Editorial:
Globalization—Ethics and Plagiarism

This issue presents two exciting papers on different topics in software testing. The first, Optimizing Compilation with Preservation of Structural Code Coverage Metrics to Support Software Testing, by Kirner and Hass, presents results on mapping coverage computed at the source level to coverage at the executable level. Their suggestion is to modify compilers to add additional information to the executable version of the software to make it possible to back-calculate coverage measured on the executable to the source. (Recommended by Jose Maldonado.) The second, A Hitchhiker’s Guide to Statistical Tests for Assessing Randomized Algorithms in Software Engineering, by Arcuri and Briand, presents guidelines on using statistical tests in experiments involving randomized algorithms. The authors make the point that randomized algorithms have different characteristics than other kinds of experimental research, which means different statistical analysis techniques are needed. The paper analyzes several recent publications, and recommends how their statistical tests could have been improved. (Recommended by Alexander Pretschner.)

I wrote about The Globalization of Software Engineering in a previous editorial [1], followed up with a discussion of language skills to support globalization [2], uses of references and citations [3], and standards for research quality [4]. Another difficult difference that is affected by globalization is plagiarism.

All journal editors that I ask agree that we detect more plagiarism than in the past. Part of the increase is simply that we now use technology to increase observability. STVR uses an automatic plagiarism tool that searches thousands (millions?) of documents looking for overlapping text. It reports the percentage of the text in the submitted paper that is identical to text in previously published papers. We can also view the papers that have the most overlap in a tool that highlights the overlapping text. As a result, we detect more plagiarized papers, and detect them sooner. STVR rejects 10 to 20 papers annually for plagiarism.

Another reason for the increase is that many authors to not understand plagiarism. As I pointed out last month [4], scientists learn many things from their advisors, including what constitutes plagiarism. This, in turn, is certainly affected by culture. In countries with governments that are inherently corrupt, it is natural for plagiarism to be more common and accepted. In countries without a long tradition of individual ownership of ideas, plagiarism is not a natural concept. And in countries that are extremely competitive, the “anything to get ahead” attitude can sometimes turn to plagiarism. Thus, the increasing globalization of software engineering certainly contributes to an increase in plagiarism.

A prevailing problem seems to be “what is plagiarism?” My Merriam-Webster dictionary defines plagiarize as: “to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas” [5]. This seems simple and straightforward, but, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.” Below I present several (anonymized) examples.

• Complete copying: Perhaps the most obvious and egregious case is when an entire paper is copied with only slight changes. I have seen this twice in my tenure at STVR. In the most recent, the original paper was published in a fairly obscure outlet in 1978. By happenstance, the reviewing editor had read the original paper and found it, scanned it, and sent it to me. The new paper contained a few additional paragraphs and a few new references, but all results, figures, formulas, and text was copied verbatim. This was an easy case–the authors knew they were plagiarizing, did it intentionally, and added no value to the original paper. Our response was to inform their department chairs and Dean, and put them on a “no submission ever” list for STVR. If they submit other papers to STVR, they will be desk-rejected without consideration.

• Copying key results: Another straightforward example is to copy key results from another paper, but embed them in a mostly new paper. Again, this is intentional with full knowledge. It is also easier to disguise than the previous example, because the paper could have a relatively small amount of textual overlap with the original paper. Nevertheless, this happens quite regularly, and we have an STVR submission right now in this category.

• Copying unpublished work: A variant of the “copying key results” category is when someone plagiarizes an unpublished paper. This has happened three times to me in my career. I introduced several terms and concepts in one of my very first conference submissions from my PhD dissertation. The reviewers accepted the paper, but also told me the revision must cite another paper that was accepted to the conference on a similar topic. The acceptance letter said the other author was being told the same. When the conference proceedings came out, however, the other paper not only did not cite my paper, but used my terms and concepts exactly. Since my paper cited the other, some readers assumed the terms and concepts were original to the other author.

  In another example, a paper I was struggling with was rejected by two conferences, and finally accepted at a third. In the meantime, a person who was on both program committees that rejected my paper published a paper with several of my key ideas. The third example is ironic. Again, a paper I was struggling to write well was rejected twice, and I decided to send it to a journal. One reviewer accused me of plagiarism! It turned out that a reviewer from one of the conferences had published some of the ideas in my paper before I got it out. Luckily, I had released a technical report of the original paper, and was able to explain to the editor what happened. Essentially, I was accused of plagiarizing myself.

