I am including several guidelines from different organizations such as WHO in my research paper. The guidelines will be copied and pasted into my paper under the heading of their organisation. For example:  WHO guidline: [Guideline Text]  Will this be considered plagiarism? Do I have to include the whole text in quotation marks or is the title &quot;WHO guideline&quot; adequate to show it is not my work. The other option is to just put down a link rather than copy and paste the guidelines but I need them to be in the paper for compare and contrast purposes.
3291
Is it plagiarism if I copy several paragraphs from another's source (let's say a CS paper) into my work and then footnote Source: ..., for example, as background information?
30860
I work in a field (Philosophy) where co-authorship is uncommon and advisors and grad students very seldomly co-author a paper. I've seen a lot of posts on Academia.se though about the ethics of co-authoring papers with mentors, such   My sense is that it must be somewhat common in the natural sciences for the head of the lab/dissertation advisor to be automatically added as a co-author to every paper that his or her graduate students produce.   My questions are:   Is this really common, and if so, in which fields? Is this really ethical?    My view is that adding your name to something that you had no part in creating is just plagiarism: it's taking credit for the work of others.   The opposite argument, that the work wouldn't have been possible without the PI's grant funding also cuts no ice. I wouldn't have been able to write my dissertation if my parents hadn't had sex, but that doesn't mean they should get credit as coauthoring my work.   That's the way it seems to me, but maybe somebody from these fields can give us a better rationale for (what seems to be) the widespread practice.  Edit: Another argument against the practice. Suppose I'm a billionaire who knows nothing about science, but I take it into my head that I want to be (regarded as) a famous scientist. Suppose I just spend billions of dollars to fund other people to do research. But, I ask each of those people to come and report to me for fifteen minutes ever week about what they've worked on, or discovered that week. Then, every time one of them finds a result, I demand that my name be added to the paper as a co-author, since we have "discussed" the work in progress and it is, after all, by my grace that the funds for the work have been provided. Suppose I just have hundreds of these postdocs, producing thousands of papers a year, all of which I am a coauthor for.   Now ask yourself if I really deserve to be regarded as a famous scientist at all? It seems to me that I don't, because I haven't done any of the science--I haven't suggested any research methods, I haven't designed any experiments, I haven't collected any data, I haven't even helped junior researchers know the shape of the existing literature. You might regard my existence as good for science in some sense--you might think of me as a beneficial patron of the sciences. But you wouldn't think of me as a scientist, right? And you wouldn't think I deserved to be considered for a Nobel Prize, or membership in the American Academy of the Arts and Sciences, or whatever. If I demanded that I be given those awards because of the thousands and thousands of papers that I have coauthored, which have been cited tens of thousands of times, you would call me an idiot, right? We give those prizes for discovery, not for being rich. The same thing is true of tenure too. You shouldn't be able to buy your role as a tenured professor. You should have to prove that you, personally, are capable of making a serious contribution to your field. And of course you demonstrate that capability by publishing papers.  So when a prof is automatically added as a coauthor to a paper that he or she did not contribute to in any way except financially, then she is trying to buy a reputation as a scholar, or the other perks like tenure or membership in the AAAS that come with that reputation in just the same kind of way that the absurd billionaire is doing.
11664
I am just curious that the following format looks good to you or not? The preamble I used is just   \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}  \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{amsthm} \usepackage{amssymb}   I don't feel it's so good because the first paragraph has no indent but the second does. If the first paragraph is much longer, than it's fine. But if not, it looks strange. Should I leave it, or you have suggestions for this?
43092
Is it okay to repost a question from another Q&amp;A website/forum that was never answered there? Is that plagiarism?  I came across  that is very similar to a problem I am currently encountering, and would really like to see an answer/response. Would it b e appropriate to copy and paste that question into a question on Stack Overflow?
52973
I am currently writing 2 conference papers. One is highly quantitative in nature and the other is absolutely qualitative in nature. I am submitting both papers to conferences having deadlines in the next couple of months.  The papers present results on 3 different research questions on the same topic and are highly related with each other. You could argue that paper A + paper B together present a holistic view of the answer to these research questions. Individually, paper A and paper B show a different side to the problem since you generally get alternate points of view from quantitative and qualitative works.   Since the papers and their results are highly interrelated, there exists a compelling reason for me to ensure that they cite each other. I have seen  question and  question which are also highly related to my question. However, my question is different enough, in my opinion to warrant a separate question.    How should I cite these papers? (one paper is going to be in APA style and the other will be in ACM style) Does it make good sense to contact the Associate Chairs of these conferences for further clarification? The most important question for me is, is this ethical? Does it not break the double blind review system? I am ready to not cite these papers if that is the case.   I am having conversations with my adviser about this but just want some broader perspective from different disciplines if I am somehow missing something.
