Suppose person A has a research project where they need to find a few articles on a particular topic, and write a review of these papers.
Being busy with other coursework, and feeling overwhelmed by the task of searching papers, person A decides to ask person B for help to find a list of articles on the topic. Person B is not a student in the course, but is willing to help person A.
Person A then reads the articles B found and writes their paper on their own.
Has there been plagiarism or other ethical violation committed?
EDIT: An additional concern is whether person A needs to credit person B’s work. The goal of the paper would be to develop understanding of the field that the course is about, not specifically train for literature search. The submission will be graded.
Is it unethical to research journals for other students?
For example, a student is researching gifted students and their subsequent ACT/SAT scores. Then:
Would it be unethical for me to research educational journals and give the student the title of articles that pertain to their research?
Would it be unethical for me to charge for this?
Is it unethical for me to research journals for other students. Example: A student is researching gifted students and their subsequent ACT/SAT scores. Would it be unethical for me to research educational journals and give the student the title of articles that pertain to their research? Would it be unethical for me to charge for this?
As far as I see, there are two extreme methods of finding out whether someone has already published your idea:
Read everything that has ever been written, and then decide whether any of it corresponds to your idea. Advantage: You’ll be 100% sure that no one has written your idea before you try to publish it. Disadvantage: You’ll be dead before you’re done reading.
Search your memory for whether you’ve read something like it. Advantage: You’ll be done searching in a matter of seconds. Disadvantage: not very fault-proof at all.
Obviously, the optimal search method must lie somewhere between these extremes, and obviously the optimal approach will employ searching keywords.
I am wondering what the optimal approach is, and whether there is a good guide on this. I don’t want to waste many hours on sifting through other people’s writings if there is a more efficient way to do it.
I’m sure that searching like this is a skill in and of itself. I’d like to become better at it.
I am working through a tutorial about literature search, reading, and writing. It says:
A chain search consists of finding suitable literature by letting one text lead you to the next, which leads to the next and so on.
The strength of the chain search is that it leads from one good reference to another, and you will be able to follow the development of arguments through your literature search.
Its weakness, however, is that you might lack references that present different understandings or raise objections to the text that started the chain.
I did not understand chain search from this.
The definition says: “letting one text lead you to the next“. What does text mean here? Could you please explain chain search in easy words along with an example?
I am learning about literature search methods from a PDF file. The PDF file is about Literature Search, Reading and Writing. I am extracting a part from the PDF file:-
Having good knowledge of literature, data and material is an important
part of becoming a qualified professional with a higher education. A
great part of writing a research paper is your choice of literature
and the way you use it.
Literature search methods
There are several search methods for finding literature:
- Chain Search
- Systematic Literature Search
- Random Literature Search
A chain search consists of finding suitable literature by letting one
text lead you to the next, which leads to the next and so on.
• The strength of the chain search is that it leads from one good
reference to another, and you will be able to follow the development
of arguments through your literature search.
• Its weakness, however, is that you might lack references that
present different understandings or raise objections to the text that
started the chain.
I did Not understand what is Chain search reading from the PDF.
The definition says “..letting one text lead you to the next,….”. What does “**text” mean here? I am so confused :(**
Could you please explain the chain search in easy words along with example? Thanks.
I am currently a student at a tech school and otherwise unemployed. I’ve never been a scientist or published a paper.
So I am a little skeptical of some results I have been hearing about experiments using computer simulations, and I would like to at some point do my own experiment. (The topic is among differences in gender, homosexuality, global warming, etc., i.e. a topic that can provoke emotions.)
I figured that I should probably learn as much about research as I can before I do any experiment. On the other hand if I learn how exactly the others did their experiment that would bias how I construct mine. I would be prone to solving problems by doing the same thing rather than coming up with a new way to test it.
So does it make any sense to limit the study of existing experiments for the sake of more diverse testing, or should I try to learn as much about them as I can?
Sometimes you need to find out quickly whether one of your papers has cited a particular researcher given only the name of that researcher. Is there a tool for that? Assume you have used the bibtex format so far to manage your references, but your bibtex files contain much more than what you’ve actually cited. You have no Zotero or Mendely and don’t want to mess with them unless really necessary. You have your own webpage with lots of paper copies, and you have profiles at Google Scholar, ResearcherId, and Orcid.
Google Scholar and Web Of Science can tell you who cites you. As opposed to that, you wish to determine whether you cite someone else (or not). To start with, a binary answer (yes/no) would do. You would like to run such a query several times, one researcher at a time. Ideally, the query would give you some (or even all) of your papers which cite the given researcher, but it’s not a must.
Surely you can do that by putting all your texts together, converting them all to text or html, and then searching there. This is tedious and error-prone, though. Is there any online (or offline) service for that, perhaps? The database in which the search is done must be a (possibly large) underapproximation of the papers you have written so far.
So I’m doing my senior thesis (undergrad) on the politics of emerging technologies and how that applies to artificial intelligence policy. I’ve been trying to look at past examples of technologies as they were emerging and how research communities, industry, civil groups, and governments react. A good example being developments in recombinant DNA leading to the Asilomar Conference, or fetal tissue stem cell therapy leading to George Bush’s executive order on federal funding on the subject. However, I’m running into a few problems:
1) Research is slow because the main search engines I’m using (G-Scholar, JSTOR) bring up a bunch of irrelevant papers. Even if I use quotes, something like (
“emerging technology” politics ) will bring a lot of stuff I don’t need. Is there something I can do to help narrow it down to papers that are more relevant for my topic, such as additional terms, or another search engine?
2) I feel like I don’t know how to do this kind of research efficiently. I’ve never done something this complex, and I’m pressed on time, so I can’t make any mistakes. At this point, I’m just putting in search terms and finding papers that seem to fit within the general area of my paper and taking notes on Evernote. But, I feel like this could be structured/targeted so much better. What’s the best meta-research strategy?
Thanks for your time, and if you have any other relevant suggestions, I’d love to hear.
I’m working in an empirical field and have recently had a paper about a data collection effort and subsequent analysis thereof which was provisionally accepted, conditional on revisions. The negative remark most difficult to address is that the dataset I acquired was considered relatively small; How can I justify the small size of the dataset in a sound manner due to practical difficulties in acquiring data?
It is not possible for me to collect any more data in terms of money, manpower or even time… which all add up to more or less to “research capital”. I have seen other datasets used which are not much bigger, but there are also corpora which are bigger by a significant margin. Likewise, some datasets are quite similar while others are completely unrelated to mine. Finally, while some corpora are freely available, for the majority of the papers in my field, it is quite rare for publications to explicitly state how one can acquire the data for their own purposes, and so the actual ability to even aquire data second-hand seems to be spotty.
Basically, I would need to reformulate the paragraph above into some form which I can put into the paper which needs revision; What can I do?