  In all three situations, the author was clearly using “the words or ideas of another person as if they were his or her own words or ideas.” And this may be the worst form of plagiarism, because it is so easy to disguise and so hard to prove. In fact, two of these plagiarizers admitted privately what they did. One is now a department chair at a major university, and one an associate dean.

• Copying auxiliary text: A less egregious, at least in my opinion, form of plagiarism is when authors copy text verbatim from background sections and introductions. This is clearly using someone else’s words as if they were their own, but the intent is different from copying the key ideas. This is usually done by someone with limited writing abilities, who sees a paragraph or a sentence in a paper that says something they need to say, and better than they could say it. They are not exactly trying to steal ideas, but just “borrow” words. Some of my foreign students are surprised to find that this is considered plagiarism, since it is not in some cultures. STVR tends to be more forgiving of these types of plagiarism by rejecting the paper but not blacklisting the authors.

• Improper quoting: A common problem for many students and young scientists is how to quote correctly. Earlier I quoted the definition of plagiarism. If I had omitted the quotes, or left out the source (Merriam-Webster), that would have been plagiarism. Students and authors will often leave out the quotes or the reference. Although we require this to be corrected, we do not necessarily reject a paper for this mistake.

• Self copying: Another issue that comes up is when we copy from our own papers. We often write several papers on a similar topic, and it’s natural that material such as the introduction and related work be reused. If I copy an entire paragraph from my previous paper, is that plagiarism? The definition given above says “another person,” so I do not consider this to be plagiarism. However, reviewers will often call it such. And if enough text is copied, it could be a copyright violation.

• Transitive self copying: A confusing variant of this happened to one of my students. We wrote a paper together, and I reused background text (definitions) from a previous paper that I had written with a different co-author. The new paper was part of my student’s PhD research, so eventually the definitions showed up in his dissertation. Did he copy from himself (our paper), or from my original paper? Does this constitute transitive plagiarism? None of the three of us thought the student had done anything ethically wrong, but we decided it would be best if he changed the presentation to avoid the confusion.

• Copying by memorization: My final example is from a class I taught last fall. Two students submitted assignments that were in large part identical, but with some confusing differences. The assignment was to design tests and embed them in JUnit, and neither assignment looked to be intentionally obfuscated. After some pressure, it turned out that student A asked student B to help him with the assignment. Student B helped by letting A watch him type up the homework on the computer. A then went home and, in an impressive feat of memory, retyped the assignment with about 75% accuracy. Even after I explained this in great detail, neither student has accepted that what they did was wrong. In their view, A did the assignment on his own because he typed it without direct access to an electronic or printed copy. This is clearly a very different cultural viewpoint, and both students will remain angry with me for my “unjust” decision.

   

  So yes, plagiarism occurs regularly. It is sometimes intentional, but often not. Part of our responsibility as teachers, reviewers, and editors is to educate people who were not taught in high school writing classes about plagiarism. And one of our ethical dilemmas is whether to treat unintentional plagiarism more lightly.

  Thankfully, plagiarism is not as common as in some fields, for example politics [6]. Our field is designed to prevent and detect plagiarism through education, collaboration, and the review process. Perhaps most importantly, one of our most important assets is our reputation. If we are caught plagiarizing once we can usually expect our research career to be over.

  [1] Jeff Offutt. The Globalization of Software Engineering (Editorial), Wiley’s journal of Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability, 23(3), May 2013. http://www.cs.gmu.edu/~offutt/stvr/23-3-May2013.html.

  [2] Jeff Offutt. Globalization—Language and Dialects (Editorial), Wiley's journal of Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability, 23(4), June 2013. http://www.cs.gmu.edu/~offutt/stvr/23-4-June2013.html.

  [3] Jeff Offutt. Globalization-References and Citations (Editorial), Wiley’s journal of Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability, 24(1), January 2014. http://www.cs.gmu.edu/~offutt/stvr/24-1-Jan2014.html.

  [4] Jeff Offutt. Globalization-Standards for Research Quality (Editorial), Wiley’s journal of Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability, 24(2), March 2014. http://www.cs.gmu.edu/~offutt/stvr/24-2-Mar2014.html.

  [5] Merriam-Webster Free online dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize, accessed March 2014.

  [6] Michael Shermer. When Scientists Sin: Fraud, deception and lies in research reveal how science is (mostly) self-correcting, Scientific American, July 2010. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-scientists-sin

  Jeff Offutt
  offutt@gmu.edu
  22 March 2014