Translation Plagiarism Research Articles

PLAGIARISM AND ITS REPERCUSSIONS: A PRIMER ON RESPONSIBLE SCIENTIFIC WRITING

Background: Plagiarism, in simple words meaning theft of ideas or text, is a grave scientific misconduct that is talked about frequently, however is notable in its conspicuous absence from the formal educational curriculum. Students and young researchers tend to engage in this malpractice, intentionally or unintentionally, due to various reasons. Aim: In this review, we aim to discuss a clear concept about plagiarism from its origin to its consequences, with special considerations about its status in the COVID-19 pandemic. This lucid conceptualization will help young authors invest in original research in terms of both the idea and the script, avoiding unnecessary rejections and breach in medical ethics. Search Strategy: An electronic search strategy was performed on MEDLINE using the following keywords: “Plagiarism” OR “Plagiarism AND reasons” OR “Plagiarism AND consequences OR retractions” OR “Plagiarism AND detection”. Results: Of 2112 articles obtained, 36 were selected for the review. The main reasons for this malpractice were pressure for publication under a limited time frame along with a lack of training for scientific writing. The forms of plagiarism observed include intentional and unintentional, theft of ideas, copying verbatim, graphics, self-plagiarism and translational plagiarism. Use of various software are available for detection of plagiarism like iThenticate, Turnitin Feedback Studio, Grammarly etc along with careful reviewing by authors, reviewers and editors can detect this menace and help maintain originality in science. The consequences can be severe, ranging from defamation to monetary to legal action against the authors. Conducting interactive workshops on scientific writing along with promoting creativity in thought at the level of grass-root education is the key to preventing the scientific misconduct of plagiarism amongst students and young researchers. Conclusion: Plagiarism is a serious scientific misconduct that must be discussed with students and young researchers, and its prevention is the key to fostering growth in medical science and academics.

The three manuscript copies of Robert Ashley’s Of Honour and Sebastián Fox Morcillo’s De honore. Study of a translation plagiarism

Robert Ashley’s Of Honour, edited in 1947 by Virgil B. Heltzel, has become a reference work in studies on honor in English literature, but we have known since 2016 that it is a translation plagiarism of Sebastián Fox Morcillo’s De honore (1556). In this paper the authors analyze and compare the three existing manuscripts of Of Honour (two of them recently identified), discuss Ashley’s possible intentions in producing it, and make a complete comparative study of De honore with Robert Ashley’s translation.

Ethics of scientific communication as a means of respect for readers

The ethics of scientific communication from the point of view of compliance with legal and moral norms, social responsibility and respect for the reader is analyzed. Forms of academic plagiarism are considered. One of the forms of hidden plagiarism - translation plagiarism - is described in detail. Attention is paid to methods of recognition of plagiarism in translation.

Disguised Plagiarism

Disguised Plagiarism

Yeniden Çeviri Hipotezi Bağlamında Çeviri İntihali

This study focused on the absence of translation plagiarism in the context of a retranslation hypothesis that has been discussed and considered with different aspects by many scholars, including pioneering ones such as Antoine Berman (1990), Antony Pym (1998), William Chesterman (2000), Kaisa Koskinen & Outi Paloposki (2010), and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar (2008). It was strange to discover that when scholars consider retranslation as a factual reality that they do not discuss and evaluate translation plagiarism in the framework of this hypothesis. Retranslation was and is usually considered as a “necessity” for “filling a gap” and “complete an incompleteness”. From this point of view, it is a legitimate and acceptable translation activity that emerged with the claim of renewing an old translation. Nevertheless, it is scarcely discussed as translation plagiarism in this context. However, there are many other empirical studies showing that some texts which could easily be called “retranslation” in Turkish are “plagiarized translations” (Parlak: 2008, Gürses: 2008, Çelik: 2008, Evirgen: 2008) as well in other languages and cultures (Turell: 2004, Leighton: 1994). In light of these studies, this article aimed to question if the retranslation hypothesis renders “translation plagiarism” invisible, arguing that retranslation is a necessary activity to present a “new reading experience” of source text. My main question was if the retranslation hypothesis with its silence about translation plagiarism renders it difficult to discuss translation plagiarism in translation studies literature. As a conclusion, I would argue how can the limits be drawn between translation plagiarism and retranslation phenomenon in terms of translation ethics.

