Is “inadequate referencing” a euphemism for plagiarism?












10















I am aware of a professor, who wrote two published books that had to be corrected. On the publisher's website it states that these two books had been corrected due to "inadequate referencing". Is inadequate referencing essentially a euphemism for plagiarism? Or is it possible that inadequate referencing can really be a lesser sort of offence?










share|improve this question

























  • It could be a matter of taste for the editor. I've had one editor tell me every single sentence should cite to some sort of support, and another that hated "Id" and "Ibid" and insisted those be left out. In my opinion, the sweet spot is in between.

    – TimothyAWiseman
    2 days ago
















10















I am aware of a professor, who wrote two published books that had to be corrected. On the publisher's website it states that these two books had been corrected due to "inadequate referencing". Is inadequate referencing essentially a euphemism for plagiarism? Or is it possible that inadequate referencing can really be a lesser sort of offence?










share|improve this question

























  • It could be a matter of taste for the editor. I've had one editor tell me every single sentence should cite to some sort of support, and another that hated "Id" and "Ibid" and insisted those be left out. In my opinion, the sweet spot is in between.

    – TimothyAWiseman
    2 days ago














10












10








10


1






I am aware of a professor, who wrote two published books that had to be corrected. On the publisher's website it states that these two books had been corrected due to "inadequate referencing". Is inadequate referencing essentially a euphemism for plagiarism? Or is it possible that inadequate referencing can really be a lesser sort of offence?










share|improve this question
















I am aware of a professor, who wrote two published books that had to be corrected. On the publisher's website it states that these two books had been corrected due to "inadequate referencing". Is inadequate referencing essentially a euphemism for plagiarism? Or is it possible that inadequate referencing can really be a lesser sort of offence?







plagiarism terminology






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Wrzlprmft

34.4k10109185




34.4k10109185










asked 2 days ago









user1778351user1778351

11425




11425













  • It could be a matter of taste for the editor. I've had one editor tell me every single sentence should cite to some sort of support, and another that hated "Id" and "Ibid" and insisted those be left out. In my opinion, the sweet spot is in between.

    – TimothyAWiseman
    2 days ago



















  • It could be a matter of taste for the editor. I've had one editor tell me every single sentence should cite to some sort of support, and another that hated "Id" and "Ibid" and insisted those be left out. In my opinion, the sweet spot is in between.

    – TimothyAWiseman
    2 days ago

















It could be a matter of taste for the editor. I've had one editor tell me every single sentence should cite to some sort of support, and another that hated "Id" and "Ibid" and insisted those be left out. In my opinion, the sweet spot is in between.

– TimothyAWiseman
2 days ago





It could be a matter of taste for the editor. I've had one editor tell me every single sentence should cite to some sort of support, and another that hated "Id" and "Ibid" and insisted those be left out. In my opinion, the sweet spot is in between.

– TimothyAWiseman
2 days ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















24














I think that's a rather unkind interpretation of what happened here. Books aren't the same as research articles - especially for text books, it is par for the course that large swaths (most?) of the book are not actually about the author's own ideas.



Further, extremely detailed referencing can easily reduce the readability of the book, so oftentimes book authors are given a bit more leeway than what would be acceptable in a research article.



What I assumed happened here is that either some references are simply missing (as Solar Mike said), or that it has been later on determined that some parts of the book should really reference more explicitly where the respective content came from (either because the original author complained or because the book author decided that some more references would help a reader find additional information). I would not assume this to mean that the book author blatantly copied material from somewhere (this, presumably, would not lead to a correction but to withdrawing the entire book, because it also sounds like a copyright nightmare for the publisher).






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    Good point about providing the reader with more information - I came across an astonishing unreferenced assertion in an MA-level textbook a while back and still haven't been able to track down any information about where it comes from or what evidence exists that it's true.

    – Robert Columbia
    2 days ago








  • 2





    I'm not sure I agree, here. The word "inadequate" implies that something was actually wrong before; if I wanted to describe a situation in which the author had woken up one morning and thought, "Hey, the referencing in chapter 6 is OK but it could use some extra references to help the reader along", I'd use words like "improved referencing".

    – David Richerby
    2 days ago








  • 1





    I have to say, I am aware that the Professor was known to have a few problems with regards to sloppiness in citation practice. I'm not sure I buy the argument that in a textbook, it's kind of ok to be sloppy with citiations

    – user1778351
    2 days ago



















4














Perhaps the professor had included an incomplete bibliography in the first submitted version, so inline text references were there but not in the biblio...



Annoying for the professor, embarrassing possibly, but easily corrected, however, what it was I don't know.






share|improve this answer
























  • What you're describing is a simple clerical error. I doubt they'd use a term like "inadequate" to describe something like that.

