Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stealing
JOAN VOGELSANG, EdD, RN
Plagiarism is one of those ethical issues no one wants to talk about. This
article sets the stage for educating readers, authors, and researchers in the
fundamentals of scholarship. Legal ramifications for professional theft, de-
ception, and misconduct provide information regarding the perpetration,
constituents, and aftermath of the act ofplagiarism. The article then commu-
nicates a shift in thinking about the deviation from ethical standards and
strategies for the prevention of the ethical issue. Plagiarism can be pre-
vented.
0 1997 by American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses.
ceive by presenting another author’s writings as tific knowledge is expanded by stealing another’s
your own ” and a lack of education or accultura- original work. The fact remains that everyone in
tion to the ethics of research to unintentional the scientific community is injured by the theft
thoughtlessness or stupidity regarding citation of and deception.’ Legally, the act of committing
the original source.5 Using the exact words or plagiarism falls into three categories.3 The first,
ideas of other authors without appropriate cita- criminal Zaw, prevents the intentional harm of
tion is wrong.’ Words and ideas must be cited one person by another. It is the need to prevent
for the reader to know the original source of harm to others and includes moral judgements
information. Uncredited paraphrasing of anoth- and values. Punishment for plagiarism discour-
er’s work and crediting only a portion of what ages theft and deception of another’s original
is borrowed are misappropriation of the original work. Copyright luw allows the transfer of an
author’s work as one’s own original work.3 author’s work to the publisher, while the author
Although perceptions of plagiarism have not retains responsibility for the content under crimi-
been researched among nurses, Julliard’ exam- nal and civil law. A copyright release form is
ined the perception of plagiarism in the use of signed by the original author at the time of article
another author’s language among physicians, submission for publication. Finally, tort law pro-
medical students, and English faculty. The in- vides compensation to the injured party by the
stances of plagiarism were examined by compar- perpetrator. The intent is to repair the damage
ing two sentences from an original article with done by one person to another. Criminal, copy-
three text samples supposedly published in three right, and tort laws allow the injured party to sue
other articles. It was revealed that plagiarism oc- for damages resultant to the act of plagiarism.
curred across disciplines. Although each text The penalties for plagiarism range from em-
sample cited the original article, none of the text barrassment, humiliation, damaged reputation,
samples used quotation marks to enclose sections and letters of reprimand to forced resignation,
lifted directly from the original article. When loss of academic credentials, termination of em-
asked, the majority of physician respondents did ployment, and law suits. The civil suit, Lam v
not consider the text samples as plagiarism (52/ Koo and Ho, involved theft of a measurement
80 [65%]) nor did they consider this type of pla- tool that examined “the high incidence of lung
giarism serious (68/81 [83%]). In contrast the cancer among non-smoking Chinese women.“’
majority of medical students (63/93 [68%]), and The court “concluded that Dr Lam had made
English faculty (28/3 1 [90%]) did believe the use considerable use of Dr Koo’s questionnaire, in-
of cited verbatim text without quotation marks a fringing the plaintiffs’ copyright and breaching
serious act of plagiarism. Such findings illus- their confidentiality. “’ It found that Dr Lam had
trated conflicting moral rules and ethical stan- obtained the measurement tool surreptitiously,
dards in health care publications. The inoculation and the questionnaire was deemed protected un-
of students to unethical activities by unconcerned der copyright law and confidentiality statutes.
or uninformed health care educators and mentors The court ruling was founded on breach of moral
counters the development of professional behav- and ethical behavior, not the exchange of confi-
iors. “Integrity in research should be one of the dential information.’ The court awarded damages
socialized traits of” faculty who teach moral of $70,000 to Dr Koo and Professor Ho.
rules and model ethical standards6 “Using the Napolitano v Princeton University Trustees in-
exact words or even the ideas of other authors volved the liberal use of “verbatim material from
without appropriate citation is a cardinal sin in another author without quotation marks, even
the world of publishing.“3 though she had cited the work of the previous
author. ” ’ “The court found that Princeton Uni-
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF PLAGIARISM versity had the right to withhold Napolitano’s’ ”
Plagiarism is a major crime punishable as academic degree. The verdict supported the Uni-
“theft of intellectual property.“6 It “is a serious versity’s right to set guidelines concerning lan-
act of stealing.“’ Some argue that no one is guage plagiarism.
harmed, and even propose that the body of scien- Berge v University of Alabama and four re-
424 JOAN VOGELSANG
searchers was heard in federal court under the Table 2, Purpose of Citations
REFERENCES
1. Julliard K: Perceptions of plagiarism in the use of other 8. Brahams D: Conflicting views on alleged plagiarism.
authors’ language. Fam Med 26:356-360, 1994 Lancet 345:379, 1995
2, Solazar MK: Using the words and works of others: A 9. Taubes G: Plagiarism suit wins; Experts hope it won’t
commentary. AAOHN 41:46-49, 1993 set a trend. Science 268:1125, 1995
3. Armstrong JD: Plagiarism: What is it, whom does it 10. Dalton R: Ruling brings cash windfall in US fraud
offend, and how does one deal with it? AJR Am J Roentgen01 case. Nature 375:270, 1995
161:479-484, 1993 11. Cunningham JJ: Effective audiovisual presentation: Proper
4. Caelleigh AS: Plagiarism and biomedical publishing. s&ion of sources.AJR Am J Roentgen01 157643, 1991
Academic Med 69:34, 1994 12. Sage1 SS: Effective audiovisual presentation: Proper
5. Eoyang T: Something borrowed, something New: citation of sources. AJR Am J Roentgen01 157:643-644, 1991
How to tell the difference. Nur Author & Editor 5:1-4, 13. Sandler LL: Plagiarism: A case history. J Biocommu-
1995 nication 4:24-28, 1977
6. Berg AO: Misconduct in science: Does family medicine 14. Roland CG: Thoughts about medical writing: XXI. The
have a problem? Fam Med 22:137-142, 1990 delicate question of plagiary. Anesth Analg 53:29-30, 1974
7. Dyer C: Hong Kong doctor cleared of plagiarism. BMJ 15. Ariyan S: Of mice and men: Honesty and integrity in
312:618-619, 1995 medicine. Ann Surg 220:745-750, 1994