Appropriate Use of Other Authors’ Sentences

Do you allow the insertion of a sentence taken from someone else’s paper (without re-wording)? Is referencing enough for inserting, or must I rewrite the paragraph of the other paper in my own words?

Amir Bahrami Ahmadi
External Editor, McGill Journal of Medicine
_________________________________
This is a very interesting question that provided a major thread at the October 2006 conference of the association Mediterranean Editors and Translators (http://www.metmeetings.org/pagines/metm06.htm), and it is enough of a concern for us that we run workshops explicitly to help our members improve their ability to help authors improve the way they interweave information from sources. It concerns us so much because both non-English speaking authors and those of us (like me) who are “non-native” speakers of MEDICAL English must struggle with so many variables.

To answer your question directly, however, I would make the following points.

1) Looking at published medical articles coldly, through the lens of applied linguistics (my background), I think we have to say that medical journal editors are indeed highly tolerant of one-sentence copying, provided the reference is given.

2) NEVERTHELESS, one-sentence copying (“patch writing” it’s sometimes called) creates problems in writing cohesion, and is to be avoided EVEN IF the journal editors do tolerate it. The effect that short-segment copying has on clarity of writing came up in the WAME listserve thread <“How to Handle Plagiarism Without Destroying the Author”>.

3) SO, paraphrasing is important not just to do a perfunctory re-write to avoid an accusation of plagiarism, but to make sure that the cited information is cohesively interwoven into the expression of the present author’s own messages. (Aids are available to help non-native–English writers and non-MEDICAL–English authors  paraphrase effectively , but I won’t go into them now.)

4) Copying larger chunks is, in my experience, frowned upon by journal editors. When I have flagged large-chunk copying in articles I’ve copyedited for journals, it has resulted in article DE-acceptance. (We do, however, help authors to paraphrase when the underlying problem is patch writing by a non- native–English author.)

5) A very good tutorial on avoiding plagiarism in the sciences can be found in the material Miguel Roig developed for the US Office of Research Integrity: http://facpub.stjohns.edu/%7Eroigm/plagiarism/.

Good luck with your hard work of paraphrasing!

Mary Ellen
_________________________________
Just put it in quotes and reference the source properly. I do agree with Mary Ellen that you need to make sure that it fits smoothly within your paper.

Diana J. Mason
Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Nursing
_________________________________
I agree that putting the source "patch" in quotes and citing it satisfies the formal demands of not plagiarizing, but this kind of writing will seem non-professional in most biomedical journals. If one looks at other fields that use quotations frequently, they tend to be used for special purposes: when the quoted text itself is the subject of discussion. Thus we see quotes used in writing about literature, history, law, etc. where the language itself is topic. This will also be true in writing about the history of biomedical ideas.

Sentences in biomedical writing, of the kind under discussion here, are usually found in background or discussion sections, and refer to authoritative statements about factual material. The concepts need to be cited to justify (authorize) the statements, but the text-language itself is not the issue. Citing a quotation in this context will seem unprofessional for two reasons. 

1) It is merely non-standard and

2) more substantively, the formal citation will then be ambiguous—is it there as a "confirmative" citation (initiating the paper trail that would lead ultimately to the empirical basis for the statement), or merely to indicate the quote source, as in literary quotes?

In this view, the author has no choice but both (1) to transform (paraphrase) the source text substantively, weaving it into the new text AND (2) to cite it.

John Rodgers
_________________________________
Perhaps I misread the original email, but I thought it asked about including a verbatim sentence from another source, not creating a paper by cutting and pasting sentences from multiple sources.

I don't agree that quotes aren't appropriate for biomedical publishing. Researchers often self-plagiarize their literature reviews and methods sections when writing multiple papers on one study. I would much rather that they quote from their original paper rather than violate copyright agreements or not be up front with readers about the fact that a section in one paper is taken verbatim from one they already published.

Diana
_________________________________
Thanks for point that out, Diana. I may well have taken us on a detour. Apologies!

On quotations, I agree they can be effective. I saw a very functional use of quotes around two long phrases from a WHO document in a methods section of an article just the other day. They formed a two-point list of criteria. As John points out, it’s unusual, but it was effective. So I left it intact—why bother to paraphrase here, I thought, even though that’s what’s usually done.

In the teaching of writing, many borrow the phrase of modern architects and say “form follows function.” In the example I mention, the WHO document was not a historical, literary masterpiece, but it was rather nice to see the plain, original wording displayed as such. 

