Following are three definitions of plagiarism.
THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL
ASSOCIATION
This is from the the American Historical Association's Statement
on Standards of Professional Conduct. It is reprinted courtesy of the
AHA.
Statement
on Plagiarism and Related Misuses of the Work of Other Authors
(Adopted May 1986;
amended May 1990, May 1993, and May 1995*)
1. Identifying
Plagiarism and Other Misuses
The word plagiarism
derives from Latin roots: plagiarius, an abductor, and plagiare,
to steal. The expropriation of another author's text, and the presentation
of it as one's own, constitutes plagiarism and is a serious violation of
the ethics of scholarship. It undermines the credibility of historical
inquiry.
In addition to the
harm that plagiarism does to the pursuit of truth, it is also an offense
against the literary rights of the original author and the property rights
of the copyright owner. Detection can therefore result not only in academic
sanctions (such as dismissal from a graduate program, termination of a
faculty contract, or denial of promotion or tenure) but also in civil or
criminal prosecution. As a practical matter, plagiarism between scholars
rarely goes to court. Publishers are eager to avoid adverse publicity,
and an injured scholar is unlikely to seek material compensation for misappropriation
of what he or she gave gladly to the world. The real penalty for plagiarism
is the abhorrence of the community of scholars.
The misuse of
the writings of another author, even when one does not borrow the exact
wording, can be as unfair, as unethical, and as unprofessional as plagiarism.
Such misuse includes the limited borrowing, without attribution, of another
historian's distinctive and significant research findings, hypotheses,
theories, rhetorical strategies, or interpretations, or an extended borrowing
even with attribution. Of course, historical knowledge is cumulative, and
thus in some contexts--such as textbooks, encyclopedia articles, or broad
syntheses, the form of attribution, and the permissible extent of dependence
on prior scholarship--will be different than in more limited monographs.
As knowledge is disseminated to a wide public, it loses some of its personal
reference. What belongs to whom becomes less distinct. But even in textbooks
a historian should acknowledge the sources of recent or distinctive findings
and interpretations, those not yet a part of the common understanding of
the profession, and should never simply borrow and rephrase the findings
of other scholars.
Both plagiarism and
the misuse of the findings and interpretations of other scholars take many
forms. The clearest abuse is the use of another's language without quotation
marks and citation. More subtle abuses include the appropriation of concepts,
data, or notes all disguised in newly crafted sentences, or reference to
a borrowed work in an early note and then extensive further use without
attribution. All such tactics reflect an unworthy disregard for the contributions
of others.
2. Resisting
Plagiarism and Misuse
All who participate
in the community of inquiry, as amateurs or as professionals, as students
or as established historians, have an obligation to oppose deception. This
obligation bears with special weight on the directors of graduate seminars.
They are critical in shaping a young historian's perception of the ethics
of scholarship. It is therefore incumbent on graduate teachers to seek
opportunities for making the seminar also a workshop in scholarly integrity.
After leaving graduate school, every historian will have to depend primarily
on vigilant self-criticism. Throughout our lives none of us can cease to
question the claims our work makes and the sort of credit it grants to
others.
But just as important
as the self-criticism that guards us from self-deception is the formation
of work habits that protect a scholar from plagiarism or misuse. The plagiarist's
standard defense--that he or she was misled by hastily taken and imperfect
notes--is plausible only in the context of a wider tolerance of shoddy
work. A basic rule of good notetaking requires every researcher to distinguish
scrupulously between exact quotation and paraphrase. A basic rule of good
writing warns us against following our own paraphrased notes slavishly.
When a historian simply links one paraphrase to the next, even if the sources
are cited, a kind of structural misuse takes place; the writer is implicitly
claiming a shaping intelligence that actually belonged to the sources.
Faced with charges of failing to acknowledge dependence on certain sources,
a historian usually pleads that the lapse was inadvertent. This excuse
will be easily disposed of if scholars take seriously the injunction to
check their manuscripts against the underlying texts prior to publication.
Historians have a right to expect of one another a standard of workmanship
that deprives plagiarism or misuses of their usual extenuations.
The second line of
defense against plagiarism or misuse is organized and punitive. Every institution
that includes or represents a body of scholars has an obligation to establish
procedures designed to clarify and uphold their ethical standards. Every
institution that employs historians bears an especially critical responsibility
to maintain the integrity and reputation of its staff. This applies to
government agencies, corporations, publishing firms, and public service
organizations such as museums and archives, as surely as it does to educational
facilities. Usually, it is the employing institution that is expected to
investigate charges of plagiarism or misuse promptly and impartially and
to invoke appropriate sanctions when the charges are sustained. Penalties
for scholarly misconduct should vary according to the seriousness of the
offense, and the protections of due process should always apply. A persistent
pattern of deception may justify public disclosure or even termination
of an academic career; some scattered misappropriations may warrant only
a formal reprimand.
All historians share
responsibility for maintenance of the highest standards of intellectual
integrity. When appraising manuscripts for publication, reviewing books,
or evaluating peers for placement, promotion, and tenure, scholars must
evaluate the honesty and reliability with which the historian uses primary
and secondary source materials. Scholarship flourishes in an atmosphere
of openness and candor, which should include the scrutiny and discussion
of academic deception.
Statement
Courtesy the American Historical Association
THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION
This is from Joseph Gibaldi and Walter S. Achtert, MLA Handbook
for Writers of Research Papers (3rd ed. New York: The Modern Language
Association of America, 1988), pp. 21-25.
The MLA Handbook defines plagiarism as the use of another person's
ideas or expressions in your writing without giving proper credit to the
source. The word comes from the Latin word plagiarius ("kidnapper"), and
Alexander Lindey defines it as "the false assumption of authorship: the
wrongful act of taking the product of another person's mind, and presenting
it as one's own" (Plagiarism and Originality [New York: Harper, 1952] 2).
"In short, to plagiarize is to give the impression that you have
written or thought something that you have in fact borrowed from someone
else." This can include paraphrasing, copying someone else's writing word
for word, or using ideas that aren't your own without proper citation.
Plagiarism is often unintentional, and bad research habits can form early
in elementary school. Unfortunately, these bad habits can continue throughout
high school and college and may result in severe consequences, from failure
in a course to expulsion. To avoid these consequences, always cite your
sources if you are unsure if you are plagiarizing (Gibaldi 21-25).
THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATION
This is from the Manual of the American Psychological Association
(Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 1995), 292-95.
Plagiarism (Principle 6.22)
Quotation marks should be used to indicate the exact words of
another. Summarizing a passage or rearranging the order of a sentence and
changing some of the words is paraphrasing. Each time a source is paraphrased,
a credit for the source needs to be included in the text.
The key element of this principle is that an author does not present
the work of another as if it were his or her own work. This can extend
to ideas as well as written words. If an author models a study after one
done by someone else, the originating author should be given credit. If
the rationale for a study was suggested in the Discussion section of someone
else's article, that person should be given credit. Given the free exchange
of ideas, which is very important to the health of psychology, an author
may not know where an idea for a study originated. If the author does know,
however, the author should acknowledge the source; this includes personal
communications (Publication Manual.... 292-95).