Retraction: Confidence level and credit risk analysis in Russian banks

Retracted on August 17, 2020 by the Journal’s owner and Publisher. Type of retraction – plagiarism.There wasn’t a request for this retraction, but the reason for investigation of plagiarism fact was the Russian Academy of Sciences Committee’s report “Predatory Journals at Scopus and WoS: Translation Plagiarism from Russian Sources”: https://kpfran.ru/wp-content/uploads/plagiarism-by-translation-2.pdf” dated August 12, 2020. The publishing house has familiarized itself with the report. The article by Alexey Mikhaylov, Natalia Sokolinskaya and Evgeniy Lopatin (2019). Asset allocation in equity, fixed-income and cryptocurrency on the base of individual risk sentiment. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 16(2), 171-181. doi:10.21511/imfi.16(2).2019.15 was mentioned in this report. It is noted that translation plagiarism was detected in this article - http://wiki.dissernet.org/wsave/IMFI_2019_2_1publ.html. Due to this the publishing house carried out an investigation on possible cases of plagiarism of all articles of these authors (Alexey Mikhaylov, Natalia Sokolinskaya and Evgeniy Lopatin) published in “Business Perspectives” journals. When the manuscript "Confidence level and credit risk analysis in Russian banks" was submitted to the Journal for consideration, the authors signed the Cover letter and attested to the fact that their manuscript is an original research and has not been published before. Then, the manuscript was accepted for consideration by the Managing Editor and was tested for plagiarism using the iThenticate and Unicheck programs. Plagiarism was not detected. On August 12, 2020 the Russian Academy of Sciences Committee’s presented the report. Editorial staff decided to re-test all articles of mentioned authors for plagiarism using the iThenticate and Unicheck programs – the programs didn’t show the plagiarism, then the articles were tested for translation plagiarism by the experts of “Business Perspectives” and plagiarism was detected (plagiarism and paraphrases from Russian-language sources). According to the results of the investigation, the Publisher and owner of the journal decided to retract this article because of plagiarism on August 17, 2020.The authors were notified of such a decision.

Comparing Text-Matching Software Systems Using the Document Set in the Latvian Language

There are many internationally developed text-matching software systems that help successfully identify potentially plagiarized content in English texts using both their internal databases and web resources. However, many other languages are not so widely spread but they are used daily to communicate, conduct research and acquire education. Each language has its peculiarities, so, in the context of finding content similarities, it is necessary to determine what systems are more suitable for a document set written in a specific language. The research focuses on testing the existent text-matching software systems on a set of documents prepared in the Latvian language. The corpus includes documents containing verbatim plagiarism, paraphrasing, translation plagiarism and original text to test both false positive and false negative cases. In total, 16 different text-matching software systems are compared on the plagiarism coverage using the prepared document corpus. The research presented is a part of an international initiative “Testing of Support Tools for Plagiarism Detection (TeSToP)” established under the European Network for Academic Integrity.

