creativecommons.org/). The Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) specifies that text protected under this license can be copied and redistributed in any medium or format, even for commercial purposes, with three constraints: you must acknowledge the original source, provide a link to the license description, and clearly indicate any changes that you made to the original description. Under this approach, text from a database of standard methods could be freely reused in any journal article without any problems related to plagiarism. In practice, it will be difficult to accomplish this without modifying the plagiarism-detection software so that it accepts the repetition of text that is published under the Creative Commons license.
Note: The Public Library of Science, PLOS (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/) uses this approach.
This is not just a theoretical suggestion. The journals published by the Nature Publishing Group have begun to investigate the possibility of a “protocol exchange" (https://protocolexchange.researchsquare.com/). The database does not require peer-review of protocols, although they are screened to detect obvious problems such as health risks. Nonetheless, it’s in the interest of authors to rigorously review their protocols before publication, and update them if necessary after problems are detected. This both protects their professional reputation, and helps them to improve their methodology in response to feedback from the research community. For this approach to work, it will need to become an accepted part of the submission guidelines for all journals. As this is clearly in the interest of journal editors and readers, this should become an increasingly accepted part of the future journal publishing process.
Until this approach becomes universally accepted, and until all key methods have been included in such a repository, authors must look for compromise solutions. For example, when my authors are repeating their own published methods, I encourage them to add words such as the following in their letter to the journal editor: “The Methods section of this paper repeats text that was previously published in [one or more literature citations]. We have done this to ensure that the peer reviewers can fully understand the present study without having to find and read [this previous paper / these previous papers]. We will be happy to work with you and the reviewers to determine how much of this repetition should be retained in the final published manuscript.” (I encourage you to copy those words freely if they meet your needs; I am releasing them under a Creative Commons license!) By clearly indicating what text the journal’s software may identify as plagiarized, providing a strong justification for this repetition, and by emphasizing that you will work with the editor to solve any problems, you provide a strong argument for allowing the repetition.
無料メルマガ登録
これからも約2週間に一度のペースで、英語で論文を書く方向けに役立つコンテンツをお届けしていきますので、お見逃しのないよう、上記のフォームよりご登録ください。
もちろん無料です。
バックナンバー
第1回 if、in case、when の正しい使い分け:確実性の程度を英語で正しく表現する
第2回 「装置」に対する英語表現
第3回 助動詞のニュアンスを正しく理解する:「~することが出来た」「~することが出来なかった」の表現
第4回 「~を用いて」の表現:by と with の違い
第5回 技術英文で使われる代名詞のitおよび指示代名詞thisとthatの違いとそれらの使用法
第6回 原因・結果を表す動詞の正しい使い方:その1 原因→結果
第7回 原因・結果を表す動詞の使い方:その2 結果→原因
第8回 受動態の多用と誤用に注意
第9回 top-heavyな英文を避ける
第10回 名詞の修飾語を前から修飾する場合の表現法
第11回 受動態による効果的表現
第12回 同格を表す接続詞thatの使い方
第13回 「技術」を表す英語表現
第14回 「特別に」を表す英語表現
第15回 所有を示すアポストロフィー + s ( ’s) の使い方
第16回 「つまり」「言い換えれば」を表す表現
第17回 寸法や重量を表す表現
第18回 前置詞 of の使い方: Part 1
第19回 前置詞 of の使い方: Part 2
第20回 物体や物質を表す英語表現
第21回 句動詞表現より1語動詞での表現へ
第22回 不定詞と動名詞: Part 1
第23回 不定詞と動名詞の使い分け: Part 2
第24回 理由を表す表現
第25回 総称表現 (a, theの使い方を含む)
第26回研究開発」を表す英語表現
第27回 「0~1の数値は単数か複数か?」
第28回 「時制-現在形の動詞の使い方」
第29回 then, however, therefore, for example など接続副詞の使い方
第30回 まちがえやすいusing, based onの使い方-分詞構文
第31回 比率や割合の表現(ratio, rate, proportion, percent, percentage)
第32回 英語論文の書き方 総集編
第33回 Quality Review Issue No. 23 report, show の時制について
第34回 Quality Review Issue No. 24 参考文献で日本語論文をどう記載すべきか
第35回 Quality Review Issue No. 25 略語を書き出すときによくある間違いとは?
第36回 Quality Review Issue No. 26 %と℃の前にスペースを入れるかどうか
第37回 Quality Review Issue No. 27 同じ種類の名詞が続くとき冠詞は付けるべき?!
第38回 Quality Review Issue No. 22 日本人が特に間違えやすい副詞の使い方
第39回 Quality Review Issue No. 21 previous, preceding, earlierなどの表現のちがい
第40回 Quality Review Issue No. 20 using XX, by XXの表現の違い
第41回 Quality Review Issue No. 19 increase, rise, surgeなど動詞の選び方
第42回 Quality Review Issue No. 18 論文での受動態の使い方
第43回 Quality Review Issue No. 17 Compared with とCompared toの違いは?
第44回 Reported about, Approach toの前置詞は必要か?
第45回 Think, propose, suggest, consider, believeの使い分け
第46回 Quality Review Issue No. 14 Problematic prepositions scientific writing: by, through, and with -3つの前置詞について
第47回 Quality Review Issue No. 13 名詞を前から修飾する場合と後ろから修飾する場合
第48回 Quality Review Issue No. 13 単数用法のThey
第49回 Quality Review Issue No. 12 study, investigation, research の微妙なニュアンスのちがい
第50回 SinceとBecause 用法に違いはあるのか?