ME Kerans
_________________________________
You have to paraphrase the sentences. It means you have to read them, understand what the author wants to say and write them in your words. You cannot use more than 5% of other articles in their words. More than this limit will be plagiarism. In certain circumstances, if you prefer to use the exact words you can use quotation marks and put that sentence in quotation.

Behrooz Astaneh
Deputy Editor, Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences
_________________________________
I agree with Mary Ellen, John, Behrooz, and others who argue that the material needs to be properly paraphrased and cited; however, I am troubled by the continued practice within the science disciplines to see the quoting of difficult-to-paraphrase text in biomedical literature as unprofessional. As John pointed out, a direct quote is used when, for example, a book reviewer wishes to discuss or elaborate on a segment of a book being reviewed, or when even the most skillful paraphrase fails to convey the elegance of the message. But, too often textual material from methodology sections fall in the latter category. Such material often contains unique terms and phrases that are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to rework even for a native speaker of the language being used. More importantly, the paraphrasing of methodology sections runs the risk of including subtle alterations that could conceivably lead to others' being unable to replicate the work.

Given the above and the fact that contributors to the scientific literature are, increasingly, non-native speakers of English—the current language of science—and obviously at a disadvantage when attempting to publish their work in that language, why aren't editors and science publishing houses more accommodating regarding the use of quoted material?

Miguel

P.S. I believe John's second point regarding the possible ambiguity of the nature of the citation can always be remedied with thoughtful, but creative writing.

Miguel Roig                             

On plagiarism and ethical writing: http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/
_________________________________
Here are a couple of points: Sometimes those stock phrases you mention are not useful because a referee or editor will insist on a more complete description of the methodology, particularly if the latter is not a commonly known approach or has not appeared in an earlier issue of the journal. I do agree with you regarding the role of expertise in writing and, yes, getting around the ambiguity of citation by the use of creative writing would be very difficult unless an author was already an experienced writer, in which case s/he would not need to use quoted material to begin with.

I surely would not advocate the wholesale quoting of entire methods sections for the reasons you mention. Instead, what I wonder is whether perhaps there should be greater tolerance for the selective quoting of elements of methods sections, some of  which can be as long as a paragraph long, that might be common to other experiments [I note here that in investigating cases of plagiarism, the US Office of Research Integrity “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.” (http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/plagiarism.shtml)]. Personally, I consider the mere copying of ANY verbatim material from another source as less desirable than the use of quoted material. Thus, that the latter activity is currently seen as unprofessional is, in my view, a perception that might be worth re-examining particularly given that copy-pasting is thought to occur with some regularity (please forgive me if I am not correct in this assumption). 

I also fully agree with you on the need for training programs on ethical matters of writing. However, I think we need to recognize that, for many scientists including native speakers, it can take years to develop the level of sophistication in writing that obviates the need for quoting. Thus, equally important at the moment is the need for greater visibility and availability of biomedical translating and editorial services. Sure, referees should be reminded of their responsibility as educators, but I feel that this responsibility lies beyond the call of duty in the many instances where a manuscript is in greater need of remedial editorial help (ie, writing), rather than scientific evaluation.

Miguel
_________________________________
Miguel Roig points out that phrasing from methodology sections often cannot be paraphrased easily without losing key details. There are stock-phrases for  handling "methods".  We can, for example, write "The operations were carried out as described by so-and-so"(ref)." "The operations were as described by (ref) with the following modifications:"

On the other hand, I agree with Miguel that many extended phrases in biomedical writing should NOT be paraphrased because the phrase itself contains technical language with technical nuances. The immunologist should not, for example, look for a creative alternative for the problematic word "memory" or "self". Indeed, such alternatives would be themselves unprofessional within the discipline, except in the context of a theoretical discussion of the concepts of "immunological memory" and "immunological self" themselves. Indeed, I have been tipped off  to actual patch-written plagiarism by unskillful paraphrases of this kind.

Knowing what should be and what cannot be paraphrased is actually something that only an expert knows. This issue raises the larger one that I think new scholars in ANY field face: until they have become "experts" in the new field (including probably expert writers in a given language), the novice cannot know that which must be known in order to write as an expert. Patch-writers tend to grab words, phrases, patches because they are learning-by-doing. I suspect that in most cases ESL writers who want to borrow language from another paper do so because they want to sound professional and skilled, and are unsure how to paraphrase skilfully. And, since they really don't want to discuss the patch as a quoted text (which would be 'unprofessional'), it may seem to them inappropriate to use quote marks.

I agree that skilful writers have ways around the amibiguities of using different citation-functions, but once again this requires precisely that skill that the non-expert does not have.

