Htydjtk

Per your example, you are not, in fact, "forced to waste time" finding another way to express the idea that another author had. You can just copy the passage down verbatim, but to do so without putting it in quotes and citing it is plagiarism. If you write a publication that has no quotes in it, you are essentially claiming that you wrote the entire thing yourself. If you have copied text verbatim, that is false. You are taking credit for someone else's work, which is rather frowned upon in academia.

Authors should be deliberate and precise in their language, so finding the right words to express an idea isn't always a trivial task. A lot of work can go into a sentence that is succinct, precise, and understandable. Your choices are to either find different words to express that idea, or give someone else credit for having done the work already.

If you present the words as your own, then plagiarizing the words is equivalent to plagiarizing the idea.

When you submit written work, putting your name on it implies that you are responsible for its content.

But why is plagiarising words and pharagraphs considered a big deal?

If the work contains someone else's written words, and you don't cite the original author, then you are effectively taking credit for that written idea. Claiming credit for someone else's idea is plagiarism, and is typically a punishable offense in academia.

If you want to save time by include someone else's quote verbatim, then there are standards for quoting and properly citing the text.

Why is it a problem if I just use the above formulation?

However, if the majority of the written content is copied from another author, then this suggests most of the ideas and thought process behind the writing isn't your own either. It may not even demonstrate that you understand the content that you've quoted. So if you claim credit for material that is mostly copied from someone else, it can at least seem lazy.

Having been plagiarized before, I found three things irritating:

1. Plagiarists seem lazy. Instead of writing something in their own words and adding their own knowledge to it, they simply copied what I and others wrote and stitched it together into a semi-coherent whole. When I write formally, I spend a lot of time to get the words right, and I don't think it's fair to simply copy my work. (Particularly when they don't credit me for the work.) If you get the same reward (a publication) for copying as you do for producing something original, that does not seem to be incentivizing the hard work that produces valuable research.




2. Plagiarism at the sentence level seems to lead to hard to read writing. One sentence from here, one sentence their own, another half a sentence from somewhere else, etc. Mix in inconsistent vocabularies, the use of a thesaurus to trip up plagiarism detection software, and rearranging sentences to trip up plagiarism detection software. That's a recipe for bad writing. To be honest I think making plagiarized writing good would take more time than writing something original in the first place. Also, I think the opportunity cost for someone who is not a native speaker of the language they are writing in also exceeds the time savings from plagiarism. (My impression is that many non-native speakers who plagiarize do so because they don't believe they can write as well as a native speaker. But this tends not to work well, and doesn't help them learn the language as much as writing would.)




3. Plagiarists sometimes don't seem to understand the passages they copied. This might be due to confounding between plagiarism and poor reading skills. A plagiarized sentence says X is true and then later the authors argue "not X has already been established..."

If you want to use Juntao's exact words, put quotation marks around them and cite the exact source (next to the quotation, not a couple of sentences later). Otherwise, "[y]ou are stealing the hard work of others and misleading your peers by pretending it is your original work" [Shi Sen, this question, but in a different context]. You may not realize it, but Juntao might have put quite a lot of work into this passage, not only looking up the relevant background information but also making expository decisions like choosing to mention "certain assumptions", giving their general character, but not stating them explicitly. Juntao deserves explicit credit for that work, not just a generic citation for a "complete summary".

In scientific work there is more to plagiarism than just crediting people for the work that they do. But first, an aside in the difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Suppose that I find a publisher (unlikely) who will let me take an early edition of Goethe's Faust and publish it under the name Buffy St. Magnus, with no indication anywhere that it is from Faust. I can do that legally, since the work is not under copyright, though some recent editions may be. I don't use quote marks or anything, but even if I do, it is plagiarism. Plagiarism, but not copyright infringement. I'll be condemned (well St. Magnus, anyway). But I can't be sued.

