Plagiarism - Science topic

Complete plagiarism and robbery of my article Antimatter, that I posted in December 2024 in the arXiv with reference arXiv:2412.12128 (I also uploaded it here in Research Gate).  It turns out that five guys from India appear as the authors, although if you download the pdf only a different one appears as the author: Bulbul Ahammed. But the article has been uploaded by the first of the five "authors": Bulbul Khan from Premier University of Technology. They have simply erased my name as author and put the other name instead.

You can see all this here:

How do professors check for plagiarism in research papers?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being incorporated into academic publishing to enhance the peer-review process. This includes automating the initial screening of manuscripts, assessing methodological rigor, detecting plagiarism, evaluating statistical accuracy, and even predicting the potential impact of submitted articles. However, the effectiveness and reliability of AI-based tools compared to traditional human-led review processes remain topics of active investigation. This question aims to explore existing scientific evidence supporting the efficacy, accuracy, and practical utility of AI assistance in peer-review, as well as to identify documented benefits, limitations, or gaps in current knowledge

Why is plagiarism a serious academic crime?

Why aren't the police investigating academic misconduct? Why aren't there police officers who do that specifically? That is, if a scholar or professor has academic misconduct, such as plagiarizing someone else's theory or fraud, then the police will investigate after receiving the report. Now the academic misconduct depends on the university's integrity office investigation, won't these integrity officials shield their own university professors?

For example, if artificial intelligence was used in some paragraphs of a research, would this be considered plagiarism if the researcher did not indicate this? And if he indicated this, why is it not considered a source of research that is primarily based on the accumulation of human knowledge?

The title of the article is Beyond Plagiarism: Transgressive and Nontransgressive Intertextuality which was authored by three academics: Ranamukalage Chandrasoma, Celia Thompson, Alastair Pennycook. However, some have cited the article with wrong order of the authors, e.g. Ranamukalage Chandrasoma, Alastair Pennycook, Celia Thompson. For this reason, we have lost more than 20 citations. How can we add these lost citations? If you can add them, I appreciate it very much.

AI has significantly shaped academic life. There are many levels of AI usage in student assignments and research works. Some critical cases such as online / AI translation or polishing English phrases using AI apps, might be detected as academic plagiarism. Teachers need extra time to assess AI-generated texts or information in student assignments. To keep pace with AI, current academic faculties/departments/research units have to check the originality of AI-generated using Turnitin or other apps. However, there are difficulties/problems in developing some assessment rubrics to evaluate various levels of student AI usage. Indeed academic originality or plagiarism needs to re-conceptualized. Local and international universities/schools/academic bodies are slow to make unified and quick responses as researchers and teachers may not easily reach any consensus! There are more alarming and controversial issues in detecting the degree of academic plagiarism. Editors or peer reviewers in academic journals or periodicals face similar challenges. To what extent do they accept/reject AI-generated content? What will be the new academic standards in assessing academic originality in the intellectual world? To what extent could we accept AI-generated / human-AI-generated knowledge? What academic standards will be accepted in evaluating the combination of AI and humans in future knowledge?

how can artificial intelligence be leveraged while avoiding high levels of plagiarism and safeguarding the confidentiality of the information i shared with it?

Dear colleagues,

I recently encountered an issue on ResearchGate: one of my scientific publications disappeared due to a presumed bug, along with its statistics and access link. Naturally, I contacted ResearchGate’s support via the “Contact Us” form, providing all necessary details. However, weeks have passed, and I have yet to receive any response.

This raises a broader question: How responsive and effective is ResearchGate’s support in handling user queries? Given that researchers may face issues ranging from minor inconveniences to critical concerns (such as lost data, account problems or even plagiarism), one would expect timely assistance. Yet, my experience so far suggests otherwise (I hope, it is different in general).

I’d love to hear from you:

Let’s share our experiences—your insights could help us (at least me) understand whether this is an isolated case or a common challenge.

Looking forward to your thoughts!

Best regards, Tom J.

The Rwanda Journal of Agricultural Sciences (RJAS), the official journal of the University of Rwanda, College of Agriculture, Animal Sciences, and Veterinary Medicine (UR-CAVM), invites authors to submit high-quality original research manuscripts, review articles, short communications, and editorials for consideration.

RJAS publishes articles covering a wide range of topics relevant to African tropical agriculture and global advances in agricultural research, including but not limited to:

We also welcome articles describing applications of mathematical modeling, ICT, genomics, climate change, informatics, remote sensing, and geographic information systems in agriculture and environmental sciences.

Please submit your manuscript together with the plagiarism report via email to Editor.rjseas.cavm@ur.ac.rw.

The deadline for manuscript submission is on 30 January 2025.

We look forward to your valuable contributions to advancing agricultural science and innovation.

Editorial Board Rwanda Journal of Agricultural Sciences UR-CAVM, Rwanda E-mail: Editor.rjseas.cavm@ur.ac.rw

Self-citation of one's own published work verbatim is considered plagiarism because it essentially presents previously published material as new and original work, undermining the principle of academic integrity and misrepresenting the contribution of new knowledge to a field, even if it's your work, you should always properly cite your previous publications when reusing significant portions of them in a new piece.

