You will be caught.
You will be caught.
复制标题
你会被抓住的。
作者：
S. Shafer
《牛津英语词典》给剽窃下了一个定义，就是“把别人的作品或想法冒充自己的作品或想法的行为。”剽窃是麻醉和止痛中最常见的不当行为。抄袭大致可以分为5种不同的类型：知识窃取、知识懒惰、科技英语抄袭、技术抄袭和自我抄袭。知识盗窃是指一位作者错误地认为另一位作者之前发表的文字和思想代表了剽窃者自己的学术成就。剽窃是剽窃的一种形式，与《牛津英语词典》中的定义联系最密切。窃取知识可能涉及复制来自另一篇论文的有洞察力的分析，使用另一位作者开发的一个不同寻常的巧妙比喻，或者复制大段文本以窃取原作者的学术知识。它总是没有署名，确保学术功劳归功于剽窃者。我记得一位评论家嘲讽地说：“我认为讨论写得特别好。它是从我自己的一份报纸上一字不差地抄袭过来的。这让人想起萧伯纳的一句话：“我经常引用自己的话。它为谈话增添了情趣。知识产权盗窃是最严重的剽窃形式。当我在同行评议期间发现知识产权被盗时，我会向作者所在的机构发送一封令人担忧的信，并对其进行制裁。含有剽窃知识产权的论文必须撤回。幸运的是，窃取知识产权的情况并不常见。智力懒惰是简单地使用另一位作者的文字来避免写新文本的努力。例如，有很多种方法来描述神经阻滞。作者在描述神经阻滞时应该使用他们自己的词语，或者适当地引用另一位作者写的描述并将其归类(例如，如维基百科[维基百科页面脚注]中所描述的：“描述神经阻滞的逐字文本”)。然而，令人惊讶的是，作者只是从现有的来源(如维基百科)进行剪切和粘贴。这并不是窃取知识产权，因为被复制的文本是通用的，“是任何人都可以编辑或传播的免费内容”。*然而，作者只是太懒了，不愿用自己的话写文本，懒得正确地指出来源，而是选择粘贴在网上找到的文本中。在同行评议期间，当发现来自知识分子懒惰的抄袭时，我通常要么拒绝论文，要么根据情况指示作者必须重写抄袭文本，才能考虑手稿。懒惰和偷窃之间的界限并不总是清晰的，每个案件都是根据各自的是非曲直来考虑的。发表后发现的对智力懒惰的抄袭可能需要撤回、更正或作者的道歉信。科技英语抄袭是《麻醉学与止痛学》论文中最常见的抄袭类型。对科技英语感到不舒服的作者经常求助于互联网，看看其他作者是如何表达同样的想法的。12月刊《麻醉学与止痛学》中的两篇文章是作者对科学英语感到不安的抄袭的例子。在这两种情况下，作者都从其他文章中逐字逐句地复制文本，以适当的英语表达自己。在这两个案例中，当作者被要求解释手稿中的抄袭时，他们用蹩脚的英语回答说，他们使用逐字逐句的文本来帮助用正确的英语表达他们的想法。我相信他们，相信他们没有恶意。在一些抄袭科技英语的案例中，手稿中的几乎每一句话都是从已发表的来源粘贴而来的。这有时被称为拼凑抄袭。通常，不存在单一来源的单一文本块，因此论文不是典型意义上的抄袭。然而，作者从数十篇已发表的文章或网站中收集了大量句子和句子片段，并加以必要的修改，从而用适当的科学英语构建了一篇论文。这在来自非英语国家的论文中尤其常见，也是中国期刊关注的一个来源。虽然我不认为这是抄袭，但我担心这项研究可能会被剪切和粘贴文本的拼贴所不准确地描述。来自纽约哥伦比亚大学麻醉学系《麻醉与止痛学》主编。
The Oxford English Dictionary defines plagiarism as “the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.” Plagiarism represents the most common form of misconduct occurring in Anesthesia & Analgesia. Plagiarism can be roughly divided into 5 different groups: intellectual theft, intellectual sloth, plagiarism for scientific English, technical plagiarism, and self-plagiarism. Intellectual theft is the misrepresentation by an author that words and ideas previously published by another author represent the plagiarist’s own scholarship. Intellectual theft is the form of plagiarism most closely associated with the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary. Intellectual theft may involve copying an insightful analysis from another paper, using an unusual and clever metaphor developed by another author, or copying large blocks of text to steal the scholarship of the original author. It is always without attribution, ensuring that the credit for the scholarship accrues to the plagiarist. I recall a reviewer’s sardonic comment: “I thought the discussion was particularly well written. It was taken verbatim from one of my own papers.” That is reminiscent of George Bernard Shaw’s comment, “I often quote myself. It adds spice to the conversation.” Intellectual theft is the most serious form of plagiarism. When I identify intellectual theft during peer review, I send a letter of concern to the author’s institution and institute sanctions. Papers that contain plagiarism for intellectual theft must be retracted. Fortunately, intellectual theft is uncommon. Intellectual sloth is the use of the words of another author simply to avoid the effort of writing new text. For example, there are many ways to describe a nerve block. Authors should use their own words when they describe a nerve block, or properly quote and attribute the description written by another author (e.g., As described in Wikipedia [footnote to Wikipedia page]: “verbatim text describing nerve block”). However, it is surprisingly common for authors to simply cut and paste from an existing source, such as Wikipedia. This isn’t intellectual theft, because the text that is copied is generic, and “is free content that anyone can edit or distribute.”* However, the author is simply too lazy to write the text in his or her own words, cannot be bothered to properly attribute the source, and instead chooses to paste in text found online. When plagiarism from intellectual sloth is identified during peer review, I typically either reject the paper or, depending on the circumstances, instruct the authors that the plagiarized text must be rewritten for the manuscript to be considered. The boundary between sloth and theft is not always clear, and each case is considered on its own merits. Plagiarism for intellectual sloth discovered after publication may require a retraction, a correction, or a letter of apology from the authors. Plagiarism for scientific English is the most common type of plagiarism in submissions to Anesthesia & Analgesia. Authors uncomfortable with scientific English often turn to the Internet to see how other authors have expressed the same idea. Two retractions in the December issue of Anesthesia & Analgesia are examples of plagiarism by authors uncomfortable with scientific English. In both cases, the authors copied verbatim text from other articles to express themselves in proper English. In both cases, when the authors were asked to explain the plagiarism in the manuscript, they replied in broken English that they used the verbatim text to help express their ideas in proper English. I believe them, and believe they intended no harm. In some cases of plagiarism for scientific English, nearly every sentence in the manuscript has been pasted from a published source. This is sometimes referred to as patchwork plagiarism. Typically, there is no single block of text from one source, and thus the paper is not plagiarized in the typical sense of the term. However, the authors have constructed a paper in proper scientific English by assembling a hodgepodge of sentences and sentence fragments from dozens of published articles or web sites, mutatis mutandis. This is particularly common in papers from non-English–speaking countries, and has been a source of concern to Chinese journals. Although I do not consider this plagiarism, I worry that the research may be inaccurately described by the collage of cut and pasted text. From the Editor-in-Chief, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Department of Anesthesiology, Columbia University, New York, New York.