Retraction: Assessment of Russian banking system performance and sustainability

Retracted on August 17, 2020 by the Journal’s owner and Publisher. Type of retraction – plagiarism.There wasn’t a request for this retraction, but the reason for investigation of plagiarism fact was the Russian Academy of Sciences Committee’s report “Predatory Journals at Scopus and WoS: Translation Plagiarism from Russian Sources”: https://kpfran.ru/wp-content/uploads/plagiarism-by-translation-2.pdf” dated August 12, 2020. The publishing house has familiarized itself with the report. The article by Alexey Mikhaylov, Natalia Sokolinskaya and Evgeniy Lopatin (2019). Asset allocation in equity, fixed-income and cryptocurrency on the base of individual risk sentiment. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 16(2), 171-181. doi:10.21511/imfi.16(2).2019.15 was mentioned in this report. It is noted that translation plagiarism was detected in this article - http://wiki.dissernet.org/wsave/IMFI_2019_2_1publ.html. Due to this the publishing house carried out an investigation on possible cases of plagiarism of all articles of these authors (Alexey Mikhaylov, Natalia Sokolinskaya and Evgeniy Lopatin) published in “Business Perspectives” journals. When the manuscript "Assessment of Russian banking system performance and sustainability" was submitted to the Journal for consideration, the authors signed the Cover letter and attested to the fact that their manuscript is an original research and has not been published before. Then, the manuscript was accepted for consideration by the Managing Editor and was tested for plagiarism using the iThenticate and Unicheck programs. Plagiarism was not detected. On August 12, 2020 the Russian Academy of Sciences Committee’s presented the report. Editorial staff decided to re-test all articles of mentioned authors for plagiarism using the iThenticate and Unicheck programs – the programs didn’t show the plagiarism, then the articles were tested for translation plagiarism by the experts of “Business Perspectives” and plagiarism was detected (plagiarism and paraphrases from Russian-language sources). According to the results of the investigation, the Publisher and owner of the journal decided to retract this article because of plagiarism on August 17, 2020.The authors were notified of such a decision.

Retraction: Oil incomes spending in sovereign fund of Norway (GPFG)

Retracted on August 17, 2020 by the Journal’s owner and Publisher. Type of retraction – plagiarism.There wasn’t a request for this retraction, but the reason for investigation of plagiarism fact was the Russian Academy of Sciences Committee’s report “Predatory Journals at Scopus and WoS: Translation Plagiarism from Russian Sources”: https://kpfran.ru/wp-content/uploads/plagiarism-by-translation-2.pdf” dated August 12, 2020. The publishing house has familiarized itself with the report. The article by Alexey Mikhaylov, Natalia Sokolinskaya and Evgeniy Lopatin (2019). Asset allocation in equity, fixed-income and cryptocurrency on the base of individual risk sentiment. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 16(2), 171-181. doi:10.21511/imfi.16(2).2019.15 was mentioned in this report. It is noted that translation plagiarism was detected in this article - http://wiki.dissernet.org/wsave/IMFI_2019_2_1publ.html. Due to this the publishing house carried out an investigation on possible cases of plagiarism of all articles of these authors (Alexey Mikhaylov, Natalia Sokolinskaya and Evgeniy Lopatin) published in “Business Perspectives” journals. When the manuscript "Oil incomes spending in sovereign fund of Norway (GPFG)" was submitted to the Journal for consideration, the authors signed the Cover letter and attested to the fact that their manuscript is an original research and has not been published before. Then, the manuscript was accepted for consideration by the Managing Editor and was tested for plagiarism using the iThenticate and Unicheck programs. Plagiarism was not detected. On August 12, 2020 the Russian Academy of Sciences Committee’s presented the report. Editorial staff decided to re-test all articles of mentioned authors for plagiarism using the iThenticate and Unicheck programs – the programs didn’t show the plagiarism, then the articles were tested for translation plagiarism by the experts of “Business Perspectives” and plagiarism was detected (plagiarism and paraphrases from Russian-language sources). According to the results of the investigation, the Publisher and owner of the journal decided to retract this article because of plagiarism on August 17, 2020.The authors were notified of such a decision.

Retraction: Asset allocation in equity, fixed-income and cryptocurrency on the base of individual risk sentiment