The article by Errol Francke and Bennett Alexander explores the complex relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and academic integrity, particularly focusing on plagiarism in higher education. The authors delve into how AI technologies, such as text generation tools and automated paraphrasing software, are reshaping the landscape of academic writing and plagiarism detection. They discuss both the potential benefits and the challenges posed by these technologies. Key Points 1. AI as a Double-Edged Sword: The article highlights that while AI can assist in improving academic writing by providing grammar checks and style suggestions, it also raises concerns about the ease with which students can generate plagiarized content. Tools like AI-driven text generators can produce coherent essays with minimal input, making it harder to detect plagiarism. 1. Detection and Prevention: Francke and Alexander discuss the advancements in AI-powered plagiarism detection tools. These tools can compare vast amounts of text and identify similarities that might be missed by traditional methods. However, they also note that these tools are not foolproof and can sometimes fail to detect sophisticated forms of plagiarism. 2. Ethical Considerations: The article emphasizes the ethical implications of using AI in academic settings. It calls for a balanced approach where the benefits of AI are harnessed without compromising academic integrity. The authors suggest that institutions should develop clear guidelines on the acceptable use of AI tools in academic work. 3. Educational Strategies: To combat the misuse of AI, the authors recommend incorporating AI literacy into the curriculum. Educating students about the ethical use of AI and the importance of academic integrity can help mitigate the risks associated with AI-driven plagiarism. Practical Implications • Policy Development: The article suggests that higher education institutions need to update their academic integrity policies to address the challenges posed by AI. This includes defining what constitutes acceptable use of AI tools and establishing consequences for misuse. • Faculty Training: Training faculty to recognize AI-generated content and understand the capabilities and limitations of AI detection tools is crucial. This can help educators better identify and address instances of plagiarism. • Student Engagement: Engaging students in discussions about the ethical use of AI and the value of original work can foster a culture of integrity. The authors advocate for a proactive approach that includes workshops and seminars on academic honesty. Overall, the article provides a thorough examination of the intersection between AI and academic integrity. By highlighting both the opportunities and challenges, Francke and Alexander offer valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and students. Their recommendations for policy development, faculty training, and student engagement are practical steps towards maintaining academic integrity in the age of AI. #AcademicDevelopment #ResearchDevelopment #WritingDevelopment #AcademicAchievement #ResearchAchievement #WritingAchievement #AcademicExcellence #ResearchExcellence #WritingExcellence #AcademicMotivation

The integration of technology in education has the potential to bring about numerous benefits, but it also poses significant educational setbacks for the next generation.

Dependence on Technology

Over-reliance on technology can hinder critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Students may rely too heavily on AI-powered tools, such as calculators and search engines, rather than developing their own critical thinking abilities.

Homogenization of Education

Technology can also lead to a homogenization of education, where individual needs and learning styles are neglected. AI-driven educational platforms may provide a one-size-fits-all approach, failing to accommodate students with diverse learning requirements.

Cheating and Academic Dishonesty

The increased use of technology in education also raises concerns about cheating and academic dishonesty. AI-powered tools can facilitate plagiarism, and the ease of accessing information online can lead to a lack of original thought and ideas.

Lack of Face-to-Face Interaction

Excessive technology use can also lead to a lack of face-to-face interaction, which is essential for developing social skills, empathy, and emotional intelligence. Students may miss out on valuable opportunities for human connection and collaboration.

Digital Divide

Finally, the increasing reliance on technology in education can exacerbate the digital divide. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds may not have access to the same technology and resources as their peers, creating a significant gap in their educational opportunities.

To mitigate these setbacks, educators and policymakers must be aware of these potential pitfalls and work to create a balanced approach to technology integration.

Plagiarism is strictly unacceptable in academic research and is regarded as a serious ethical violation. It can result in severe consequences, including paper rejection, academic penalties, reputational harm, and, in extreme cases, expulsion or termination.

Maintaining academic integrity requires properly citing and attributing all sources used in a research paper. While unintentional plagiarism can occur due to oversight or improper citation, researchers must rigorously adhere to ethical standards by accurately crediting the ideas and work of others.

Institutions and journals often have specific policies for detecting plagiarism and addressing violations, but the overarching standard in academia is zero tolerance. Researchers must remain diligent in citing sources and ensuring their work is free from any form of plagiarism.

The article was sent to a predetor site, and we wish to resubmit it without the fear of being accused of plagiarism

Dear colleagues,

I am delighted to invite you to contribute a chapter to an upcoming edited volume titled Advanced Topics in Academic Integrity: A Temporal, Technological, Social, and Pedagogical Perspective

This will be an open access book to be published by an independent publisher in Canada. There are NO publishing fees. It is FREE to authors. Ebooks will be made available FREE on Kindle, while physical books (softcover) will be sold at cost to cover production and shipping expenses.

Academic integrity lies at the core of the educational system, defining standards and safeguarding the credibility of academic work, ensuring competence in education, and preserving the value of institutional credentials. This topical collection examines academic integrity from four overlapping perspectives of temporal evolution, technological impact, social and cultural influences, and pedagogical approaches. In this book, the notion of integrity is posited as more than just the quality of being honest or the ability to enforce policy; instead, it is presented as an interplay between the individual, group, institution, and society. Before offering solutions, one must examine the influence of cultural norms and expectations, economic pressures, technological advancements, and pedagogical approaches—each of which shapes perceptions of fairness, influences behaviors, and either advances or creates barriers to meeting the needs of students and institutions. By uncovering the rich tapestry of these relationships this book aims to provide a nuance understanding of academic integrity issues by drawing from data-driven research and experiential narratives of educators and students.

The book is organized into four sections, drawing from a multitude of academic and professional domains, to provide an advanced understanding of academic integrity issues. All methods and schools of thought are welcome.

Topics may include, but are not limited to:

1. Evolution of Definitions, Cheating Strategies, and Response Strategies

2. Technology in Society and the Classroom

3. The “Netflixification” of Education

4. Generative AI and Machine-Aided Plagiarism

5. Social Factors Influencing Integrity

6. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

7. Assessment and Evaluation

8. Traditional, Hybrid, and Fully Online Delivery Modes

9. Phenomenological Perspectives (educators’ or student’s lived experiences)

All methods and schools of thought are welcome. The abstract should be up to 500 words, and the full paper should not exceed 12,000 words. All submissions should follow APA style.