Suppose, alternatively, that in writing a new book, that I take a chapter (not the entirety of the work, but a substantial part) from a recent novel of, say, Louise Erdrich and incorporate it into my own work. Suppose that I'm clear, using quotes or whatever, and giving proper citations of the original. Since I cited it (quotes or not), it isn't plagiarism. But whoever owns copyright to the original will likely object and I'll be sued, almost certainly, for copyright infringement. So, copyright infringement, but not plagiarism. This would also be the likely outcome if I make small changes or paraphrase parts of it.

In the latter case, if I do the same thing but don't give a citation. Then is is both plagiarism and copyright infringement and I'll be both sued and condemned.

But, suppose that what we have is scientific writing instead. Note that scientific papers have a context, usually expressed in their own citations and their bibliography. There is more here than just who wrote it, there is the complete scientific context in which it was written. A scholar reading the work, sometimes need to explore that context directly. If the paper makes that impossible, by plagiarizing another, for example, the chain is broken. St. Magnus says the buck stops here. But really it doesn't. If I just copied from Shi Sen, then a reader of my work has no easy way to find the original and thus explore the context expressed there.

That is what makes scientific plagiarism special.

If it were only about attribution, then self plagiarism wouldn't be a thing. I'm the source of the words, even though I used them before. But if I don't cite myself properly on the prior use, others are cut off from the complete context.

Also, if were just about attribution then putting it in quotes and providing an incomplete citation, say, just the author's name, then it wouldn't be plagiarism either. But most would consider such an incomplete citation to be wrong for some reason, whether related to plagiarism or not. Ancient authors are often quoted this way, of course, but not living (or recent) ones in scientific literature.

To avoid plagiarism, or self plagiarism, you need to cite and you need to be clear about what you are "capturing" from the early work, just to help other scholars find that original context when needed. You can do this in many ways, but you need to be clear about it. Putting a few words of others in the middle of a sentence that I otherwise write is a situation that makes quote marks especially useful. For a paragraph, I might want to indent instead, with the citation immediately following (or at the beginning). But it has to be clear.

However, if I cite properly, avoiding plagiarism, but still copy "too much" (a value judgement) then I'm still open to a charge of copyright infringement. Any copyright holder can make the charge and file a suit. It is then up to others (courts, juries, ...) to decide whether I overstepped the bounds.

But note the important difference. It is lack of citation that makes it plagiarism. It is giving the impression that the words, ideas, whatever, are mine, and not those of the originator. It is the appropriation that makes it wrong, not the lack of "quoting".

That said, quoting formally, can help you make it clear what is yours and what is not and that clarity is important.

Coming up with the right words to express an idea is also work that authors deserve credit for.

However, the reason why copying words is such a disproportionately “big deal” is that copying words is common, easy to detect, and hard to deny.

It’s common because it is the result of laziness. There is software available to detect copying automatically. And, once the copied passages and their source are identified, there is irrefutable evidence.

This results in a lot of people being punished for copying words and most people are very careful to avoid doing this. That makes it a big deal.

Of course, ease of enforcement is not a good reason for something being a big deal. But, unfortunately, that is the reality of the world.

Plagiarism aside, we expect authors to write background sections in their own words because they are supposed to know the background information. If you copy and paste someone else's paragraph, it comes across like you might not have bothered to verify the information in it. Ditto if you start with someone else's paragraph and fiddle with it until it looks original.

I'm not sure the other answers address your question directly: why is it important to cite and give credit to the original source of words rather than just copy them into our own writings?

(1) Putting ideas into words is very hard work and requires deep understanding. Contrary to what you've written, the wording also matters a lot: the whole point is to communicate the ideas! So originators of wording deserve credit also.

(2) The normal required/accepted practice is that the author does not plagiarize, i.e. all words have been written by the author except where quoted and sourced. Given this, plagiarism is misleading or dishonest to the reader who assumes words are original. (This wouldn't apply if it were normal to plagiarize, but it isn't.)

(3) It is very useful to the research community to have this norm of "no plagiarism" because it is easier to evaluate a paper and its contributions, for reasons that many others have been posting.

(4) In cultures such as the USA where many of the cultural norms of research are set, plagiarism of words is viewed as ethically wrong (presumably for reasons related to the above). So it is a bad idea to plagiarize when writing for people who feel that way even if they had no rational reasoning.