    – David Richerby
    2 days ago



















1














I'm guessing it's a euphemism for dubious content, rather than plagiarism.



While books should cite their sources, it is not necessary to cite every single fact. The book's author (who is an expert on the topic) will justify or prove most facts in the course of the discussion. It's good practice to include a bibliography showing relevant primary sources (e.g., for further reading); however, merely summarizing a published paper in a textbook does not necessarily require a citation (e.g., we do not cite Newton's papers in introductory physics books). Citations are really only needed when facts are asserted without being proven or justified through the narrative.



In this case, the word "inadequate" does make it seem that there was a problem. This could be a euphemism for plagiarism: word-for-word copying, or not meeting the publisher's standards in terms of referencing relevant work. Or, it could be that the author stated a lot of facts without justification or citation, and some of them turned out to be dubious or even wrong. That's my guess.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "415"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126629%2fis-inadequate-referencing-a-euphemism-for-plagiarism%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    24














    I think that's a rather unkind interpretation of what happened here. Books aren't the same as research articles - especially for text books, it is par for the course that large swaths (most?) of the book are not actually about the author's own ideas.



    Further, extremely detailed referencing can easily reduce the readability of the book, so oftentimes book authors are given a bit more leeway than what would be acceptable in a research article.



    What I assumed happened here is that either some references are simply missing (as Solar Mike said), or that it has been later on determined that some parts of the book should really reference more explicitly where the respective content came from (either because the original author complained or because the book author decided that some more references would help a reader find additional information). I would not assume this to mean that the book author blatantly copied material from somewhere (this, presumably, would not lead to a correction but to withdrawing the entire book, because it also sounds like a copyright nightmare for the publisher).






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      Good point about providing the reader with more information - I came across an astonishing unreferenced assertion in an MA-level textbook a while back and still haven't been able to track down any information about where it comes from or what evidence exists that it's true.

      – Robert Columbia
      2 days ago








    • 2





      I'm not sure I agree, here. The word "inadequate" implies that something was actually wrong before; if I wanted to describe a situation in which the author had woken up one morning and thought, "Hey, the referencing in chapter 6 is OK but it could use some extra references to help the reader along", I'd use words like "improved referencing".

      – David Richerby
      2 days ago








    • 1





      I have to say, I am aware that the Professor was known to have a few problems with regards to sloppiness in citation practice. I'm not sure I buy the argument that in a textbook, it's kind of ok to be sloppy with citiations

      – user1778351
      2 days ago
















    24














    I think that's a rather unkind interpretation of what happened here. Books aren't the same as research articles - especially for text books, it is par for the course that large swaths (most?) of the book are not actually about the author's own ideas.



    Further, extremely detailed referencing can easily reduce the readability of the book, so oftentimes book authors are given a bit more leeway than what would be acceptable in a research article.



    What I assumed happened here is that either some references are simply missing (as Solar Mike said), or that it has been later on determined that some parts of the book should really reference more explicitly where the respective content came from (either because the original author complained or because the book author decided that some more references would help a reader find additional information). I would not assume this to mean that the book author blatantly copied material from somewhere (this, presumably, would not lead to a correction but to withdrawing the entire book, because it also sounds like a copyright nightmare for the publisher).






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      Good point about providing the reader with more information - I came across an astonishing unreferenced assertion in an MA-level textbook a while back and still haven't been able to track down any information about where it comes from or what evidence exists that it's true.

      – Robert Columbia
      2 days ago








    • 2





      I'm not sure I agree, here. The word "inadequate" implies that something was actually wrong before; if I wanted to describe a situation in which the author had woken up one morning and thought, "Hey, the referencing in chapter 6 is OK but it could use some extra references to help the reader along", I'd use words like "improved referencing".

      – David Richerby
      2 days ago








    • 1





      I have to say, I am aware that the Professor was known to have a few problems with regards to sloppiness in citation practice. I'm not sure I buy the argument that in a textbook, it's kind of ok to be sloppy with citiations

      – user1778351
      2 days ago














    24












    24








    24







    I think that's a rather unkind interpretation of what happened here. Books aren't the same as research articles - especially for text books, it is par for the course that large swaths (most?) of the book are not actually about the author's own ideas.



    Further, extremely detailed referencing can easily reduce the readability of the book, so oftentimes book authors are given a bit more leeway than what would be acceptable in a research article.



    What I assumed happened here is that either some references are simply missing (as Solar Mike said), or that it has been later on determined that some parts of the book should really reference more explicitly where the respective content came from (either because the original author complained or because the book author decided that some more references would help a reader find additional information). I would not assume this to mean that the book author blatantly copied material from somewhere (this, presumably, would not lead to a correction but to withdrawing the entire book, because it also sounds like a copyright nightmare for the publisher).






    share|improve this answer













    I think that's a rather unkind interpretation of what happened here. Books aren't the same as research articles - especially for text books, it is par for the course that large swaths (most?) of the book are not actually about the author's own ideas.