第51回 Figure 1とFig.1の使い分け
第52回 数式を含む場合は現在形か?過去形か?
第53回 Quality Review Issue No. 8 By 2020とup to 2020の違い
第54回 Quality Review Issue No. 7 high-accuracy data? それとも High accurate data? 複合形容詞でのハイフンの使用
第55回 実験計画について
第56回 参考文献について
第57回 データの分析について
第58回 強調表現について
第59回 共同研究の論文執筆について
第60回 論文の略語について
第61回 冠詞の使い分けについて
第62回 大文字表記について
第63回 ダッシュの使い分け
第64回 英語の言葉選びの難しさについて
第65回 過去形と能動態について
第66回 「知識の呪い」について
第67回 「文献の引用パート1」について
第68回 「文献の引用パート2」について
第69回 「ジャーナル用の図表の準備」について
第70回 「結論を出す ~AbstractとConclusionsの違い~」について
第71回 「研究倫理 パート1: 研究デザインとデータ報告」について
第72回 「研究倫理 パート2: 読者の時間を無駄にしない」について
第73回 「記号と特殊文字の入力」について
第74回 「Liner regression(線形回帰)は慎重に」について
第2回 「装置」に対する英語表現
第3回 助動詞のニュアンスを正しく理解する:「~することが出来た」「~することが出来なかった」の表現
第4回 「~を用いて」の表現:by と with の違い
第5回 技術英文で使われる代名詞のitおよび指示代名詞thisとthatの違いとそれらの使用法
第6回 原因・結果を表す動詞の正しい使い方:その1 原因→結果
第7回 原因・結果を表す動詞の使い方:その2 結果→原因
第8回 受動態の多用と誤用に注意
第9回 top-heavyな英文を避ける
第10回 名詞の修飾語を前から修飾する場合の表現法
第11回 受動態による効果的表現
第12回 同格を表す接続詞thatの使い方
第13回 「技術」を表す英語表現
第14回 「特別に」を表す英語表現
第15回 所有を示すアポストロフィー + s ( ’s) の使い方
第16回 「つまり」「言い換えれば」を表す表現
第17回 寸法や重量を表す表現
第18回 前置詞 of の使い方: Part 1
第19回 前置詞 of の使い方: Part 2
第20回 物体や物質を表す英語表現
第21回 句動詞表現より1語動詞での表現へ
第22回 不定詞と動名詞: Part 1
第23回 不定詞と動名詞の使い分け: Part 2
第24回 理由を表す表現
第25回 総称表現 (a, theの使い方を含む)
第26回研究開発」を表す英語表現
第27回 「0~1の数値は単数か複数か?」
第28回 「時制-現在形の動詞の使い方」
第29回 then, however, therefore, for example など接続副詞の使い方
第30回 まちがえやすいusing, based onの使い方-分詞構文
第31回 比率や割合の表現(ratio, rate, proportion, percent, percentage)
第32回 英語論文の書き方 総集編
第33回 Quality Review Issue No. 23 report, show の時制について
第34回 Quality Review Issue No. 24 参考文献で日本語論文をどう記載すべきか
第35回 Quality Review Issue No. 25 略語を書き出すときによくある間違いとは?
第36回 Quality Review Issue No. 26 %と℃の前にスペースを入れるかどうか
第37回 Quality Review Issue No. 27 同じ種類の名詞が続くとき冠詞は付けるべき?!
第38回 Quality Review Issue No. 22 日本人が特に間違えやすい副詞の使い方
第39回 Quality Review Issue No. 21 previous, preceding, earlierなどの表現のちがい
第40回 Quality Review Issue No. 20 using XX, by XXの表現の違い
第41回 Quality Review Issue No. 19 increase, rise, surgeなど動詞の選び方
第42回 Quality Review Issue No. 18 論文での受動態の使い方
第43回 Quality Review Issue No. 17 Compared with とCompared toの違いは?
第44回 Reported about, Approach toの前置詞は必要か?
第45回 Think, propose, suggest, consider, believeの使い分け
第46回 Quality Review Issue No. 14 Problematic prepositions scientific writing: by, through, and with -3つの前置詞について
第47回 Quality Review Issue No. 13 名詞を前から修飾する場合と後ろから修飾する場合
第48回 Quality Review Issue No. 13 単数用法のThey
第49回 Quality Review Issue No. 12 study, investigation, research の微妙なニュアンスのちがい
第50回 SinceとBecause 用法に違いはあるのか?
第51回 Figure 1とFig.1の使い分け
第52回 数式を含む場合は現在形か?過去形か?
第53回 Quality Review Issue No. 8 By 2020とup to 2020の違い
第54回 Quality Review Issue No. 7 high-accuracy data? それとも High accurate data? 複合形容詞でのハイフンの使用
第55回 実験計画について
第56回 参考文献について
第57回 データの分析について
第58回 強調表現について
第59回 共同研究の論文執筆について
第60回 論文の略語について
第61回 冠詞の使い分けについて
第62回 大文字表記について
第63回 ダッシュの使い分け
第64回 英語の言葉選びの難しさについて
第65回 過去形と能動態について
第66回 「知識の呪い」について
第67回 「文献の引用パート1」について
第68回 「文献の引用パート2」について
第69回 「ジャーナル用の図表の準備」について
第70回 「結論を出す ~AbstractとConclusionsの違い~」について
第71回 「研究倫理 パート1: 研究デザインとデータ報告」について
第72回 「研究倫理 パート2: 読者の時間を無駄にしない」について
第73回 「記号と特殊文字の入力」について
第74回 「Liner regression(線形回帰)は慎重に」について