Uncovering published authors' text-borrowing practices: Paraphrasing strategies, sources, and self-plagiarism

Sun, Yu‐Chih; Yang, Fang-Ying

doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.003

Cited by 27 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, they surpassed the novice co-authors proportionally in the use of other three strategies particularly in self-plagiarism, the reuse (or recycling) of texts from an author's previous publications. Similarly, other researchers reported substantial evidence of textual reuse in various disciplines as in computer sciences (Collberg & Kobourov, 2005), in medicine (Schein & Paladugu, 2001), in the fields of language and education (Sun & Yang, 2015), and in social sciences and humanities among top published authors in Australian universities (Bretag & Carapiet, 2007). The difficulty of avoiding text recycling, as argued by Sun and Yang (2015: 234), might be due to the author's individual writing style, "that is, authors tend to develop stylistic habits, reflected in their sentence patterns and choices of vocabulary."…”

Section: Proficient and Novice Co-authorsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Through textual analysis, or interviews with student writers, researchers have attempted to tap some aspects of textual borrowing including the extent, frequency, or type of legitimate or illegitimate borrowing (see Campbell, 1990;East, 2005;Flowerdew & Li, 2007a;Howard, 1992;Johns & Mayes, 1990;Keck, 2006;McCabe, Treviño, & Butterfield, 2001;Park, 2003;Pecorari, 2003Pecorari, , 2008Shi, 2004;Walker, 2010;Warn, 2006), the student or faculty membersʼ attitude and perception toward plagiarism (Amiri & Razmjoo, 2015;Ashworth, Bannister, & Thorne, 1997;Gullifer & Tyson, 2010;Sutherland-Smith & Carr, 2005; Wilkinson, 2009, among others) and toward online detection machines (Dahl, 2007;Ledwith & Rísquez, 2008;Savage, 2004;Stapleton, 2011;Walker, 2010). Plagiarism as practiced by more professional writers, though a less researched topic, has also garnered the attention of some other researchers, thereby opening discussions of self-plagiarism and multi-authorship in published journal articles (Bennett & Taylor, 2003;Bretag & Carapiet, 2007;Roig, 2016;Sun, 2013;Sun & Yang, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Source misuse in applied linguistics articles: Exploring proficient and novice English writersʼ perceptions of plagiarism

Soltani

Jalilifar

2020

Int J App Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The source misuse practices of non‐English speaking academic authors are a controversial but less researched topic in plagiarism studies. The present study investigated the illegitimate textual borrowing practices of proficient and novice (co)authors as well as multi‐ and single‐authored articles in Iranian scholarly journals of Applied Linguistics. The similarity check was performed by the use of the text matching software (iThenticate) along with human inspection. The results revealed no significant difference in the plagiarism levels of proficient and novice (co)authors nor in multi‐author and single‐author articles. The study further continued through interviews to explore several proficient and novice academic authors' perception and knowledge about plagiarism. The proficient writers, as faculty members, showed better understanding of textual borrowing strategies. The evidence suggested that postgraduate students still have not developed an intrinsic drive to avoid plagiarism because they think they do not receive proper training in source attribution and in plagiarism avoidance. Thus, the plagiarism debate including the practice of source use conventions and ethics of knowledge should gradually flow in all students' activities. This process can take effect as long as it is supported by the institutional measures along with appropriate use of both educational and developmental programs.

show abstract

Section: Proficient and Novice Co-authorsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Source misuse in applied linguistics articles: Exploring proficient and novice English writersʼ perceptions of plagiarism

Soltani

Jalilifar

2020

Int J App Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Editorial responses 16 Baserga, 2011;Chalmers, 2009;Joob & Wiwanitkit, 2013Keeble, 2016;Klosterman, 2013;Mohapatra & Samal, 2014;Teixeira da Silva, 2016;White, 2011;Wiwanitkit, 2012Wiwanitkit, , 2014Wiwanitkit, , 2015Zulqifar, 2007. Secondary research 12 Amos, 2014;Cheung & Driver, 2004;Elbeck, 2009;Errami et al 2007;Halupa, 2014;Horbach & Halffman, 2017;Ison, 2012Ison, , 2015Kokol et al 2016;Roig, 2005;Schein & Paladugu, 2001;Sun & Yang, 2015. Primary research 8 Bretag & Carapiet, 2007;Halupa & Bolliger, 2013Halupa, Breitenbach, & Anast, 2016;Jones, 2011;Mkhize et al, 2009;Roig & Ballew, 1994;Vincent Robinson, 2016.…”