Retracted on August 17, 2020 by the Journal’s owner and Publisher. Type of retraction – plagiarism.There wasn’t a request for this retraction, but the reason for investigation of plagiarism fact was the Russian Academy of Sciences Committee’s report “Predatory Journals at Scopus and WoS: Translation Plagiarism from Russian Sources”: https://kpfran.ru/wp-content/uploads/plagiarism-by-translation-2.pdf” dated August 12, 2020. The publishing house has familiarized itself with the report. The article by Alexey Mikhaylov, Natalia Sokolinskaya and Evgeniy Lopatin (2019). Asset allocation in equity, fixed-income and cryptocurrency on the base of individual risk sentiment. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 16(2), 171-181. doi:10.21511/imfi.16(2).2019.15 was mentioned in this report. It is noted that translation plagiarism was detected in this article - http://wiki.dissernet.org/wsave/IMFI_2019_2_1publ.html. Due to this the publishing house carried out an investigation on possible cases of plagiarism of all articles of these authors (Alexey Mikhaylov, Natalia Sokolinskaya and Evgeniy Lopatin) published in “Business Perspectives” journals. When the manuscript "Asset allocation in equity, fixed-income and cryptocurrency on the base of individual risk sentiment" was submitted to the Journal for consideration, the authors signed the Cover letter and attested to the fact that their manuscript is an original research and has not been published before. Then, the manuscript was accepted for consideration by the Managing Editor and was tested for plagiarism using the iThenticate and Unicheck programs. Plagiarism was not detected. On August 12, 2020 the Russian Academy of Sciences Committee’s presented the report. Editorial staff decided to re-test all articles of mentioned authors for plagiarism using the iThenticate and Unicheck programs – the programs didn’t show the plagiarism, then the articles were tested for translation plagiarism by the experts of “Business Perspectives” and plagiarism was detected (plagiarism and paraphrases from Russian-language sources). According to the results of the investigation, the Publisher and owner of the journal decided to retract this article because of plagiarism on August 17, 2020.The authors were notified of such a decision.

The Corruption of Philosophical Communication by Translation Plagiarism

AbstractDisguised plagiarism often goes undetected. An especially subtle type of disguised plagiarism is translation plagiarism, which occurs when the work of one author is republished in a different language with authorship credit taken by someone else. I focus on the challenge of demonstrating this subtle variety of plagiarism and examine the corruptive influence that plagiarizing articles exert on unsuspecting researchers who later cite them in the downstream literature as genuine products of research. I conclude by arguing that an open discussion of plagiarizing articles in philosophy is necessary for maintaining the reliability of the body of published research and for restoring integrity to scholarly communication.

What to Do When You Have Suspect Translational Plagiarism? - Editor's View.

Editor and Co-Editor of this journal was informed from anonymous reader that article which was published in Medical Archives in 2001 \'Psychotherapeutic Testimony by Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina: a Pilot Study\' (in Bosnian language) has been already published in \'American Journal of Psychiatry\' under the title \'Testimony Psychotherapy in Bosnian Refugees: a Pilot Study\', in 1998. (1, 2).

English-Persian Plagiarism Detection based on a Semantic Approach

Plagiarism which is defined as “the wrongful appropriation of other writers’ or authors’ works and ideas without citing or informing them” poses a major challenge to knowledge spread publication. Plagiarism has been placed in four categories of direct, paraphrasing (rewriting), translation, and combinatory. This paper addresses translational plagiarism which is sometimes referred to as cross-lingual plagiarism. In cross-lingual translation, writers meld a translation with their own words and ideas. Based on monolingual plagiarism detection methods, this paper ultimately intends to find a way to detect cross-lingual plagiarism. A framework called Multi-Lingual Plagiarism Detection (MLPD) has been presented for cross-lingual plagiarism analysis with ultimate objective of detection of plagiarism cases. English is the reference language and Persian materials are back translated using translation tools. The data for assessment of MLPD were obtained from English-Persian Mizan parallel corpus. Apache’s Solr was also applied to record the creep of the documents and their indexation. The accuracy mean of the proposed method revealed to be 98.82% when employing highly accurate translation tools which indicate the high accuracy of the proposed method. Also, Google translation service showed the accuracy mean to be 56.9%. These tests demonstrate that improved translation tools enhance the accuracy of the proposed method.

Salami Slicing of Data Set, Translational Plagiarism, and Self-plagiarism: The Storyline.

Salami Slicing of Data Set, Translational Plagiarism, and Self-plagiarism: The Storyline.

How to Verify and Manage the Translational Plagiarism?

The use of Google translator as a tool for determining translational plagiarism is a big challenge. As noted, plagiarism of the original papers written in Macedonian and translated into other languages can be verified after computerised translation in other languages. Attempts to screen the translational plagiarism should be supported. The use of Google Translate tool might be helpful. Special focus should be on any non-English reference that might be the source of plagiarised material and non-English article that might translate from an original English article, which cannot be detected by simple plagiarism screening tool. It is a hard job for any journal to detect the complex translational plagiarism but the harder job might be how to effectively manage the case.

