Recently published research out of Cornell University.
From Cornell University:
Computer text analysis of a huge database of scientific papers shows a large amount of “text overlap,” where authors use text from previous papers of their own and others, not always with attribution. This is not necessarily good or bad, Cornell researchers say.
“Our first goal was to characterize the accepted practice, not to be judgmental,” said Paul Ginsparg, professor of physics and information science and founder of the online arXiv collection of scientific papers, now maintained by Cornell University Library. The analysis was conducted on thousands of papers in the arXiv. Ginsparg and Cornell graduate student Daniel Citron reported their study in the Dec. 8 online edition of the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. (abstract only, full text preprint linked below).
“While it is technically plagiarism, which more generally is stealing of ideas,” Ginsparg said, “it’s a benign form in the sense that most of it cites the source (at least somewhere in the article), and many authors have rationales for the practice.” Many readers find the reuse of text “an annoyance and a distraction,” he added, and some worry that it wastes space online and in print journals.
The study compared text in 757,000 articles deposited from 1991 to 2012. Each text was broken into overlapping phrases seven words long, and other texts were then scanned to see how many matching phrases they had in common. The system skips common usages like “The remainder of this article is organized as follows,” as well as direct quotations with proper attribution.
The entire database was preprocessed to create an index of all the seven-word patterns in the arXiv. The analysis only became possible, Ginsparg said, with the low-cost availability of computers with enough random-access memory (RAM) to hold the entire 12.5 GB index. Given that, a single paper can be checked in less than a second, he said.
Since June 2011, every new article submitted to the arXiv has been scanned against the entire database, and papers with significant text overlap have been flagged with a notice to that effect. The current study grew partly from the need to establish a threshold for aberrant practice, permitting a response to indignant authors saying in effect, “Everybody does it.”
Read the Complete Summary (via Cornell U.)
See Also: Paul Ginsparg’s Homepage