Abstract submission deadline: Ongoing

Full chapter submission deadline: September 1, 2025

Peer-review results returned: TBA

Final chapter submission deadline: TBA

Editor

Alexander Amigud, PhD. | aamigud@ibu.ca

International Business University, Toronto, Canada

Does adding your own first author published work in your PhD thesis comes under plagiarism. {According to UGC guidelines}

Does Shodhganga detects self plagiarism?

Actually, AI tools such as ChatGPT are types of facilitators of nowadays' task-crowded life, so why don't we get the ultimate use of these tools?

Is similarity index same thing as plagiarism. What is the best tool for checking plagiarism?

How do/what tools researchers used to paraphrase their literature to decrease the similarity scores, after of course mentioning the citations?

1. Have you come across students using ChatGTP to submit a paper?

2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of ChatGTP and AI in education and academia?

3 How will it enhance learning?

4. How will it compromise academic integrity?

5. How about researchers who use ChatGTP to write?

Dear colleagues,

I have a conference paper published in proceedings of a Scopus-indexed conference. What is the best way / methodology for converting it to a journal article? Of course, I would like to avoid accusations of plagiarism. Thank you!

This question is asking for strategies or methods that students and researchers can employ to prevent unintentional plagiarism in their academic work. It emphasizes "unintentional plagiarism," which refers to situations where individuals might copy or closely paraphrase others' work without proper citation, often due to a lack of understanding of citation rules or carelessness. The question aims to explore various practices, tools, or habits that can help ensure originality and proper attribution in academic writing. Examples might include understanding citation guidelines, using plagiarism detection software, and developing strong note-taking skills.

I checked my revised paper for plagiarism and found significant overlap with my own previously rejected preprint published on Research Square. Since I've revised several sections, the remaining parts of the paper are showing as plagiarized. What steps should I take to address this issue before submission?

An article is posted on ResearchGate that is plagiarized

Two case reports (Marketkar et al., 2016 and Akkalp et al., 2015) share the same writing format and appear to have the same literature review. One might argue that because the cancer described is extremely rare, a literature search would result in the same set of articles. However, having an identical table without citing the source raises concerns.

If you see other similarities or have thoughts, please share.

References:

Marketkar, S.P., Hossain, T., Lawrence, W.D., and Quddus, M.R., 2016. Primary Signet-ring Cell Carcinoma of the Uterine Corpus: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. American Journal of Medical Case Reports, 4(2), pp.51-54.

Akkalp, A.K., Ozyurek, E.S., Tetikkurt, U.S., Yalcin, S., Koy, Y., and Usta, A.T., 2015. Primary Endometrial Adenocarcinoma with Signet‐Ring Cells: A Rarely Observed Case and Review of the Literature. Case Reports in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2015(1), p.404692.

Dear Colleagues,

In what ways can the integration of AI in education influence the evaluation of EFL students' assessments, and what changes are required to be followed in the AI-based evaluation process?

When I read a paper, how do I know to what degree KI was used?

Prompting ideas?

summaries of texts?

making texts better?

processing data?

Copy & paste?

Mix of KI content and human content?

There are rules about plagiarism, are there rule for multiple plagiarism as well?

During an article review process recently, I went through a bad experience of research publications by some authors. These authors copied and pasted a published work with their name. It is just robbery and editors must check its plagiarism in start and in case of such blunder, there should be a mechanism in place to report such errors. It is not only a crime, but also a waste of time for editors and reviewers. I personally feel that such authors should be punished such as blacklisted by renowned journals and their respective institutions.

After Plagiarism checking in Turnitin, the result shows that the similarity of my manuscript is from ''Article with reviewer- feedback from Springernature'' and the link provided opens a word file of my old version manuscript (unpublished). But my manuscript is neither submitted nor under consideration in any of the journal. Is this possible? Please suggest me.

How to complete literature review fast without using AI tools and with no plagiarism?

Why it's hard to get citations? How can we get articles that we can cite fast?

Hello Everyone,

I found my paper has been plagiarized almost entirely, please check the below:

My AAAI 2024 workshop paper which published in Feb. 2024 AAAI "Cooperative Multi-Agent Systems Decision-making and Learning" workshop: https://www.is3rlab.org/aaai24-cmasdl-workshop.github.io/

Paper Link:

official link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yiFgKkKTB8K2nQMlsoUdvV3hVUOlkMzD/view

arxiv link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.00776

The plagiarized paper name is "Intelligent Cognitive Fusion in Human-Robot Interaction: A Autism Spectrum Disorder Case Study". This paper largely plagiarize the content and ideas from my paper. Please check the corresponding information.

Anyone have ideas to solve this issue efficiently since this paper already show ing in the ResearchGate and Google Scholar.

Thank you very much for your help and support.

Best,

Qin

We submitted an article to a journal, which subjected it to a plagiarism test. Afterward, we withdrew the paper and submitted it to a different journal, only to discover it now has a very high plagiarism score. We've attempted to contact the previous journal to remove it from their repository but have received no response. What can we do now?

Hello sir/mam, please help me to know website mostly used by research students to check plagiarism .

Hello!

I have already published an article and given all the details of protocols in the publication. Now I am working on another manuscript but basic protocols are same and already reported. How can I report those protocols in the new manuscript without being plagiarized? Should it be given in supplementary?

check the plagiarism for the file attach below

Hello everyone,

I hope you are all doing well.

I have already checked plagiarism, related articles’ structures, and grammar, and they seem fine, but good impact factor journals that I have written my article based on their latest published articles are rejecting my article so fast without any obvious reason. Does anyone know what the problem might be?