    Further, extremely detailed referencing can easily reduce the readability of the book, so oftentimes book authors are given a bit more leeway than what would be acceptable in a research article.



    What I assumed happened here is that either some references are simply missing (as Solar Mike said), or that it has been later on determined that some parts of the book should really reference more explicitly where the respective content came from (either because the original author complained or because the book author decided that some more references would help a reader find additional information). I would not assume this to mean that the book author blatantly copied material from somewhere (this, presumably, would not lead to a correction but to withdrawing the entire book, because it also sounds like a copyright nightmare for the publisher).







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    xLeitixxLeitix

    103k37247388




    103k37247388








    • 1





      Good point about providing the reader with more information - I came across an astonishing unreferenced assertion in an MA-level textbook a while back and still haven't been able to track down any information about where it comes from or what evidence exists that it's true.

      – Robert Columbia
      2 days ago








    • 2





      I'm not sure I agree, here. The word "inadequate" implies that something was actually wrong before; if I wanted to describe a situation in which the author had woken up one morning and thought, "Hey, the referencing in chapter 6 is OK but it could use some extra references to help the reader along", I'd use words like "improved referencing".

      – David Richerby
      2 days ago








    • 1





      I have to say, I am aware that the Professor was known to have a few problems with regards to sloppiness in citation practice. I'm not sure I buy the argument that in a textbook, it's kind of ok to be sloppy with citiations

      – user1778351
      2 days ago














    • 1





      Good point about providing the reader with more information - I came across an astonishing unreferenced assertion in an MA-level textbook a while back and still haven't been able to track down any information about where it comes from or what evidence exists that it's true.

      – Robert Columbia
      2 days ago








    • 2





      I'm not sure I agree, here. The word "inadequate" implies that something was actually wrong before; if I wanted to describe a situation in which the author had woken up one morning and thought, "Hey, the referencing in chapter 6 is OK but it could use some extra references to help the reader along", I'd use words like "improved referencing".

      – David Richerby
      2 days ago








    • 1





      I have to say, I am aware that the Professor was known to have a few problems with regards to sloppiness in citation practice. I'm not sure I buy the argument that in a textbook, it's kind of ok to be sloppy with citiations

      – user1778351
      2 days ago








    1




    1





    Good point about providing the reader with more information - I came across an astonishing unreferenced assertion in an MA-level textbook a while back and still haven't been able to track down any information about where it comes from or what evidence exists that it's true.

    – Robert Columbia
    2 days ago







    Good point about providing the reader with more information - I came across an astonishing unreferenced assertion in an MA-level textbook a while back and still haven't been able to track down any information about where it comes from or what evidence exists that it's true.

    – Robert Columbia
    2 days ago






    2




    2





    I'm not sure I agree, here. The word "inadequate" implies that something was actually wrong before; if I wanted to describe a situation in which the author had woken up one morning and thought, "Hey, the referencing in chapter 6 is OK but it could use some extra references to help the reader along", I'd use words like "improved referencing".

    – David Richerby
    2 days ago







    I'm not sure I agree, here. The word "inadequate" implies that something was actually wrong before; if I wanted to describe a situation in which the author had woken up one morning and thought, "Hey, the referencing in chapter 6 is OK but it could use some extra references to help the reader along", I'd use words like "improved referencing".

    – David Richerby
    2 days ago






    1




    1





    I have to say, I am aware that the Professor was known to have a few problems with regards to sloppiness in citation practice. I'm not sure I buy the argument that in a textbook, it's kind of ok to be sloppy with citiations

    – user1778351
    2 days ago





    I have to say, I am aware that the Professor was known to have a few problems with regards to sloppiness in citation practice. I'm not sure I buy the argument that in a textbook, it's kind of ok to be sloppy with citiations

    – user1778351
    2 days ago











    4














    Perhaps the professor had included an incomplete bibliography in the first submitted version, so inline text references were there but not in the biblio...



    Annoying for the professor, embarrassing possibly, but easily corrected, however, what it was I don't know.






    share|improve this answer
























    • What you're describing is a simple clerical error. I doubt they'd use a term like "inadequate" to describe something like that.

      – David Richerby
      2 days ago
















    4














    Perhaps the professor had included an incomplete bibliography in the first submitted version, so inline text references were there but not in the biblio...



    Annoying for the professor, embarrassing possibly, but easily corrected, however, what it was I don't know.






    share|improve this answer
























    • What you're describing is a simple clerical error. I doubt they'd use a term like "inadequate" to describe something like that.

