Plagiarism: definition, detection, and prevention

¶ … Maimonides once said about the different reasons for problems within an author's work was that "The first cause arises from the fact that the author collects the opinions of various men, each differing from the other, but neglects to mention the name of the author of any particular opinion," (Hoffer 2004). Stealing from others has plagued mankind for thousands of years, since the moment we stood up and walked on two legs. Plagiarism is just another form of theft, but it goes much deeper than any pickpocket or conman could possibly imagine. It is the theft of ideas, abstract thoughts, which someone else spent timeless effort in creating.

Plagiarism can have different variations of its meanings. In his work "Reflections on Plagiarism Part 1," Peter Charles Hoffer attempts to clarify the shifty definition of plagiarism in an attempt to help others avoid intentionally, or unintentionally stealing words from another. Plagiarism is when one takes the words of another and uses them without reference or permission in a work entirely separate from the original which was plagiarized. Plagiarism is an incredibly broad term. It can include taking a single line from the work of another, or even go so far as to have entire papers or articles being lifted from someone else's work and attempting to passed off as the words of the accused. Paraphrasing someone's work without proper reference to that specific work being paraphrased is also another variation of plagiarism.

There are times when plagiarism is an intentional act to skip out on actually doing work and conducting proper research, but there are also times when it can be an intentional mistake on the part of an amateur author or researcher. Due to plagiarism being so broad, there are many ways one could unintentionally plagiarize from another work and have absolutely no idea any wrong doing was done. Many professionals explain that the best way to treat paraphrasing is to not do it whenever possible. Instead of paraphrasing, it is suggested that one should use direct quotations and the creation of their own words of analysis for that direct quotation. However, when paraphrased are used, they should be correctly cited and referenced to the original wok in which they are paraphrasing. That is why it is so essential that students and professionals alike inform themselves of the various definitions and descriptions. Several different facets of creative works can be plagiarized unbeknown to the person wrongly referencing them. Depending on the genre of the work, there are distinct rules and limitations to how one should cite or reference primary and secondary material. The key is to make everyone working with original primary and secondary sources to be completely aware of how to properly handle them when using them in reference to new material. Many should also inform themselves further with the strict rules of referencing, quoting, and paraphrasing so that they may never have to deal with the harsh consequences of being accused of plagiarism.

Different genres have different ways of defining, identifying, and punishing works which have been found to contain plagiarized material. Despite many genres' relaxed mentality about citing and referencing material properly, many other creative facets are much sterner when it comes to detecting and punishing acts of plagiarism. For example, in the field of entertainment, if a work or movie were to contain blatant plagiarized material, legal action could be brought against the producers and/or writers of that work or movie. Most academic settings will set up a hearing for a student who is accused of plagiarism, and if found guilty, that student will most often be expelled. In a Literature or History setting, as described by Peter Hoff, most of the time there is no legal punishment for the accused. However, that does not let them off the hook. Due to their ethical violation, their work is publicly discredited and they must suffer public humiliation from their peers and readers alike. For example, if a journalist plagiarizes another article and tries to pass it of as his own, but is caught in the process, he will most likely be fired and forever have to live with the dishonor on his record.

Many real life instances of plagiarism have resulted in court cases, huge cash settlements, and republications of works with enforced properly cited references and footnotes. Take, for example, the case of Doris Kearns Goodwin and her work originally published in 1987. It was entitles the Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys, and focused on the biography of one of the most famous family in American history. Later the work was found to contain uncited references and whole paragraphs of blatant plagiarism according to the author's whose work had been scavenged. According to an article published in the Weekly Standard, stated that Goodwin's novel had obviously plagiarized three earlier biographies, including Rose Kennedy's Time to Remember, Hank Searle's the Lost Prince, and Lynne McTaggart's Kathleen Kennedy: Her Life and Times, (Crader 2002). After the book was published in 1987, McTaggart claimed to have gone through Goodwin's work with all her lawyers and publisher present to examine the charges herself. What she found shocked her. She claimed that specific phrases were lifted out of context and used without reference, and the most shocking that entire paragraphs were taken out of her work with very few changes to attempt to cover up this blatant plagiarism, (Crader 2002). McTaggert was later awarded with proper citation in later editions of Goodwin's biography along with a large cash sum, settled out of court. According to McTaggart's own words, the sum was "not a token amount," (Crader 2002), but of a significant amount. This shows the great risk of plagiarizing, especially on a large scale like the commercial market.

Doris Goodwin is one of the nation's most renowned historians, says David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times. She has been a regular on Television series and documentaries as a historical commentator. In 1994, she won the Pulitzer Prize for her work No Ordinary Time. Allegations against her were not brought to the public until well after the publication of the work in question. The scandal broke headlines in 2002. It sent a shock through the entire historical community to have her 1987 work disregarded as a collective copy of plagiarized material from other works.

Goodwin acknowledged her mistakes herself in 2002 when rising criticism forced her to make a statement regarding the allegations of blatant plagiarism in her 1987 biography. She said that she had "failed to acknowledge scores of quotations or close paraphrases from other authors," (Kirkpatrick 2002). She went on in the statement to describe how the publisher of that work, Simon & Schulster, actually paid legal settlements as well as destroyed scores of the work from their inventory to only include the newly republished work with all the proper citations and references, (Kirkpatrick 2002). This is a major feat for a publisher and an author, and it is surprising that her publisher did not take legal action against her for all the damages uncured during the entire process.

Goodwin continues to deny any intentional wrong doing. According to Kirkpatrick, she claims that every single on of her alleged "mistakes" were purely accidental and in no way intentional. She claimed that the mistakes derived from her custom of taking and writing notes by hand, (Kirkpatrick 2002). Despite blaming her handwriting as the cause of her "mistaken" plagiarism, Goodwin also admitted having taken her notes for her famous 1994 work by hand as well, without any claims of plagiarism there. She told the press that she "simply had to be more careful," (Kirkpatrick 2002) when copying and checking all of her handwritten notes.

In a 2002 article written by Goodwin herself in Time magazine, entitled "How I Caused That Story," she explains the process in her own words which led her down this path. Goodwin claims that after being contact by McTaggart regarding the close connection between the two works, she realized that she had failed to add in quotation marks in the proper places. Goodwin does claim that here references were properly footnoted, however, but missing proper quotation marks, (Goodwin 2002). She also claims that anyone would have made some mistakes in the arduous research process which took over ten years, and involved researching over 300 books for her own 900-page work. She claims that she used hand writing rather than electronically recording her notes because, "At that time, I wrote my books and took my notes in longhand, believing I could not think well on a keyboard," (Goodwin 2002). She the goes on to explain how she thought she had thoroughly checked the references out of those 300 or so books, but that some must have slipped through the cracks. Basically, she said that she was not equip for dealing with such high numbers of research materials and the long length of her book; isn't that her job as a historian?

Later, Goodwin herself admitted that her work had even more mistakes than were first discovered by McTaggart and the Weekly Standard, (Lewis 2002). She removed herself as a commentator from her weekly Television program as of 2002 in order to get everything together involving her situation with plagiarism. it'd obvious, to both her and the historical world which she worked, that her initial excuses regarding her negligence were not enough to save her career and her credibility. However misguided she was in 1987; she began a crusade in 2002 to attempt to regain at least some of her lost credibility. According to Forbes, she began withdrawing copies of her work in stores across the country, (Lewis 2002). She now is busy in reorganizing her work and correcting all mistakes and unreferenced material so that she can re-release her 900-page work back into the public's hands.