I have come across the paper titled "Acidity and aridity: Soil inorganic carbon storage exhibits complex relationship with low-pH soils and myeloablation followed by autologous PBSC infusion". This paper full of nonsense and plagiarism was written by science journalist Tom Spears in 2014 to identify predatory journals that would publish anything if they are paid.

As a science communicator, I find this highly interesting but despite some entries with the metadata I cannot find the full text anywhere. Was it maybe never published because the author never paid the fee that was requested?

Or can anyone provide me with the full text? Or with contact details of Tom Spears? It seems like he has stopped being a journalist and I cannot find him anywhere.

Any help is appreciated!

I notice questionable similarity between this 2021 conference paper: Johnston, S., & Eamer, L. D. (2021, December). The Paradox Of Being A 50-Year-Old ‘Early Career’Black Female Academic. In Multidiscipline International Conference (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 550-558). https://ejournal.unwaha.ac.id/index.php/ICMT/article/view/2444/1107

and a 2014 journal article: Msimanga, A. (2014). Too late to come back? The paradox of being a 50-year-old'early career' black female academic: Part 2: Being and belonging in South African higher education: The voices of black women academics. South African Journal of Higher Education, 28(6), 2013-2026. https://journals.co.za/doi/epdf/10.10520/EJC166128.

I would have never thought about the techniques, tricks, manipulations and tactics that they are using (some of them are criminal acts) unless I was a victim of a daylight knowledge robbery. All the names of the academics involved, directly or indirectly, will be mentioned in a book about plagiarism.

As part of today's rapid technological advances, new technologies are being developed for Industry 4.0, including but not limited to artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotization, Internet of Things, cloud computing, Big Data Analytics, etc. The aforementioned technologies are being applied in various industries and sectors. The development of artificial intelligence generates opportunities for its application in various spheres of companies, enterprises and institutions; in various industries and services; improving the efficiency of business operations by increasing the scale of process automation; increasing the scale of business efficiency, increasing the ability to process large sets of data and information; increasing the scale of implementation of new business models based on large-scale automation of manufacturing processes, etc.

However, developing artificial intelligence uncontrollably generates serious risks, such as increasing the scale of disinformation, emerging fake news, including banners, memes containing artificial intelligence crafted photos, graphics, animations, videos presenting "fictitious facts", i.e. in a way that apparently looks very realistic describing, depicting events that never happened. In this way, intelligent but not fully perfect chatbots create so-called hallucinations. Besides, by analogy, just like many other technologies, applications available on the Internet equipped with generative artificial intelligence technology can be used not only in positive but also in negative applications.

On the one hand, there are new opportunities to use generative AI as a new tool to improve the work of computer graphic designers and filmmakers. On the other hand, there are also controversies about the ethical aspects and the necessary copyright regulations for works created using artificial intelligence. Sometimes copyright settlements are not clear-cut. This is the case when it cannot be precisely determined whether plagiarism has occurred, and if so, to what extent. Ambiguity on this issue can also generate various court decisions regarding, for example, the recognition or non-recognition of copyrights granted to individuals using Internet applications or information systems equipped with certain generative artificial intelligence solutions, who act as creators who create a kind of cultural works and/or works of art in the form of graphics, photos, animations, films, stories, poems, etc. that have the characteristics of uniqueness and uniqueness.

However, this is probably not the case since, for example, the company OpenAI may be in serious trouble because of allegations by the editors of the New York Times Journal suggesting that ChatGPT was trained on data and information from, among other things, online news portals run by the editors of the aforementioned journal. Well, in December 2023, the New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft accusing them of illegally using the newspaper's articles to train its chatbots, ChatGPT and Bing. According to the newspaper, the companies used millions of texts in violation of copyright laws, creating a service based on them that competes with the newspaper. The New York Times is demanding billions of dollars in damages.In view of the above, there are all sorts of risks of potentially increasing the scale of influence on public opinion, the formation of the general public consciousness by organizations operating without respect for the law. On the one hand, it is necessary to create digital computerized and standardized tools, diagnostic information systems, to build a standardized system of labels informing users, customers, citizens using certain solutions, products and services that they are the products of artificial intelligence, not man. On the other hand, on the other hand, there should be regulations obliging to inform that a certain service or product was created as a result of work done not by humans, but by artificial intelligence. Many issues concerning the socially, ethically and business-appropriate use of artificial intelligence technology will be normatively regulated in the next few years.

Regulations defining the proper use of artificial intelligence technologies by companies developing applications based on these technologies, making these applications available on the Internet, as well as Internet users, business entities and institutions using intelligent chatbots to improve the operation of certain spheres of economic, business activities, etc., are being processed, enacted, but will come into force only in a few years.

On June 14, 2023, the European Parliament passed a landmark piece of legislation regulating the use of artificial intelligence technology. However, since artificial intelligence technology, mainly generative artificial intelligence, is developing rapidly and the currently formulated regulations are scheduled to be implemented between 2026 and 2027, so on the one hand, operators using this technology have plenty of time to bring their procedures and products in line with the supported regulations. On the other hand, one cannot exclude the scenario that, despite the attempt to fully regulate the development of applications of this technology through the implementation of a law on the proper, safe and ethical use of artificial intelligence, it will again turn out in 2027 that the dynamic technological progress is ahead of the legislative process that rapidly developing technologies are concerned with.

I have described the key issues of opportunities and threats to the development of artificial intelligence technology in my article below:

OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS AND THE NEED FOR NORMATIVE REGULATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this issue?

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Hi

I have written an article with great effort, but no matter how hard I try to publish it in a journal, I get rejected due to the outdated topic. I wanted to know if it's okay to print it as a preprint?

I know that all of the statistics and data are correct in the article.

Ithenticate detect only 14% plagiarism in the manuscript but the main issue is the outdated topic.

Is it ethical to preprint an article that is rejected from several journals?

If i have lots of preprint does it make my CV look low quality?

