This essay presents the concept of Intellectual Piracy and its ethical-legal and formative consequences in the academic field of Administration. This is an essay on a practice identified by the ...authors but little discussed in academia. Intellectual piracy is a subtle form of plagiarism usually not identified by software. It is the practice of copying a theoretical systematization or idea produced by another person without citing it. This practice becomes evident not by copying words or phrases but by using a set of authors (even citations) used in another work as if the choices and theoretical systematization were original. Our contribution is to offer a concept capable of defining a practice of plagiarism that is not yet present in the literature on the subject in question. We conclude that intellectual piracy is an ethical-legal problem and a reflection of deficiencies in training researchers concerning aspects such as authorship, originality, theorization, and theory in scientific practice. Keywords: Intellectual piracy. Plagiarism. Academic misconduct. Questionable research practices. Training of researchers.. O objetivo deste artigo e apresentar o conceito de pirataria intelectual e suas consequencias de carater etico-legal e formativo no campo academico da Administracao. Trata-se de um ensaio sobre uma pratica identificada pelos autores, mas pouco discutida no meio academico. A pirataria intelectual e uma modalidade sutil de plagio que normalmente nao e identificada por softwares. Consiste na pratica de copiar uma sistematizacao teorica ou ideia produzida por outra pessoa, sem cita-la. Tal pratica torna-se evidente nao pela copia de palavras ou frases, mas pelo emprego de um conjunto de autores, ate mesmo citacoes, utilizados em outro trabalho, sob a aparencia de que as escolhas e a sistematizacao teorica sao originais. Nossa contribuicao esta em oferecer um conceito que seja capaz de definir uma pratica de plagio que ainda nao esta presente na literatura sobre o tema em questao. Concluimos que a pirataria intelectual nao se trata apenas de um problema etico-legal, mas e tambem reflexo de deficiencias na formacao de pesquisadores em relacao a aspectos como autoria, originalidade, teorizacao e teoria no fazer cientifico. Palavras-chave: Pirataria intelectual. Plagio. Ma conduta academica. Praticas questionaveis de pesquisa. Formacao de pesquisadores. Este articulo tiene como objetivo presentar el concepto de Pirateria Intelectual y sus consecuencias etico-juridicas y formativas en el campo academico de la Administracion. Este es un ensayo sobre una practica identificada por los autores, pero poco discutida en la academia. La pirateria intelectual es una forma sutil de plagio generalmente no identificada por softwares. Es la practica de copiar una sistematizacion teorica o idea producida por otra persona sin citarla. Dicha practica se hace evidente no al copiar palabras o frases sino al utilizar un conjunto de autores (incluso citas) utilizados en otro trabajo, como si las elecciones y la sistematizacion teorica fueran originales. Nuestra contribucion es ofrecer un concepto capaz de definir una practica de plagio que aun no esta presente en la literatura sobre el tema en cuestion. Concluimos que la Pirateria Intelectual no es solo un problema etico-juridico, sino tambien un reflejo de las deficiencias en la formacion de los investigadores en aspectos como la autoria, la originalidad, la teorizacion y la teoria en la practica cientifica. Palabras clave: Pirateria intelectual. Plagio. Mala conducta academica. Practicas de investigacion cuestionables. Formacion de investigadores.
All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the ...professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind Single-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors Double-anonymous: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other Triple-blind: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other, and from the Editor(s) Open: author and reviewer identities are known to each other • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? • 1. Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of the conference? • 2. Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data? • 3. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions and substantial conclusions reached? • 4. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear and the language fluent and precise? • 5. Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution? Resubmission is allowed. • Conference submission management system: Easychair.org and ai-conf.org • Number of submissions received: 32 • Number of submissions sent for review: 32 • Number of submissions accepted: 20 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62.5% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 4 • Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): Plagiarism check was performed on all accepted papers. • Contact person for queries: Igor Balk Global Innovation Labs, USA (science at ai-conf.org)
All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the ...professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. □ Type of peer review: Double-blind □ All papers came through the basic review which included an initial technical criteria check (paper field, structure of submission, adherence to the submission instructions, English language usage and a check for the similarity rate). Any papers out of the scope or containing plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, were rejected. □ We used a double-blind system for peer review; both reviewers’ and authors’ identities remained anonymous. The submitted papers were reviewed by at least two experts: one editorial staff member as well as at least one external reviewer. The third/fourth reviewer is involved in case two reviewers have disputes about the content of the papers or the authors do not agree with the review result. The review process took from 5 to 10 days as a rule. The reviews were conducted to the professional and scientific standards. □ The decision to accept or reject the paper was based on the suggestions of reviewers. Acceptance/rejecting notifications were sent to the corresponding author(s). Conference submission management system, Any additional info on review process, Contact person for queries: all these headings are available in this PDF.
El principal objetivo de este trabajo es conocer la percepción del alumnado de grado y máster de las tres universidades gallegas sobre la comisión de plagio y comprobar la relación entre ésta y la ...citación de fuentes documentales como criterio de evaluación de los trabajos académicos por parte del profesorado de las diferentes ramas de conocimiento. La muestra está conformada por 8.943 estudiantes, con una edad media aproximada de 21 años, aproximadamente un 66% de mujeres y de todas las ramas de conocimiento. Para la recogida de la información se emplea el Cuestionario para la Detección de Coincidencias en Trabajos Académicos (CUDECO). Los datos indican que el alumnado tiene una menor predisposición a cometer plagio en el caso de que el profesorado tome medidas sobre ello en el proceso de evaluación. Como conclusión, se puede establecer una mayor necesidad de investigación acerca de las características de los sistemas de evaluación y en consecuencia también de las características del proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje.
Methods for cross-language plagiarism detection Barrón-Cedeño, Alberto; Gupta, Parth; Rosso, Paolo
Knowledge-based systems,
September 2013, 2013-09-00, 20130901, 2013-09, Letnik:
50
Journal Article, Publication
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Three reasons make plagiarism across languages to be on the rise: (i) speakers of under-resourced languages often consult documentation in a foreign language, (ii) people immersed in a foreign ...country can still consult material written in their native language, and (iii) people are often interested in writing in a language different to their native one. Most efforts for automatically detecting cross-language plagiarism depend on a preliminary translation, which is not always available.
In this paper we propose a freely available architecture for plagiarism detection across languages covering the entire process: heuristic retrieval, detailed analysis, and post-processing. On top of this architecture we explore the suitability of three cross-language similarity estimation models: Cross-Language Alignment-based Similarity Analysis (CL-ASA), Cross-Language Character n-Grams (CL-CNG), and Translation plus Monolingual Analysis (T+MA); three inherently different models in nature and required resources.
The three models are tested extensively under the same conditions on the different plagiarism detection sub-tasks—something never done before. The experiments show that T+MA produces the best results, closely followed by CL-ASA. Still CL-ASA obtains higher values of precision, an important factor in plagiarism detection when lesser user intervention is desired.
PDF