      – David Richerby
      2 days ago














    4












    4








    4







    Perhaps the professor had included an incomplete bibliography in the first submitted version, so inline text references were there but not in the biblio...



    Annoying for the professor, embarrassing possibly, but easily corrected, however, what it was I don't know.






    share|improve this answer













    Perhaps the professor had included an incomplete bibliography in the first submitted version, so inline text references were there but not in the biblio...



    Annoying for the professor, embarrassing possibly, but easily corrected, however, what it was I don't know.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    Solar MikeSolar Mike

    14.2k52651




    14.2k52651













    • What you're describing is a simple clerical error. I doubt they'd use a term like "inadequate" to describe something like that.

      – David Richerby
      2 days ago



















    • What you're describing is a simple clerical error. I doubt they'd use a term like "inadequate" to describe something like that.

      – David Richerby
      2 days ago

















    What you're describing is a simple clerical error. I doubt they'd use a term like "inadequate" to describe something like that.

    – David Richerby
    2 days ago





    What you're describing is a simple clerical error. I doubt they'd use a term like "inadequate" to describe something like that.

    – David Richerby
    2 days ago











    1














    I'm guessing it's a euphemism for dubious content, rather than plagiarism.



    While books should cite their sources, it is not necessary to cite every single fact. The book's author (who is an expert on the topic) will justify or prove most facts in the course of the discussion. It's good practice to include a bibliography showing relevant primary sources (e.g., for further reading); however, merely summarizing a published paper in a textbook does not necessarily require a citation (e.g., we do not cite Newton's papers in introductory physics books). Citations are really only needed when facts are asserted without being proven or justified through the narrative.



    In this case, the word "inadequate" does make it seem that there was a problem. This could be a euphemism for plagiarism: word-for-word copying, or not meeting the publisher's standards in terms of referencing relevant work. Or, it could be that the author stated a lot of facts without justification or citation, and some of them turned out to be dubious or even wrong. That's my guess.






    share|improve this answer




























      1














      I'm guessing it's a euphemism for dubious content, rather than plagiarism.



      While books should cite their sources, it is not necessary to cite every single fact. The book's author (who is an expert on the topic) will justify or prove most facts in the course of the discussion. It's good practice to include a bibliography showing relevant primary sources (e.g., for further reading); however, merely summarizing a published paper in a textbook does not necessarily require a citation (e.g., we do not cite Newton's papers in introductory physics books). Citations are really only needed when facts are asserted without being proven or justified through the narrative.



      In this case, the word "inadequate" does make it seem that there was a problem. This could be a euphemism for plagiarism: word-for-word copying, or not meeting the publisher's standards in terms of referencing relevant work. Or, it could be that the author stated a lot of facts without justification or citation, and some of them turned out to be dubious or even wrong. That's my guess.






      share|improve this answer


























        1












        1








        1







        I'm guessing it's a euphemism for dubious content, rather than plagiarism.



        While books should cite their sources, it is not necessary to cite every single fact. The book's author (who is an expert on the topic) will justify or prove most facts in the course of the discussion. It's good practice to include a bibliography showing relevant primary sources (e.g., for further reading); however, merely summarizing a published paper in a textbook does not necessarily require a citation (e.g., we do not cite Newton's papers in introductory physics books). Citations are really only needed when facts are asserted without being proven or justified through the narrative.



        In this case, the word "inadequate" does make it seem that there was a problem. This could be a euphemism for plagiarism: word-for-word copying, or not meeting the publisher's standards in terms of referencing relevant work. Or, it could be that the author stated a lot of facts without justification or citation, and some of them turned out to be dubious or even wrong. That's my guess.






        share|improve this answer













        I'm guessing it's a euphemism for dubious content, rather than plagiarism.



        While books should cite their sources, it is not necessary to cite every single fact. The book's author (who is an expert on the topic) will justify or prove most facts in the course of the discussion. It's good practice to include a bibliography showing relevant primary sources (e.g., for further reading); however, merely summarizing a published paper in a textbook does not necessarily require a citation (e.g., we do not cite Newton's papers in introductory physics books). Citations are really only needed when facts are asserted without being proven or justified through the narrative.



        In this case, the word "inadequate" does make it seem that there was a problem. This could be a euphemism for plagiarism: word-for-word copying, or not meeting the publisher's standards in terms of referencing relevant work. Or, it could be that the author stated a lot of facts without justification or citation, and some of them turned out to be dubious or even wrong. That's my guess.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 2 days ago









        cag51cag51

        16.8k63461




        16.8k63461






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126629%2fis-inadequate-referencing-a-euphemism-for-plagiarism%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Puebla de Zaragoza

            Musa