Thank you in advance for responses.

In case one is not registered with a university?

After submitting my paper, the major part of the reference list was highlighted as plagiarized text. Should I eliminate the reference list?

I could understand that paraphrasing is important to avoid plagiarism. But the increasing rate of publishing is making paraphrasing more complex. Let me explain:

"Drug X has a cardio-protective effect when administered in small dose."

This is a core SENTENCE in any research discussing this drug.. Keep it in mind!

In 1999, there was only 10 researchers working on this drug. So, when each one of them was going to publish his article he would easily PARAPHRASE this sentence. The odds of changing the meaning while doing paraphrasing are unlikely.

Now, There are 1000 researchers trying to do the same! So, changing the meaning is LIKELY to happen because you have to write in different ways and utilize a wide range of vocabs which will affect the meaning. And worth yet, if you're citing a secondary article _ You're paraphrasing the paraphrased!!

And why all of this?

Just to get a paraphrasing report of <10%.

It does not make sense!

The novelty of research is not represented in the literature review!

So, why do they make it an obstacle for researchers?!

Please, I urgently need to remove and delete this article preprint "Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity reveal the link between acute cadmium exposure and Alzheimer’s disease" from Researchgate. I can't publish it because of the high plagiarism.

Yours,

Marwa

Me Contactez en mp

This issue is particularly important, because it happens that the data entered into ChatGPT, the information contained in the texts entered for the purpose of automated rewriting, remains in the database that this chatbot uses in the situation of generating answers to questions asked by subsequent Internet users. The problem has become serious, as there have already been situations where sensitive data on specific individuals, institutions and business entities has been leaked in this way. On the other hand, many institutions and companies use ChatGPT in the preparation of reports, editing of certain documents. Also, pupils and students use ChatGPT and other similar intelligent chatbots to generate texts that act as credit papers and/or from which they then compose their theses. On the other hand, functions have been added to some existing anti-plagiarism applications to detect the fact that ChatGPT is being used in the course of students' writing credit papers and theses. In addition to this, the problem is also normative in nature, as it is necessary to adapt the legal norms of copyright law to the dynamic technological advances taking place in the development and application of generative artificial intelligence technology, so that the provisions of this law are not violated by users using ChatGPT or other similar intelligent chatbots. Among the important issues that could significantly reduce the scale of this problem would be the introduction of a mandatory requirement to mark all works, including texts, graphics, photos, videos, etc., that have been created with the help of the said intelligent chatbots, that they have been so created. On the other hand, it is necessary for the AI-equipped chatbots to be improved by their creators, by the technology companies developing these tools, in order to eliminate the possibility of ChatGPT "publishing" confidential, sensitive information from institutions and companies in response to questions, commands, tasks of developing a certain type of text by subsequent Internet users. In addition, the said intelligent chatbots should be improved in such a way that if in the course of automated text generation, including inspiration from other source texts, "quoting" whole sentences, substantial fragments of them, substantive content of other publications but without fully showing the sources, i.e. without a full bibliographic description of all the source publications that the chatbot generating subsequent texts used. In addition, the user of the aforementioned intelligent chatbots does not know to what extent the text they created with the help of these tools is plagiarized from other texts previously entered into them or from publications published on the Internet, including documents of companies and institutions, theses, scientific publications, industry articles, journalistic articles, etc.

I described the key issues of opportunities and threats to the development of artificial intelligence technology in my article below:

OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS AND THE NEED FOR NORMATIVE REGULATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

And what is your opinion about it?

What is your opinion on this issue?

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Over the past few months, a number of offers of various consulting services, training courses and webinars have appeared on online social media, which initially offer the first trial lessons, webinars, training courses as part of a promotion for free and subsequent ones for a fee. Initially, ebooks are offered free of charge as part of the promotion, which are usually developed with the help of ChatGPT, are of poor content quality, usually containing only general, well-known, popular science knowledge, which can be found independently on the Internet on various websites. Besides, the ebooks created with the help of ChatGPT or other similar intelligent chatbots do not contain all the sources correctly listed. Besides, the resulting ebooks contain many passages, whole sentences, paragraphs taken from other publications that are not shown in the bibliography, and plagiarism thus occurs. In addition, in the field of expertise, there are factual errors and irrational, random, random, combined content from different sources, and thus inconsistent with the facts, ridiculous content and/or descriptions of "fictitious facts" occur. This is because much of the database that constitutes the sources of data and information for ChatGPT is factually outdated, as it dates from late 2021 or January 2022. It may happen that in the ChatGPT-generated text there may be some sensitive data of specific companies or public institutions, which found themselves there accidentally by being mistakenly entered into ChatGPT by an employee of a specific company or institution. In view of the above, there are still gaps in paragraphs in the legal norms defining the rules for the correct use of tools such as ChatGPT, and still the adaptation of legal norms to the rapidly developing technology is often done with too much delay. Besides, popular online social media even feature partly free and partly paid training courses and webinars, where Internet users learn how to create texts for articles, columns, essays, etc., as well as chapters for books, which can be published as ebooks, in a relatively easy way with the help of applications available on the Internet based on generative artificial intelligence technology. Besides, in addition to text, graphics, photos, drawings, etc., which are included in the texts of chapters in ebooks can also be generated semi-automatically in applications based on generative artificial intelligence technology. It also happens that during the aforementioned online trainings and webinars, access is sold to specially created websites that act as intermediary platforms, overlays that contain links to various AI-based web applications, which have been classified in a certain way on a specially created platform and, to make identification more difficult, the links are called by different names relative to the web applications to which they direct. In addition, many of these web-based applications based on generative AI technology are made available on the Internet on the original source sites free of charge. On the other hand, on intermediary platforms created by companies or sole proprietors that contain links referencing these applications, access is paid for and is often sold as part of so-called promotional offers during the conducted, aforementioned online training courses and webinars. Internet users usually learn about such online trainings and webinars from banners and advertising posts posted on popular online social media sites.