84264
I have an answer that I want to use a block quote to cite and outside reference. That reference is a bulleted list.   Pretty sure I have seen this before but I cannot find anyone using it.  How can I use a numbered or bulleted list inside block quotes?
27674
I have some questions regarding secondary citations (in an computer-science research paper that should be published in a journal). I know that they should be avoided when possible, but it is not always that easy. More specifically, my situation is this:  Article A says:     The average value of ... in ... is ... [B]. [C]’s study says that in ... the value is ...   This statement is exactly what i need for my paper. If I read [B] and [C], I see that [A] cited them correctly and if I would have found these two other articles myself, I would have written the same.  Now how to cite this in a correct way?      [B] and [C] say (cited in [A]) ...   and do a “bad” secondary quote;    [B] and [C] say ...   and neglect the investigation done by [A] and peform citation plagiarism;    [A] says ...   and neglect that the data was the achievement of [B] and [C].    [A] says based on the findings of [B] and [C] ...   and do a secondary quote again.
47926
Last year, I applied to a university which is in Europe so a research statement is a crucial part of the application. I was interviewed by two faculty members and then finally got a rejection letter.    In my research statement, I had a particular idea and described a roadmap for it, though I did not get into technical details. But the idea was there and clearly stated. Recently, I came across a publication where the title is the same as my idea (wording is a little bit different) and is co-authored by one of the members of the interview panel.  The publication has technical details which were not part of my research statement. I believe there is no clear proof here whether my ideas got used or not.    My questions are:   Is this suspicious?   Is this valid and acceptable?
118460
Recently we have written a research paper and posted a preprint on the Arxiv to obtain some non-official peer review and to increase the quality of our paper. Till now we have not submitted this paper to any conference or journal (it is unpublished), but we are interested in sending it to a conference.  While testing our paper for plagiarism using free sites, we obtained results showing 83% plagiarism from the version we posted on the Arxiv. In other words, the software is saying that we plagiarised our own paper. We also tried pulling down our paper from the Arxiv to avoid this plagiarism, but it’s not possible. Does that mean our paper will get rejected by all conferences? What should we do?
6821
Question:  Are there any guidelines, sources, or examples of good practices for maintaining theorist's research notebook?  Motivation and context:  Maintaining a  is a much advised (if not a vital) tool for doing research. Many do that nowadays also in . While the methods for writing and maintaining a labbook might differ in details, in "dirty-hands" (no offense!) experimental, or field disciplines, the basics are relatively straightforward and clear. The advice tends to boil down to keep a labbook per single topic one works on and then record all the experiments and thoughts related to those experiments into the notebook. Simplifying a lot, in the end, the researcher (team) would compile a paper from the notes in the notebook.  Now situation of a researcher in a more theoretical discipline is strikingly different. Usually one engages in research on several topics at the same time. The problems a researcher works on are often intertwined and one's view on them changes over time, often merging originally separate streams of thought into a single one, or vice-versa. The work revolves not around experiments which would have a clear objective, but rather around currently prepared papers and then "a cloud of ideas". In summary, theorist's workstyle tends to be very non-linear. Maintaining some kind of a notebook is still a good thing, if for nothing else, then for not forgetting about stuff. My question is about how to go about doing it.  I am after a practical tool helping me to archive my thought process for long-term, as well as efficiently manage and keep an overview of the evolution of the several interacting topics I engage in.
112357
I want to achieve the exact same title page layout as the paper shown . For those that do not want to download the paper, the image of the title page is shown below:    The super-scripts indicating the authors doesn't have to be as shown in the example title page (e.g, a, b and c), other symbols are fine.  I am using the authblk package and know the general syntax such as:  \title{title of paper} \author[1]{author 1\thanks{details that goes into the footnote}} \author[1]{author 2\thanks{details that goes into the footnote}} \author[2]{author 3\thanks{details that goes into the footnote}} \affil[1]{university 1} \affil[2]{university 2} \renewcommand\Authands{ and } \maketitle  \begin{abstract} abstract goes here \end{abstract}   But I am not sure how to achieve the example title page shown. Any help would be appreciated!