I think what is needed is greater attention in pre- and post-baccalaureate training programs, to the subtle problems of citation (which are not addressed at all by the injuction "do not plagiarize"); and greater attention by reviewers and editors to their role as educators as well as arbiters.

I'm not sure I can support Miguel's suggestion implied in his question with respect to methods sections:
"why aren't editors and science publishing houses more accommodating regarding the use of quoted material?"

Experiments are NEVER done exactly as described in an earlier work, and accomodation of quoted methods might encourage less, not more, attention to precision and effectiveness in describing operatons. As a reader I am already suspicious when I read that "X was done as described by Y"; as an experimentalist, I know this is always somewhat of a lie, however necessary.

John Rodgers
_________________________________
Justification for Paraphrasing

The main justification for paraphrasing versus verbatim quotation are:
1. It prevents the tendency to indulge in 'cut and paste' research.
2. It helps compress results/conclusions of scores of papers in a small space, which is what a paper usually gets in a journal.
3. It helps the reader or fellow researcher avoid browsing though scores of other papers, and gives him a clear picture where the present paper stands vis a vis others already published.

Problems in Paraphrasing

Let's see what are its problems:
1. It may lead to misinterpretation of the original researcher, which may be carried forward by another researcher who goes simply by what the writer has interpreted.
2. It may dull, and nullify, the impact, of the original writing by sanitising it in a small sentence/paragraph.
3. It may lead to less and less reading of the original, although the original may paradoxically continue to be cited more. This is because someone has neatly paraphrased another's work. So it becomes easy for citation, and obviates a need to read the original work. While this may serve someone’s purpose rather well, it may not really serve the scientific enterprise that well.

Justification for Quoting
1. It completely does away with any chance for misinterpretation.
2. It lays the foundation to launch on a thought process, or interpretative exercise.
3. It retains the flavour of the original, and therefore may make the reader/fellow researcher read the cited work, not only cite him as a cross reference. (Of course, it may also make someone decide not to read the original too!)
4. Sometimes the original may be more clear than any paraphrase, in which case it makes good sense not to paraphrase it at all.

Problems in Quoting
1. If too liberally used, it may reflect a poverty of original ideas/interpretation, which maybe camouflaged in a mass of apt looking quotations.
2. It may encourage the tendency to plagiarise, whilst ostensibly appearing to be quoting others.
3. It maybe plain and simple laziness, or inability, to paraphrase, which are unpardonable in a quality researcher.

Solution
1.Wherever possible, as long as it is brief, and essential to the narrative, a quotation which makes a significant contribution to the writeup is to be allowed, provided it is properly attributed, and in the judgement of the editor/reviewer, necessary for the further enfolding of thought in the paper.
2. If a paraphrasing is indeed done, the writer may also quote in an appendix, the appropriate sentences/paragraphs he has paraphrased, so the editor/reviewer can verify that the paraphrase is true to the essence of the original.
3. Careful researchers and readers must always take any paraphrase with a pinch of salt. They must verify whether the original researcher quoted has been correctly interpreted.
4. Researchers must curb the tendency to fill up their paper with quotes at the expense of interpretation. That shows a poverty of ideas and analytical skills, both qualities which need to be urgently developed in anyone wanting to make a significant contribution to the forward movement of scientific thought.

Ajai
_________________________________
Ajai, regarding your solutions, I tend to agree with points 3 and 4 and I suspect that point 1 represents how most editors operate at this time.

I think point 2 is unnecessarily cumbersome for everyone, and I doubt that it would be supported. In addition, it assumes that most paraphrases are pure paraphrases, whereas they probably are—in literature reviews at least—combinations of paraphrases and summaries of others' work. Ideally, literature reviews should consist almost entirely of our own summaries of the literature, but that may be difficult for those with limited writing skills. On the other hand, methods sections, particularly attempts at replication or studies using roughly the same methodology reported in previous studies probably contain more paraphrasing than any other sections of an empirical paper. Thus, rather than paraphrasing and including an appendix with the original material as you suggest, why not simply allow for certain sections of a methods section that are difficult to paraphrase to be enclosed in quotation marks with proper citation as suggested by my original query? Allowing for quoted material would obviate the need to include an appendix as you suggested, while at the same time minimize the risk of misinterpretation or misrepresentation of these most important elements of an empirical paper.

Sorry about being insistent on this point, but I have become increasingly curious about this question, particularly in light of the increased focus on transparency and similar ethical authorship matters. As we say in the US, perhaps I am beating a dead horse.

