Attitudes Towards Plagiarism and Intertextuality in Research Articles: Being Critical Rather than Too Critical

The myriads of patchwork in the research articles (RAs) leave the novice readership without a clue regarding what is actually original and what is not (Gee, 2010). It would be advisable to dispose of the concept of plagiarism in favor of an understanding of transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality since plagiarism and intertextuality are contextually contingent (Chandrasoma, Thompson Pennycook, 2004). Accordingly, it can be contended it is the task of critical readers to decide which is in fact exploited in a text. In most RAs, where validation is somewhat related to generalizability of findings and where this process is sustained with reference to other concurrent well-recognized counterparts, the distinction between plagiarism and intertextuality gains momentum (Johnstone, 2008). This study is intended to delve more into nonnative RA authors’ perception of plagiarism and intertextuality in academic discourse. To this end, a questionnaire was emailed to 100 Iranian RA authors publishing in accredited international and local applied linguistics journals. Fifty three emails were filled in and sent back. In addition, thirteen of these participants (10 senior Ph.D. candidates and 3 Ph.D. holders) were interviewed subsequently. The findings indicated that although these authors acknowledged the crucial role intertextuality played in their RAs, they had only a general understanding of it. Though unacceptable they would call it, the authors considered plagiarism as an indispensible part of academic research. They also believed plagiarism is more objectionable when included in the results and discussion sections rather than in the introduction and literature review sections. Seen in this light, it is suggested that an understanding of journal reviewers’ severity of judgment with regard to plagiarism and their reverence for intertextuality, on the other hand, had better be highlighted in EAP classes.