In modern economics, there are many problems. However, among them there is one more, gaining strength, – squabbles. Today’s information space is full of disputes about plagiarism from the most respected domestic economists. How should this be treated? What is true here and what is not?
How tempting to raise the “wave” on the Internet, finding plagiarism in the works of people whose names are audible! In our age of permissiveness, freedom of speech (no moral standards are not limited), “PR”, impunity and total commercialization of the media – this is a simple and well-trodden path to cheap popularity. Nobody will be too careful to check such explanations, because “there is no smoke without fire.” Moreover, on this path pure slanders and lampoons are born.
Readers need a sensation. The reader “buys” it. The workers of the factories and the overfulfilment of plans no longer interest anyone. Good, good examples – also somewhere on the periphery of news. In the center – blood, horror, deception, brothel, scandal and violence. That’s what the “faithful sons of progress” are ready to pay for.
In the category of “deception” is just the topic of our today’s conversation. In ordinary life, the term “deception” means the non-fulfillment of certain promises or obligations; most often, monetary. Theft is the most common example of “deception” in the broad sense of the word.
In science, or more precisely, in the scientific industry, theft is called “plagiarism” and denotes stealing “the currency of the scientific world”: results, achievements. That, for what then give awards, positions, honor and respect; thus, making the “conversion” of the scientific currency into a “generally accepted currency.”
What is plagiarism?
To begin with, not everything is simple even with theft. Imagine that you are in command of a large project, in which there are many informal arrangements that are not prescribed in the contracts. Agreements that you will make certain payments in certain cases, the criteria for implementation of which are also vague. Believe me, this happens all the time. Now, often there is such a situation, when you only “according to conscience” decide how much money you have to pay. In this case, the concept of “stealing” is blurred.
The formalists will begin to insist that theft is only that which falls under the law. Thus, you do not need to be responsible for your words: you promised something to someone orally, and violate yourself how much it will fit. Of course, we do not want formalities, but the essence. In addition, when clarifying the STI, the concept of theft, as we have seen, is blurred.
Even worse with theft of science. Plagiarism, we call an act of conscious appropriation of someone else’s result, someone else’s thought; reprinting someone else’s text without reference to the source. This formal definition, which cannot be called operational, as well as the definition of the term “theft” through “misappropriation of property”.
First, what is the source? With this, everything is simple in mathematics: you are a “thief”, if you misappropriated someone else’s theorem, and called it your own, did not refer to it when you knowingly knew that you had predecessors. Already in the theoretical economy, this is worse. The thief or not, if you used someone else’s model, slightly modifying it? If you did not refer to the original model, then, it seems, the thief is unambiguous. And if referenced? So, type “similar models considered” (such and so then)? Then a very close repetition? It is already unclear.
The nightmare comes when we go to the humanitarian area. What does it mean that “your thoughts are not new”? How can you understand this if you are not very close to the subject area? How can you even track, steal them or invent them again? Even the man himself cannot understand this! At times, somewhere I heard something, then your mental process went on a certain, strongly programmed way, and at the output – word for word with Kant! Do you think this does not happen? Still as happens!
Next, “plagiarism with plagiarism.” What if you do not write an original scientific article, but a book? In which cases can your actions be described as plagiarism?
Our answer: only when you bring the source text word for word, or very close, WITHOUT any indication of the source. Thus, creating a reader’s impression that the text is created by the effort of your own pen. I do not qualify as plagiarism, when a person, reading another’s book, writes his own, quoting even whole quotes without quotes from someone else’s book, but accompanying with a phrase like “Following (such-and-such), let’s do the following calculations / we argue so-and-so.” If such a piece turns out to be very long, then this is strange, but nothing more.
More on the “scientific industry” and students. Studying for students requires, first of all, a living curiosity, an interest not in how to make a scientific career and earn money and honor on it, but to open questions of the universe! Then there will be no plagiarism either. The student himself will write his own thoughts. The worst thing that happens to him then is when the student proves again what is already there. But even this is not so bad. The main thing is not to be upset when his face is jabbed.
Of course, students should learn and scientific ethics. But do not get mad here. In the master’s thesis, as in the articles, long pieces of someone else’s text look ugly. Even if in quotes. Even if quoted. If they are not quoted, it is plagiarism. But it’s also ridiculous that many of the learned men have an article behind the article, 100 articles in a row begin with the same introduction, word for word written, let them by themselves, but many years ago. Not plagiarism, but no less dull.
So, how do students learn such ethics? Again, you can learn in different ways. Among the training methods are: 1) Training seminars, where the leader simply explains to the student what and how to do to avoid plagiarism; 2) Your own example of writing articles / books; 3) Use a free plagiarism checker at Pro-Papers. If they do not have plagiarism or other absurdities close to plagiarism, the student will involuntarily try not to admit them either.