Miguel
_________________________________
Miguel and Colleagues,

Thanks for agreeing with Points 3 and 4. And with point 1 too. And if that is the norm, good enough.

Now to point 2 of the solution. Which, to recapitulate, is

2. If a paraphrasing is indeed done, the writer may also quote in an appendix, the appropriate sentences/paragraphs he has paraphrased, so the editor/reviewer can verify that the paraphrase is true to the essence of the original.

This, you feel, is cumbersome, and many may not support. But that cannot be an argument not to accept it. The whole peer review process is cumbersome, and must have surely met with, and must still be meeting with, resistance because it sure is cumbersome. But we do it because we consider it inevitable, and essential, as of date (of course till something better comes our way.)

Attaching an appendix of matter paraphrased (especially matter that can have varied, or difficult, interpretation) is purely because the editor/reviewer can verify whether the author has done justice to the original. And also prevent cascades of misinterpretation that can follow in cross-referencing.

Let me also explain that the process of attaching an appendix is for the eyes of the editor and reviewer, so that they decide the author paraphrased has been done justice to. To attach an appendix to every paraphrase for the reader would be a little too much, for then appendices would occupy more space than articles! Hardly acceptable, with journals constrained for space as they are. The editor may decide, at his discretion, which out of the appendices, if at all, the reader may be exposed to.

Regarding your suggestion that quotation be allowed in methods section for certain portions difficult to paraphrase: I think it is an option worth considering, although it sounds odd. The one section where paraphrasing is found most suitable is probably that of methodology. If quotations replace it, it will somehow not feel like a methods section. Probably also because this section often contains stock sentences/concepts, with hardly any chance for misinterpretation. So why quote? But where quoting from the original author is the best option in the eyes of the researcher, it may be selectively accepted. At least not scoffed at, or rejected outright.

Maybe the editor/reviewer can suggest a paraphrase that obviates the quoting. The same applies to quotes elsewhere in the paper too. But if a quote is material to the discussion that follows, we may accept its role as legitimate. Similarly, if a quote resolves a vexing contentious issue, I think it finds a legitimate use too.

Ajai
_________________________________
Ajai and others, I appreciate very much your commentary on matters of quoting and paraphrasing.

Initially, I had raised the possibility of being more tolerant toward the inclusion of quoted text in methods sections as a means facilitating the writing of difficult textual material by authors with limited proficiency in written English. The proposed alternatives of paraphrasing with or without accompanying appendices seem reasonable, but I am not sure that they facilitate writing for these individuals.

I suppose that we all must accept the fact that English is the dominant language of science and that those with limited skills who wish to publish in English-language journals must continuously strive to improve their ability to communicate in this language.

Miguel
_________________________________
Such authors can also hire English-speaking freelance editors to refine their writing. I work with authors from Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, France, Germany, Italy, and other nations who then go on to submit their edited articles to English-language journals.

Katharine O'Moore-Klopf
_________________________________
DITTO

Thor Eglington
Editor-in-chief, Eglington Health knowledge Management
_________________________________
The service Katharine refers to—editing for non-native speakers of English (and sometimes for native speakers who are novice writers) is an emerging profession. Its history is different from that of "medical writers" although we draw on similar skills and sometimes we share the same clients.

Author's editing first appeared as "developmental editing" in the US when publishers reorganized in the 1970s, shifting to a market-prediction model and recruiting a different sort of author: subject experts with less experience of writing. Abroad, author's editors emerged from parallel disciplines to meet a need. Many are current or former teachers of English for specific purposes, others are translators, others former scientists. Some work freelance, others moonlight, others are employed in-house at hospitals, research institutes, or universities. Scientists and other academics are the main clients, but not the only ones.

As an emerging profession, we are still nailing down our own notions of best practice, there are gaps in knowledge, and quality of output is uneven. The profession has no structure, as many practitioners don't even know they have colleagues and clients cannot always locate the right help.

In my region, we're attempting to address those problems through the association Mediterranean Editors and Translators (MET). Through our first two meetings in Barcelona we've learned that author's editors have much in common with the editors of English language journals published from non-Anglophone settings. We've been inspired by the "author-helpful" processes developed by the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ), where editing is an educational act. So, for example, when a journal in distress contacted me early this year, I worked out a new publication and copyediting schedule based on the CMJ's. Their presentations at the first MET meeting in Barcelona filled in details I needed after reading the literature they've produced on their practice.