7846
I (an undergrad) and 2 other profs from my department have been working on something and we were thinking of submitting our work to a conference (a pretty well known one) this week. The fact is there is no related work that has been done on the problem we are solving and therefore there is no paper which we can cite as a starting point for our work. The only existing things that we make use of are trivial definitions from mathematics (like Riemann Integral) and also definitions that are pretty well known in my area (CS). So again, we do not think there is a need to cite any particular papers for that.   Now my question as stated was - is it acceptable to have a paper with no references? Or do you think we should just mention some papers (we never had to use them) where those definitions were actually proposed?  PS: I'm sure some of you might suggest me to ask those profs. But quite frankly none of them have much experience as far as publishing papers is concerned. So it would be great if some one could give me a good advice and help me out.   Edit: Thanks everyone for the answers. Of course somewhere a little sarcastic and ridiculing, but I can understand since this is a little weird. Actually yes, I had the notion that a paper wasn't worth citing unless I use some results from it (say an algo or some theorem). But I guess that isn't the only reason why I should be referencing as many seem to suggest here. The fact is we had seen quite a few survey papers before we started this out and I was under the impression that there wasn't a need to cite them since anyone could find them. But now, things are bit more clear and I guess I should cite them and I will :)
15445
I am compiling my thesis, and have noticed that the LaTeX template that I am using provides space for a dedication.  Whilst I do have an individual whom I want to credit with being a source of inspiration for my research and career motivation, I'm curious as to if honours theses normally include a dedication, and if I would be better to wait until I write my doctorate.
23777
I'd like to know your opinion on citations in abstracts. At my university, there is no rule on that matter so it's basically a question of preference.  Do you think it's okay to have citations in an abstract or do you  personally prefer to have the abstract be a ``stand-alone'' piece of  work?
75579
I want to basically upload a research preprint to arXiv. I want my paper to exactly look like this paper  including the hyperlinks in the bibliography.   Can someone please tell me how the scratch tex file should look like to achieve this.  Any help is appreciated.
16370
Yes, it's time for me to complain about plagiarism again.  We already have Suggested Edit audits, but I would like to see Tag Wiki and Tag Wiki Excerpt audits that specifically introduce copied content for that tag without including the appropriate source(s), and warn people who approve it that they just approved a tag with plagiarized text.  For example, an audit for the  tag could be:     Microsoft SQL Server is a relational database management system developed by Microsoft. As a database, it is a software product whose primary function is to store and retrieve data as requested by other software applications, be it those on the same computer or those running on another computer across a network (including the Internet). There are at least a dozen different editions of Microsoft SQL Server aimed at different audiences and for different workloads (ranging from small applications that store and retrieve data on the same computer, to millions of users and computers that access huge amounts of data from the Internet at the same time). Its primary query languages are T-SQL and ANSI SQL.   Anyone who spends 15 seconds Googling this will see where it came from -- the problem is, most people don't.  I know with Suggested Edit Audits, it's just random text to catch the most egregious reviewers; for this, you would have to most likely select a small sample of tags, and then create their copy-and-paste entries for audits.    The whole point of this would be to raise awareness for people who have figured out how to recognize and pass Suggested Edit audits, but still don't understand the finer nuances of reviewing.
120212
Recently, I wrote an article, and I'm trying to submit it somewhere, but two journals told me that my article is plagiarized even up to 70%!    I'm 100% sure that it's not plagiarized because I wrote it by myself. The only thing that I suspect caused this problem is that I posted the pre-print online in ECSarxiv, and I think they found my pre-print and think my paper is plagiarized! My name on the pre-print is exactly the same as in the submitted paper. I checked the pre-print policy of these journals, and they clearly stated that they don't have a problem with pre-prints. I checked it with Turnitin, and it says there is no plagiarism in my article. I also searched the Internet for random sentences from my article and it just shows my pre-print. I complained after I received the rejection, pointed out to my pre-print, and asked them to name the paper I allegedly plagiarized from. However, they did not respond back to me. I now sent an email to editor-in-chief and I'm waiting for response. I am confident that the journals are reputable (Elsevier and Springer).   Any ideas or suggestions?