I described the key issues of opportunities and threats to the development of artificial intelligence technology in my article below:

OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS AND THE NEED FOR NORMATIVE REGULATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this issue?

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The following sentence is coming under the purview of plagiarism:-

There is no significant relationship between information quality and customer satisfaction.

Kindly tell how to avoid this.

If you're using a number such as a statistic from a reference study you want to cite, should you write the number with the confidence interval? And how to effectively prevent plagiarism when dealing with numbers?

Thank you!

Plagiarism is the act of using someone else's work, ideas, or intellectual property without proper attribution or permission and presenting it as one's own. Famous plagiarism cases have occurred in various fields, including literature, music, academia, and journalism.

Here are some well-known plagiarism cases:

These cases illustrate that plagiarism can occur in various forms and across different fields. Plagiarism not only damages the reputation of individuals but also raises ethical and legal concerns. It is essential to give proper credit to the original creators and sources to maintain integrity and honesty in creative and scholarly work.

Source: CHATGPT

OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT: AI Language Model. Retrieved [041023] from [https://chat.openai.com/]

I am seeking a tool that can analyze PDFs of articles and theses in English, capable of searching the internet and academic databases for similar texts and ideas in various languages.

It's an important query regarding the plagiarism checking of research papers.

Dear researchers, I want to receive a plagiarism report for the full text of the article. Is there a program/area I can get for free?

Thank you in advance for your contribution

Please, can I use AI to do proofreading for my article? is that will affect on my manuscript plagiarism? any one has experience in that?

Hi all,

I am preparing for my thesis submission. When I checked my whole thesis, I got 41% similarity, but when I excluded references, it reduced to 22%. And the major portion (9%) was similar to my own research article.

Is it fine?

Thanks in advance,

Swarnali

When writing a thesis that undergoes plagiarism checks by the university and is submitted to Turnitin, there's a concern that subsequent research papers based on that thesis might also be flagged for plagiarism. To address this, the best solution would be to either rephrase and rework the content extensively to ensure originality or consider starting the new research paper from scratch.

Here's what ChatGPT had to say:

In India We don't have any standard guidelines on Citation of AI Generated responses so I don't consider it as a case of Plagiarism, Still for my friends in US I will try to add attribution to my responses.

But I don't Understand for eminent professors like you guys what's the difference does it make If I try to answer unattended questions for the sake of curiosity, should I consider it as academic snobbery ?

Many questions goes unattended on research gate, have you seen how several students, researchers, in hope to get answer to their queries post questions in very poor broken English, should I correct them for their grammar or try to shed some light on their problems ?

so show some heart, not every one is as privileged as you guys and don't act like bullies. If you have some problem with my way of answering you can send me a personal message or mail instead of acting as if you have busted me.

I just finish to read the letter to the editor "Is ChatGPT a valid author?" at Nurse Education in Practice doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103600 and I cannot believe that so far there are 2 manuscripts using the tool and cite the tool as a co-author. I have try the app to see how that works using very technical questions and some not that much. I am amaze with the technology of the app, how accurate it is for the not too technical, and how "honest" is with the things that are too technical and there is not enough data. The largest problem that I saw is the lack or reference on the statements, it might say in journal X or Y and the year, but never the author (In the examples that I checked, I couldn't find none of the 3 papers that it references in the text). As every tool it opens a lot of opportunities, the good ones and the other. The discussion is should we incorporate it in class as a tool? Will this increase plagiarism or will help to polish the writing? How much should we disclaim the use of it? if we do should we disclose the use of other tools such as Grammarly? What do you think?

Hi, my name is David and I am a student doing a master's course. Can someone advise me a good app that I can use for plagiarism?

I have data in i feel giving results in depth will be too much for an article, I am considering to publish the main summary of the result and then publish the in depth results in another article, Is it Ok or it will count as plagiarism?

Which software is best to check Plagiarism, Urkund or Turnitin?

Hi. I am a graduate student and writing my first first-author scientific journal. It is about fMRI study. I am wondering whether it is fine to copy fMRI Data Acquisition method from our lab's previous articles if I followed exactly the same MRI machine, sequences, TR, TE, and so on and so forth? Or is it still plagiarism and do I have to paraphrase it? If I have to paraphrase it, how should I do? Just change some verbs?

"The Lindy Effect essentially states that the longer a non-perishable item has been around, the longer it’s likely to persist into the future"(Model Thinkers).

"The Pareto principle states that for many outcomes, roughly 80% of consequences come from 20% of causes"(Laoyan 2022).

(Game Theory) Given Lindy and Pareto, all innovations must be original enough not to be plagiarism yet supported enough by classics not be failures.

Sources:

https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/the-lindy-effect#:~:text=The%20Lindy%20Effect%20essentially%20states,see%20Origins%20below%20for%20more.

Top 10 Best Plagiarism Checkers For AI-Generated Content

The rapid proliferation of AI-generated content, especially since the recent introduction of ChatGPT, has made it useful and necessary for companies and other types of institutions to verify the authenticity of a piece of content, i.e., whether a particular piece of content was created with a tool or not.

For this reason, some tools have emerged that allow AI detection and plagiarism checking.

Find out which are the best plagiarism checkers for AI-generated content and how you can use them to check content authenticity.

Can I perform plagiarism checks on a manuscript I am reviewing? Is it ideal?

The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory has been censored since 2006. Notable censors are Paul Ginsparg, who keeps a blacklist at the Los Alamos Archives.

I presented my work in several papers (they need a refresh and contain a notable error - the SDSS data analysis) and in Quora, where I tried to educate people and expose my ideas to criticism.