To come back to the topic of plagiarism, I have observed that some translators, author's editors, and medical writers may be exacerbating the problem of cut-paste writing by engaging in it themselves on behalf of their clients! I've seen one review article DE-accepted by one medical journal after I flagged large blocks of such writing, which I'm sure was produced by a medical writer hired by the single signing author, a laboratory employee.

I've also seen well-meaning translators cut and paste long phrases or even two sentences from articles found while researching terminology. These are translators who would not plagiarize in their own writing but mistakenly think it's OK in the sciences because they see so much of it tolerated!

Finally, author's editors have expressed their uncertainty about how to discuss found instances of plagiarism with authors, so MET will pilot a workshop on that this spring. We are still exploring "best practice."

There is a small body of literature on what we could call "editing difficult texts"—mostly but not always those of authors whose native language is not English. (Perhaps I'll see about creating an annotated bibliography relevant to this emerging service profession!)

I'll end this over-long posting by reminding all of us, however, that many non-English-native authors have been educated in English and have no difficulty whatsover. English literature abounds with the work of African, Caribbean, Indian, and now Latino authors. At specific times and places, however, scientific expertise does not necessarily coincide with educational privilege or language-learning opportunities or talent. There are also sociopolitical and psychological reasons why groups may collectively decline to learn to use the lingua franca independently to a high standard.

Mary Ellen
_________________________________
I have not read all of the postings on this topic, but the ones I've seen sound like it's only the non-native-English-speaking authors who have problems writing clear, precise, unplagiarized manuscripts. But the need for good writing skills among at least American nurses and physicians is high on my list of challenges we face every day. And my conversations with editors of other US-based biomedical journals suggests that it's not just a matter of selective submissions to AJN. We do heavy editing here routinely and also fact check everything, including source attribution. We frequently find significant errors not picked up by peer reviewers, convoluted sentences that lack clarity, poor organization, and plagiarism or very poor paraphrasing (changing a couple of words in a sentence--and this being the case for whole paragraphs such that it still falls under the definition of plagiarism). We all can benefit from good editing but some need more help than we could ever give them!

Diana J. Mason
Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Nursing
_________________________________
Diana, in fact, there is some evidence indicating that professionals across various disciplines hold differing views of what constitutes plagiarism vs. appropriate paraphrasing. Even existing official definitions of plagiarism are not always clear on the question of paraphrasing (eg, The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association).

My initial suggestion regarding the use of quoted material was made with so-called non native speakers in mind, but as you point out, even native speakers can have significant deficits in writing. Incidentally, there is a relevant discussion of what constitutes a native speaker in a pair of commentaries in the latest issue of The Write Stuff - The Journal of the European Writers Association.

Soo Hwee, L. (2006). What is the definition of a native speaker of English? The Write Stuff, 15, p. 47.

Benfield, J. R. (2006). A plea for objectivity in assessment of proficiency in scientific communication. The Write Stuff, 15, p. 48. 

Miguel
_________________________________
I just found this recent article about "'Ethical dilemmas in scientific publications: Pitfalls and solutions for editors"' published by Lara Gollogly and Hooman Momen from the Word Health Organization in Rev Saude Publica (Brasil ) that you can find through  www.scielo.org

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rsp/v40nspe/30618.pdf

I quote a relevant paragraph that I think could be adequate  for this discussion. It is clear to me that this is not a problem of just non-English–speaking writers but a generalized one. Please check the etblast service. 

"'Editors can educate their authors that good publication practice is to provide full disclosure, full citation and full discussion of their related work.

It is also unacceptable to duplicate someone else's work, by plagiarism—passing off as one's own the ideas or writings of another.

Plagiarism can take a number of forms from verbatim copying of scientific texts to the copying and pasting of phrases and sentences by lazy or language-challenged authors.

Of course there is no problem in using someone else's idea or writing provided this is made clear in the text and the source is cited. A number of online services are available for preventing plagiarism.

Some of these are run as a commercial service but there are other sources that an editor can use with creativity to detect cheating. An example is the eTBLAST service of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.**

**   http://invention.swmed.edu/etblast/index.shtml

By pasting paragraphs from a suspected text, possible cases of scientific dishonesty can be detected.

Editors can monitor their own journals for overlapping publications by using the 'related article' feature of PubMed. If a duplicate publication is identified the editor of the other journal should be promptly informed. The two papers should be independently reviewed for redundancy. The corresponding author should be invited to refute the accusation and describe the circumstances in which it arose. If redundancy is confirmed the editors should publish a notice of duplicate publication in their journals"'

Carlo V Caballero-Uribe
Editor, Salud Uninorte