Avoiding plagiarism,
self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical
writing
Paraphrasing highly technical
language
We have established that taking a paragraph, or for that matter, even a sentence from another source, and using it in our own writing without enclosing the material in quotations can constitute plagiarism. Similarly, inappropriate paraphrasing may also be classified as plagiarism.
The available evidence indicates that one of the reasons writers misappropriate text is because they may be unfamiliar with the concepts and/or language with which s/he is working.The ability to properly paraphrase technical text depends in large part on an author’s conceptual understanding of the ideas being processed and his/her mastery and command of the technical language involved. Accordingly, correct paraphrases are easy when the language of the original material allows us many options for substituting words and phrases. Research shows that when asked to paraphrase, students, as well as university professors, are more likely to appropriate and, therefore, plagiarize text when the original material to be paraphrased is made up of technical language and it is difficult to read than when the material is written in plain language and is easier to read.
Obviously, inexperienced authors (e.g., students) have the greatest difficulty paraphrasing the advanced technical text often found in the primary literature. In an effort to introduce them to primary sources of information in a given discipline, college students are often required to write a research paper using only articles from professional journals. For those students who must complete this type of assignment for the first time, and, in particular, for foreign students whose primary language is not English, writing a research paper can be a daunting task. This is because scholarly prose: 1) can be very intricate, 2) adheres to unique, stylistic conventions (e.g., use of the passive voice in the biomedical sciences), and 3) relies heavily on jargon that novice writers have yet to master. Consequently, students’ need to create an acceptable academic product that is grammatically correct and that demonstrates knowledge of the concepts discussed, forces many of them to rely on close paraphrases of the original text. Unfortunately, such writing can result in a charge of plagiarism.
Guideline 7: In order to make substantial modifications to the original
text that result in a proper paraphrase, the author must have a thorough
understanding of the ideas and terminology being used.
An analogous situation can occur at
the professional level when we wish to paraphrase, say, a complex process or
methodology. Traditional writing conventions give us the option to use any
material that is difficult to paraphrase by enclosing it in quotation marks
with some type of indication (e.g., a footnote) as to its origin. Therefore, if
the text is so technical that it would be very difficult or near impossible to
modify substantially without altering its meaning, then perhaps it would be
best to leave it in the original author’s wording, enclose it in quotation
marks, and include a citation. However, unlike literature or philosophy,
quoting in certain disciplines (e.g., biological sciences) is not encouraged
(see Pechnick, 2001). One would be hard pressed to find an entire sentence
quoted, let alone a short paragraph, in the pages of prestigious journals in
the biomedical sciences (e.g., Nature, Science, New England Journal of
Medicine).
In sum, the reality is that
traditional scientific prose and diction do not always facilitate paraphrasing.
To illustrate the difficulties inherent in paraphrasing highly technical
language, let’s consider the following paragraph from a report recently
published in Science (Lunyak, et
al., 2002).
“Mammalian histone lysine
methyltransferase, suppressor of variegation 39H1 (SUV39H1), initiates
silencing with selective methylation on Lys9 of histone H3, thus
creating a high-affinity binding site for HP1.
When an antibody to endogenous SUV39H1 was used for immunoprecipitation,
MeCP2 was effectively coimmunoprecipitated; conversely, αHA antibodies to
HA-tagged MeCP2 could immunoprecipitate SUV39H1 (Fig. 2G).”˛ (p. 1748)
Here is an attempt at paraphrasing the above
material:
A high affinity binding site for HP1 can
be produced by silencing Lys9 of histone H3 by methylation with
mammalian histone lysine
methyltransferase, a suppressor of variegation 39H1 (SUV39H1). MeCP2 can be immunoprecipitated
with antibodies prepared against endogenous SUV39H1; on the other hand,
immunoprecipitation of SUB39H1 resulted from aHA antibodies to HA-tagged MeCP2.
˛
Unlike the previous examples of
appropriate paraphrasing, the above example does not embody as many textual
modifications. For the exact meaning of
the original Science paragraph to be preserved in the present case, many
of the same terms must be left intact in the paraphrased version. Although
synonyms for some of the words may be available, their use would likely alter
the meaning of the original. For example, take the word affinity, which is defined as “that force by which a substance
chooses or elects to unite with one substance rather than with another”
(Dorland, 2000). Roget’s Thesaurus
(Chapman, 1992) lists the following synonyms for affinity: accord, agreement, attraction, friendship, inclination,
marriage relationship, preference, relationship, similarity, and tendency. Although
it might be possible to rewrite the first sentence using the synonym “attraction”, this alternative fails to
capture the precise meaning conveyed by the original sentence, given how the
term is used in this area of biomedical research. The fact of the matter is
that the word affinity has a very
specific denotation in the context in which is being used in the Science
paragraph and it is the only practical and meaningful alternative available.
The same can be said for other words that might have synonyms (e.g., binding,
silencing, site). Other terms, such as methylation
and antibodies are unique and do
not have synonyms available. In sum, most of the terms (e.g.,
immunoprecipitation, endogenous, coimmunoprecipitated) and expressions (e.g., HA-tagged,
high-affinity, mammalian histone lysing methyltransferase) in the above
paragraph are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to substitute without
altering the intended meaning of the paragraph. As a result, the paraphrased
version looks somewhat similar to the original and thus, applying the strict
definitions of paraphrasing, such as those provided by some writing guides
would render our paragraph as a borderline or an outright case of plagiarism.
Perhaps in recognition of the fact that
highly technical descriptions of a methodology, phenomena, etc., can be
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to properly paraphrase, ORI’s
definition of plagiarism provides the following caveat:
“ORI generally does not pursue the limited use of
identical or nearly-identical phrases which describe a commonly-used
methodology or previous research because ORI does not consider such use as
substantially misleading to the reader or of great significance.”
The above considerations may underlie the reason for the absence of an operational definition of proper paraphrasing.
Nevertheless, and in spite of the
above clarification provided by ORI, the following guideline is offered:
Guideline 8: A responsible writer has an ethical responsibility to readers,
and to the author/s from whom s/he is borrowing, to respect others’ ideas and
words, to credit those from whom we borrow, and whenever possible, to use one’s
own words when paraphrasing.
