Is it plagiarism if the material was previously published by a third party?

IF 4.4 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-04-10 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2026.2652499

Jeffrey I Seeman, Mark C House

{"title":"Is it plagiarism if the material was previously published by a third party?","authors":"Jeffrey I Seeman, Mark C House","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2652499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Is it plagiarism if the material was previously published by a third party (other than the claimant)? This scenario is of interest as a model for an assertion that involves the 1981 Nobel Prize in chemistry.Methods: A survey was conducted on whether (a) there should be a statute of limitations on allegations of plagiarism and (b) an allegation of plagiarism should be deemed unfounded, unsubstantiated, or not proven when the alleged plagiarized ideas, processes, results, or words had been previously published in the scientific literature by an individual other than the alleged victim of the claimed plagiarism.Results: We received 287 complete responses. In all the survey questions but one, that dealing with statute of limitations on claims of plagiarism (\"No\"), a range of responses were obtained. About 40% of the respondents considered that unacknowledged communication of another's unoriginal ideas to be plagiarism, even when the content being alleged to have been plagiarized had been previously published by a third party and that the claimant acknowledged that they were aware of that previous disclosure by a third party.Conclusions: Two major recommendations were made: education in RCR should be required for both students and faculty; and the evidentiary standard for establishing research misconduct should be increased.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2652499"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2652499","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Is it plagiarism if the material was previously published by a third party (other than the claimant)? This scenario is of interest as a model for an assertion that involves the 1981 Nobel Prize in chemistry.

Methods: A survey was conducted on whether (a) there should be a statute of limitations on allegations of plagiarism and (b) an allegation of plagiarism should be deemed unfounded, unsubstantiated, or not proven when the alleged plagiarized ideas, processes, results, or words had been previously published in the scientific literature by an individual other than the alleged victim of the claimed plagiarism.

Results: We received 287 complete responses. In all the survey questions but one, that dealing with statute of limitations on claims of plagiarism ("No"), a range of responses were obtained. About 40% of the respondents considered that unacknowledged communication of another's unoriginal ideas to be plagiarism, even when the content being alleged to have been plagiarized had been previously published by a third party and that the claimant acknowledged that they were aware of that previous disclosure by a third party.

Conclusions: Two major recommendations were made: education in RCR should be required for both students and faculty; and the evidentiary standard for establishing research misconduct should be increased.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

如果该材料之前由第三方发表，是否属于抄袭？

简介：如果该材料之前由第三方（非索赔人）发表，是否属于抄袭？这种情况很有趣，因为它是1981年诺贝尔化学奖的一个论断的模型。方法：进行了一项调查，以确定(A)是否应该对剽窃指控设定诉讼时效；(b)当被指控剽窃的想法、过程、结果或文字之前已经由其他人在科学文献中发表时，剽窃指控应该被视为毫无根据、未经证实或未经证实。结果：共收到287份完整回复。在所有的调查问题中，除了一个问题，即涉及剽窃索赔的诉讼时效（“否”），得到了一系列的回答。约40%的受访者认为，未经承认的传播他人的非原创思想是抄袭，即使被指控抄袭的内容之前已由第三方发表，并且索赔人承认他们知道第三方先前披露的内容。结论：提出了两个主要建议：RCR教育应该对学生和教师都有要求；提高科研不端行为认定的证据标准。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.