The theory is called a theory of everything because it is fundamental (the least parameterized) and affects all fields of Physics.

I proposed a new model for Matter where particles are polymers of the Fundamental Dilator and derived Natural Laws from first principles.

The basis for the derivation of Natural Laws is three-fold:

a) The Universe is a Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Hypersurface.

b) Particles are polymers of the Fundamental Dilator (FD). FD is a coherence between stationary states of deformation of space. The involved states are the well-characterized electron and proton. This has four implications:

b.1) It explains the plethora of particles with only two states instead of the field that creates them. This is a simplification when one considers Quantum Field Theory. Masses are given by just 3D deformation volume times an energy density, thus eliminating the need for the Higgs Model.

b.2) The FDs shapeshift and spin in a 4D Spatial Manifold, thus eliminating the need for assigning an "intrinsic degree of freedom" to spin. The shapeshifting defines a global ABSOLUTE FREQUENCY for the waves carrying interaction. In HU, the Quantum Lagrangian Principle states simply that FDs will move in a 4D spatial manifold such that they never do any work (or receive work from the spatial deformation). This is an actual Lagrangian Principle (no work done by constraints). It is called Quantum because it is the reason for Quantum Mechanics in material systems. I explicitly said "material systems" because space itself is a quantum system, and it is governed by the Heisenberg Principle.

b.3) HU contains Absolute Time and a preferential reference frame; hence, HU clashes with Relativity, and that is OK since HU succeeds everywhere GR and SR succeeded and also where GR failed (explaining the evolution of the Universe). The existence of an Absolute Time means that one can define an Absolute Frequency of Interaction and apply a Fourier-like model for interaction among particles. Neutrinos are particles that carry torsions for 3D rotations. They are coherences between states distinct from the electron and proton and thus have a distinct frequency. That is the reason for their ghostly nature.

b.4) HU's Fundamental Dilator is based upon a Stroboscopic Principle - one cannot observe phases of the FD that are perpendicular to our 3D Universe (3D hyperspherical hypersurface).

c) The third basis is the Quantum Lagrangian Principle. It governs dynamics and replaces Newton's Laws of Dynamics while introducing Quantum Mechanics.

HU derived an epoch-dependent Law of Gravitation where G is inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the Universe. Dirac tried to achieve the same using Numerology. An argument based on numerology was not convincing enough. HU derived the laws of Nature. That should be enough.

Epoch-dependent G is necessary to make HU consistent with the Supernova Cosmology Project data. HU's Cosmic Distance Ladder is simple:

d(z) = R_0 * z/(1+z)

For that to make sense, HU introduces a new model for the Photon (it becomes a waving on the top of another wave - the dilaton field).

Epoch-dependent G also solves the problem of "Impossibly Early Galaxy Formation." I will provide a new model for galaxy formation in my next paper.

Of course, HU also provides a new taxonomy for particle physics (replacing the standard model of particle physics) and provides the path to do non-perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics - eliminating the need to sum perturbation terms from Feynman Path Integrals).

The new model for the Universe creation is called The Big Pop Cosmogenesis. It is possible because HU's Universe contains only space, deformed space, and time. That is the simplest possible model.

Copycats and plagiarizers abound. You might have heard about similar ideas. The problem they have is that stealing just part of my ideas doesn't make a theory.

Below is a list of links:

HU Basics

Recasting Newton's Laws of Dynamics in the Space Stress Strain Paradigm

Here, I created a map for the observable and unobservable Universe and located Earth on it:

Here is how I created the map of the Hyperspherical Universe from the knowledge obtained by the Planck Satellite:

3D galaxy density map of the current universe:

Here is how I challenged Einstein's theory:

Here is my take on the Dark Stuff:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-status-as-of-2019-of-the-search-for-dark-matter/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

HU achievements

HU explaining JWST observations:

Here, I explained why the Universe has four spatial dimensions by calculating the probability of universes of different dimensionalities.

The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - replacement to the Big Bang

Big Pop Article

In how many ways can Dr. Marco Pereira prove Einstein wrong

The MAIN REASONS Einstein's Theory is wrong: a) Einstein missed an extra spatial dimension, b) The theory should use ABSOLUTE VELOCITY instead of calling everything Relative.

The first way Dr. Marco Pereira proves Einstein wrong.

The second way Dr. Marco Pereira proves Einstein wrong.

The third way Dr. Marco Pereira proves Einstein wrong.

How to get GR success without GR

For HIGH IQ people

REFERENCES

Smarandache, F. (2007). Hadron Models and related New Energy issues. "Hadron models and related New Energy issues" by Florentin Smarandache

Smarandache, F., & Christianto, V. (2007). Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Supersymmetry Supersymmetry. "Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Supersymmetry" by Florentin Smarandache and Victor Christianto

Pereira, M. (2017). The Hypergeometrical Universe: Cosmogenesis, Cosmology and Standard Model. World Scientific News, 82, 1–96.

Pereira, M. (2018). The Case for a Fourth Spatial Dimension and the Hyperspherical Force. World Scientific News, 98, 127–139.

Pereira, M. (2018). The Hypergeometrical Force: The Coma Cluster without Dark Matter. World Scientific News, 101, 222–228.

Pereira, M. (2019). The Optical Path of Ancient Photons and the Supernova Project. World Scientific News, 130, 195–215.

Pereira, M. (2017). The Hypergeometrical Universe: Cosmogenesis, Cosmology and Standard Model. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, 17(5).

Pereira, M. A. (2010). The Hypergeometrical Universe: Cosmology and Standard Model. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1316(1).

Marco Pereira. The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - Equation of State, this article.

