I recently came across a relatively recent (2016) essay on plagiarism by Brian L. Frye (here). I must admit that plagiarism never sat right with me. I agree that plagiarism can be a big deal, let’s say when someone outright steals someone else’s work (e.g., Plagiarize this!, also recounting part of Frye’s essay). However, most of time correct citation seems more like a hindrance than a necessary, more like a reverence to seniority than a real acknowledgement of novelty.

To put things in context, let me copy below the last paragraph from Brian L. Frye essay:

“I will be blunt. Scholarship is rarely - if ever - original. At best, it is occasionally pithy enough to be quotable, or thoughtful enough to be worth a citation. Even on those rare occasions when a scholarly work actually introduces a novel idea, scholars do not and should not own those ideas, not even to the limited extent of a right to compel attribution. We should be humble. Scholarship is the gift we provide to each other and the public. More often than not, it is a gift better loved by the giver than the recipient. Attribution is also a gift. We should accept it graciously and thankfully when provided. But we should never demand it, or expect others to demand it on our behalf. After all, good scholars copy, but great scholars steal.“

I like this passage especially because it bluntly state what has been obvious to me for a long time. Namely, no idea is really novel, but relies on the shoulder of giants. Everyone in sciences knows this expression, “on the shoulder of giants,” yet very few argue that ideas are rarely novel … Do we really believe that Charles Darwin could have thought about the theory of evolution without prior work from Lamarck, Cuvier, Descartes, Linnaeus, and numerous other scientists before him? Even better, could he have done it without talking to Alfred Russel Wallace?! The point being that coming up with novel idea from nowhere is almost never done, others have done the mistakes that led us to the right (or better until proven overwise) answers.

Another argument I’ve encountered about plagiarism concerns the rise of the plagiarism police concomitantly to the rise of competition in any given field. Indeed, it is hard to not give credit where credit’s due when they are only few people working in one’s field. On the other hand, it is easy to overlook someone’s credit when the giant on which we stand is … well … gigantic.

I do not want to argue completely against plagiarism policing as I believe some type of plagiarisms are very detrimental. For example, a young scholar having their ideas stolen by a senior scholar with whom they discussed such ideas. Similarly, students simply lifting answers to their homework from online sources (be them the solution or from company they paid to do the work) is a real problem since as a professor I am suppose to assess my students’ learning and theirs only. Nonetheless, I think there is a lot that can be done about plagiarism policing, especially reducing the drama and importance around it.

Joining Brian L. Frye and others, I think citations should be useful and not mandatory. Provide some references because it will help the reader, not simply because that person mentioned that idea before (I am guilty as charged of that behavior, all young scholars as myself probably think it buffs up their introductions?). Finally, yes, we should be humble. Do we pursue science for personal interests linked to the amount of recognition we get for our work (in that case one might be better off going with work of commercial value) or for the accumulation of knowledge, the building of the giants, with hope that one day someone will make good use of our work? Not that there is anything wrong with the former, in fact, in case of commercial application there is a legislation taking care of that, it is called copyright laws and plagiarism is not part of it.

I know where I stand, do you?