Section: Analysis Of Typologies Of Evidenceunclassified

“…A more detailed analysis of studies using secondary data revealed that all were published over the past two decades, with more than half (58.3%) published between 2010 and 2017, indicating a general increase in the amount of research being done using secondary materials as a data source. & Driver, 2004;Elbeck, 2009;Errami et al 2007;Roig, 2005;Schein & Paladugu, 2001;7 58.3 Amos, 2014Halupa, 2014;Horbach & Halffman, 2017;Ison, 2012Ison, , 2015Kokol et al 2016;Sun & Yang, 2015;Total 12 100.0 Among the sources that examined secondary data, Halupa's (2014) paper was of particular interest to our study, as she examined self-plagiarism among students. She reported that neither faculty, nor students understand the concept of self-plagiarism very well, yet both groups view the issue differently.…”

Section: Sources Using Secondary Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

Eaton

Crossman

2018

Interchange

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-plagiarism is a contentious issue in higher education, research and scholarly publishing contexts. The practice is problematic because it disrupts scientific publishing by overemphasizing results, increasing journal publication costs, and artificially inflating journal impact, among other consequences. We hypothesized that there was a dearth of empirical studies on the topic of self-plagiarism, with an over-abundance of editorial and commentary articles based on anecdotal evidence. The research question was: What typologies of evidence characterize the literature on self-plagiarism in scholarly and research journals? We conducted a scoping review, using the search terms "self-plagiarism" and "self-plagiarism" (hyphenated), consulting five social sciences research databases, supplemented by a manual search for articles, resulting in over 5900 results. After removing duplicates and excluding non-scholarly sources, we arrived at a data set of 133 sources, with publication dates ranging from 1968 to 2017. With an interrater reliability of over 93% between two researchers, our typological analysis revealed 47 sources (34.3%) were editorials; 41 (29.9%) were conceptual research (including teaching cases); 16 (11.7%) were editorial responses; 12 (8.6%) were secondary research; and only 8 sources (5.8%) were primary research. There is little guidance in the available literature to graduate students or their professors about how to disentangle the complexities of self-plagiarism. With primary and secondary research combined accounting for 14.4% of overall contributions to the data set, and primary research constituting only 6% of overall contributions, we conclude with a call for more empirical evidence on the topic to support contributions to the scholarly dialogue.

show abstract

“…Questioning these possibilities is of critical importance as well. Sun & Yang (2015) conducted a research to uncover published authors' text-borrowing. The goal of the study is to investigate the paraphrasing strategies and self-plagiarism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Complexity of Textual Borrowing in Learning English As a Foreign Language

Journal¹,

Sutopo²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exploring the notion of ownership of text and learning was potential to understand the question of textual borrowing. However, this relationship remained under-explored. This study would address two key research questions: (1) How did learners of English as a foreign language paraphrase texts and (2) How were their attitudes towards plagiarism. Data were drawn from texts produced by undergraduate students of English Department in reading comprehension classes. Two stages of analyses were carried out. Firstly description of quality of paraphrasing the texts by the learners were presented and distributed. Secondly, the learners' attitudes towards plagiarism were described. These analyses were used as starting point to interpret the student plagiarism. Findings and discussion revealed that 20% of the learners' works were 100% unique. They agreed to say that plagiarizing was as bad as stealing an exam and that plagiarism impoverished the investigative spirit. The rest were plagiarized ranging from 5% up to 24%. They said that sometimes they felt tempted to plagiarize because so many other students were doing it. They argued sometimes they copied a sentence or two just to become inspired for further writing. Pedagogically, it implies that since paraphrasing is using one's own words to express someone else's ideas, students should be encouraged to cite a source accurately and define unfamiliar words instead of being punished. They need to change any words or phrases that match the original so closely. The ideas and meaning of the original source must be maintained and words must be their own.

show abstract

Uncovering published authors' text-borrowing practices: Paraphrasing strategies, sources, and self-plagiarism

Cited by 27 publications

References 39 publications

Source misuse in applied linguistics articles: Exploring proficient and novice English writersʼ perceptions of plagiarism

Source misuse in applied linguistics articles: Exploring proficient and novice English writersʼ perceptions of plagiarism

Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

The Complexity of Textual Borrowing in Learning English As a Foreign Language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About