Odpowiedzialność przekładoznawcy, czyli o normatywności i granicach interpretacyjnej swobody tłumacza (przypadek Johna le Carré)

The Responsibility of Translation Studies Scholar, or Reflections on Normativity and Freedom of Interpretation (the Case of John le Carré) The translatologist – as an academic researcher – rarely faces the necessity to take legal responsibility for the results of his or her scholarly analysis. Especially today, in the western culture of the second decade of the 21st century, the freedom of theoretical reflection is regarded as an essential element of intellectual development of an individual and as a sine-qua-non condition for the change of discursive, and perceptive, paradigms sensu largo. However, when the translator assumes the role of an expert in the course of legal proceedings related to cases of possible translation plagiarism – the results of his or her intellectual exploration can no longer be construed merely as “theoretical proposals”. In the case presented in this article, such awareness resulted in the fact that the authors, considering themselves poststructural scholars, chose to return to structuralist methodological approaches (variantivity), norms in translation, and to the concept of the tertium comparationis, which, in the context of a comparative analysis of two translations, is the source text.

Response to “The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations”

The report on ethics of scholarly publishing by Kathleen Amos is very interesting 1. She noted that “Unethical publishing practices cut across nations.” In fact, misconduct can be seen in any country around the world. The high prevalence of problems in some countries can be due to several reasons, including (a) the system to check for misconduct, (b) the size of countries and number of medical scientists in those countries, and (c) the basic perception of misconduct in each country. The picture might be clearer if it were possible to assess the incidence of misconduct per number of medical scientists in each country. In addition, the translational plagiarism seen in some countries where English is not a native language (such as Thailand) cannot be easily detected 2. As Steen et al. recently noted, “behavior of both authors and institutions” is the main factor determining occurrence of misconduct 3. The active role of medical librarians to fight misconduct, such as notification of cases via an international medical librarian society, might be useful for decreasing the magnitude of the problem worldwide.

Zagadnienie plagiatu literackiego, czyli o domniemaniu winy/niewinności tłumacza słów parę

Translation as an act of interlinguistic communication plays a crucial role in bridging two cultures close enough to make the members of one speech community “feel” a hypothetically foreign culture by experiencing it through language they originally mastered. This paper demonstrates the complementary nature of macro-level quantitative communication studies and micro-elementary analysis of translation as a process of meaning negotiation in terms of our natural human tendency to express thoughts and intentions according to the same inborn cognitive mechanism of language expression. Here, I consider the issue of translation plagiarism, its legal definition in the copyright treaty, the scope of copyright protection as well as the difference between committing an intentional theft of intellectual creations, i.e., plagiarism and publishing another translation of the same original. In recent years, researchers in translation studies have paid increasing attention to the socio-cultural context of language usage in terms of intercultural communication as such. Studies have drawn from a variety of cognitive frameworks to examine the direct influence of language economization on a successful and complete information transfer from culture A into culture B. In its theoretical section, the paper provides the reader with an assessment of an intercultural communication theory based on the assumption that members of the same speech community (sharing common ‘communication consciousness’) apply identical types of language mechanisms, which effects in creating similar grammatical or stylistic constructions. What this paper sets out to do in the practical section is to collect some data from the vast literary translations (from English to Polish) which will exemplify the problem of promoting next translation of a well known original. Specifically, I examined two various isosemiotic translations of two literary texts ( Hamlet and Pride and Prejudice ). Then, I compared translations of two selected sections to indicate those that might have been hypothetically plagiarized, and revealed that all theoretical arguments about the possible copyright infringement in literary translations are groundless. Authors of two different translations share the same culturally oriented complements cognitifs . This knowledge allows them to express the contents of the original in their mother language with the application of the same or similar language constructions. Of course, none of the analyzed works carries the stigma of plagiarism. I end up the paper by considering the implications of this approach for future research on the presumption of plagiarism which I understand as an intentional repeating of large units of one translation into another. There is hardly a term that raises more vivid discussions among translation theoreticians than plagiarism, yet it is more difficult to define its limits.