RE: Is the human blood green in colour besides being red?

[cyprianj]

Okay, thanks for the observation @scholaris.pob . I stand corrected at this point if I am wrong...There is never a virgin topic or discussion in research. Majority of we know today is a a product of what others might have done and then to improve them, we borrow their ideas, build on them, and in exchange, reference and give credit to whom it is due. This has always been my practice and I have never failed to do. Even in the course of writing my scientific papers on journals.

You would agreed with me that no man is an island of knowledge. Never have I Said all the content of my articles are solely mine. That would obviously make me a very big lier. We only borrow ideas, hence the essence of referencing. Discussing science without stating facts the way they are maybe impossible, how it is said may differ but they sure must contain the necessary content to make them valid. Sometimes, you need scientific words to buttress points. If an author used some word and I also used it, but in another way to explain well known facts, kindly want to know if it would make it a spinned or plagiarized word? Anyone can easily write from inspiration without having to borrow concepts provided they are not discussing science.

In blogging, I try as much as possible to look for unique concepts that would require better explanation, then I pass them the best possible way. Communicating ideas the way you understand it, is the key and as much I try, I always do that and If I can't, I quote the source. My intents are pure and never with intent of spinning articles. There might be areas that might look alike but doesn't make them plagiarized content. There will always be clashes in words when discussing science, hence the reason 20-30% allowance is allowed in writing, to my Best of knowledge. Explaining things the way you understand them after reading cannot be judged as spinning. If no allowance is given, then it expected the individual must discover a novel explanation without having to borrow from a preexisting facts and laws (obviously impossible). It's just like asking someone to explain the Newton laws of motion without inputting key words that make the law valid.

One of the area you highlighted possibly needs quotation which I will admit is an oversight on my part and the needful will be done. The other part as you would observe clearly has the in-text reference attached to it. However, I do not write articles with intent of spinning.

Quick condemnation as speedy downvote makes it look personal without getting my view on the matter first. It's fine regardless.

Thanks.

Comments

[enforcer48]

Oof...my soul aches at this response.

[adamada]

Bullshit.

[scholaris.pob]

Quick condemnation as speedy downvote makes it look personal without getting my view on the matter first. It's fine regardless.

You're not wrong. It looks personal, but perhaps it is to a degree. I review a lot of articles. Not many people respond. And I can't always go back to check on whether or not the author corrects the issue. So, I'm thankful you did.

One of the areas I highlighted definitely needed quotations otherwise it's copy/paste. The other example is just paraphrasing what was already available.

Also, I've written research papers before. I've never heard of a "20-30% allowance".

[adamada]

Make him cite where that 20-30% allowance came from, one of the sources probably came from his ass.

[cyprianj]

By 20-30% allowance, I meant plagiarism score checks before paper submission.

The necessary correction has been effected.

I appreciate your critical review of the article regardless and I apologize for that omission.

[traciyork]

You might want to revisit the notion that 20-30% plagiarized content is acceptable to anyone, @cyprianj.

From the Editage Insights website -

Q: What is the acceptable percentage of plagiarism [in a] report?

Answer: There is a lack of consensus or clear-cut-rules on what percentage of plagiarism is acceptable in a manuscript. Going by the convention, usually a text similarity below 15% is acceptable by the journals and a similarity of >25% is considered as high percentage of plagiarism.

But even in case of 15% similarity, if the matching text is one continuous block of borrowed material, it will be considered as plagiarized text of significant concern. On the other hand, text similarity due to the usage of common terminologies and method related details in ‘Methodology’ part of a manuscript should not raise a serious ethical concern.

And to be clear, "usage of common terminologies" certainly doesn't cover taking entire sentences verbatim, or even slightly rewording to make them harder to detect by plag checkers seem original.

[adamada]

All I read is ok sorry for the misunderstanding here are my elaborate reasons to justify why I spun some parts cause I may have forgot. If you've been doing this for a long time, there's a good chance some old posts had it too. Scholaris highlighted the specific parts where you just changed some words which is just spinning content.

However, I do not write articles with intent of spinning.

You don't intend to spin but it came out spun. And it is spun.

If no allowance is given, then it expected the individual must discover a novel explanation without having to borrow from a preexisting facts and laws (obviously impossible). It's just like asking someone to explain the Newton laws of motion without inputting key words that make the law valid.

Newton invented calculus because current math during his time couldn't explain his theories.

Quick condemnation as speedy downvote makes it look personal without getting my view on the matter first. It's fine regardless.

I don't care if the downvotes look personal, I don't wait for the author's opinion when I am free to upvote their post. The safest method you could've gone was just quoting the lines instead of botching the word smithing. I don't see the value in trying so hard to repack the idea when you can just link people to something that explains it better.