The development of artificial intelligence applications today is almost limitless. Artificial intelligence technologies have been developed for many years, but it is in the last few years that this development has significantly accelerated. On the other hand, thanks to the artificial intelligence system made available on the Internet, which is the ChatGPT language model, the topic of artificial intelligence has, since the end of 2022, become one of the main topics of discussion in various fields of knowledge and in the context of different scientific disciplines, business applications, etc. ChatGPT has also become one of the most popular online platforms rapidly gaining new users at a rate comparable to the most popular and fastest growing social media sites. However, the currently developing applications of ChatGPT's intelligent language model have also started to generate negative effects and have overtaken the process of adapting systemic solutions and regulations to the situation. There has emerged a serious risk of the rapid development of disinformation in online social media, with images, videos and texts generated by various artificial intelligence solutions that present what can be described as 'fictitious facts', which present something that is difficult to distinguish from real facts, real events taking place and to diagnose who or rather what created them. There is a serious risk of non-compliance with copyright in the creation of certain types of 'works' created by artificial intelligence. This also raises the question of the ethics of the creation of new works, works in which a reliably realised creativity is or should be included. Newly created works, such as photographs, films, textual studies, literary works, paintings, graphics, sculptures, architectural designs, technical and other innovations, computer programmes, patents, etc., contain the element of new solutions, concepts, innovation, etc., which are the result of human creativity. However, in the context of thousands of years of evolution of human abilities and creativity, it is only relatively recently that man has begun to assist himself in the processes of creative creation of something new, innovative solutions, new concepts, artistic works, etc., assisted by advanced technology that does this in principle for man, but according to assumptions and rules that man determines. In recent years, the aforementioned processes of using artificial intelligence in the creation of a kind of "works" created with the application of more and more data and information and within the framework of processes that are becoming more and more automated have been taking place at an increasingly rapid pace. The development of the ChatGPT intelligent language model technology, which is available on the Internet, shows how dynamically the use of new technology is taking place in order to, as it were, cede creative work that requires multi-criteria processing of large amounts of data and in increasingly automated processes. Since, for example, ChatGPT-created texts often lack full descriptions of data sources, source publications, bibliographic descriptions and lack information on the extent of possible plagiarism, the scale of possibilities for copyright infringement is large. Therefore, in the context of thesis texts written by students, essays for course credit at university, the use of a tool such as ChatGPT for this purpose generates serious risks of unreliability of writing this type of work. Therefore, it is necessary to create a system of digital marking of various types of "works" created by various artificial intelligence solutions, i.e. in addition to texts created by artificial intelligence, also the creation of photographs, films, innovations, patents, computer software, new drugs, technical projects, artistic works, etc. Such a system of digital marking of various types of "works" created by various artificial intelligence solutions will be helpful in the matter of distinguishing the effects of human work from the increasingly highly substitutable effects of advanced data processing carried out by artificial intelligence. In addition to this, computerised anti-plagiarism platforms and programmes should be improved in such a way that they diagnose the borrowing of text fragments, sentences, paragraphs, phrases from other texts, publications, articles, books, etc., and unattributed sources of data, information, formulas, formulas, models, definitions of new concepts, new concepts, projects, innovative solutions, etc., unattributed bibliographies. Therefore, the currently developed artificial intelligence solutions, such as ChatGPT and similar solutions, should be improved both from the technical and procedural side, as well as from the formal and legal side, thanks to which the scale of improper use of such tools, generating negative effects, will be significantly reduced, including, among others, the scale of unreliable writing of texts of journal and other articles, theses, descriptions of conducted research, results of conducted analyses, etc. In this way, by significantly reducing the scale of negative effects of the developed artificial intelligence applications, the possibilities of practical application of artificial intelligence in the scope of improving the performance of research, analytical and development works, research and development works, as well as the results of conducted analyses, etc., will be limited. In this way, significantly reducing the scale of negative effects of developed applications of artificial intelligence, also developed in universities, the possibilities of practical applications of artificial intelligence in improving the implementation of research, analytical, research and development work, descriptions of results of conducted research will be able to be developed in the future. In this way, effectively, artificial intelligence technologies can be used in universities so that the development of artificial intelligence technologies, of which ChatGPT is an example, does not pose a threat to universities, but rather that it is an increase in opportunities for the development of universities, the development of scientific research, including the improvement of the efficiency of conducted research and analytical processes with the use of large amounts of data processed multi-criteria on computerised Big Data Analytics platforms.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

How effectively can artificial intelligence technologies be used in universities so that the development of artificial intelligence technologies as exemplified by ChatGPT does not pose a threat to universities but rather that it is an increase in the possibilities for the development of universities, the development of scientific research, including the improvement of the efficiency of the conducted research, analytical, teaching, scientific processes using large amounts of data processed multi-criteria on computerised Big Data Analytics platforms?

And what is your opinion on this?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Answering a question on social media using a language model like ChatGPT is not plagiarism, as long as you are not presenting someone else's work, ideas, or content as your own. ChatGPT generates responses based on its training data and algorithms, and it doesn't have the capability to plagiarize because it doesn't have access to specific external sources unless they have been explicitly integrated into its training.

However, it's essential to be clear about the source of the information when using a tool like ChatGPT to answer questions on social media or any other platform. If you're using information or ideas generated by the AI, you should make it clear that the response was generated by an AI model and not by you personally. This transparency helps avoid any confusion and ensures that proper credit is given to the technology used.

In summary, using an AI like ChatGPT to answer questions is not plagiarism, but it's important to attribute the source correctly and be transparent about the AI's involvement in generating the response.

After selecting my topic for conference paper what is the best way to extract views from other work for my complet paper and at same time avoid plagiarism .Thank you .

My systematic review is showing unintentional plagiarism in the quality assessment tables. I am not sure how one can possibly reduce that as these tools are standardized and incorporated in the systematic reviews of hundreds of research papers.