Skip to main content
Editorial Message

Plagiarism in Scholarly Writing: What It Is, What It Isn’t, and How to Avoid It

September 2025
1943-2704
Wounds. 2025;37(9):A1. doi:10.25270/wnds/0925-01

Dear Readers:

The guest editorials, this month and next, will focus on the writing and submitting of manuscripts process to WOUNDS (or other journals). This one is close to my heart and focuses on the “avoidance of plagiarism.” This front-end piece is in no way a lecture; it is intended as friendly advice and guidance, and we certainly hope it is useful to you.

John C. Lantis II, MD

Editor-in-Chief, Wounds


You’ve submitted your manuscript to a journal and now you wait, hoping the next email brings good news: a request for revisions, a formatting adjustment before peer review, or, ideally, an acceptance. But instead, you receive something unexpected and unsettling. The subject line contains a word no author wants to see: plagiarism. Plagiarism? That can’t be right. You didn’t deliberately copy anyone’s work…so what happened, and what should you do now?

At its core, plagiarism is the presentation of another’s ideas, words, or work as one’s own, without appropriate acknowledgment. 

Common forms include:

• Direct plagiarism: Copying verbatim from a source without citation or quotation.

• Mosaic (or patchwriting): Piecing together phrases or sentences from various sources, with or without slight rewording.

• Accidental plagiarism: Failing to cite a source due to oversight or misunderstanding.

• Self-plagiarism: Reusing one’s previously published text or data without proper disclosure or citation.

While the term “plagiarism” often evokes notions of deliberate deceit, most of the infractions we see in Wounds submissions arise from miscommunication, poor citation habits, or lack of clarity on what needs attribution. Wounds uses iThenticate to screen for textual similarity, which highlights matching text across a vast database of articles, books, and websites. Manuscripts flagged for similarity concerns may be returned to authors for clarification or revision, and what could have been a straightforward path to publication becomes an extended— sometimes frustrating— process for all parties involved. 

On the other hand, not all textual similarity is unethical. Consider the following examples:

• Common knowledge: Widely accepted facts (eg, “Diabetic foot ulcers are a common complication of long-standing diabetes”) do not require citation.

• Standard methods: Descriptions of routine procedures often resemble prior text—particularly when precision is critical.

• Shared authorship: Reuse of one’s own unpublished or previously described work may be permissible, but must be transparently disclosed.

The fine line between what is and is not plagiarism often lies in how material is reused. Paraphrasing requires true rearticulation of ideas, not simply swapping synonyms or rearranging phrases. A thoughtful summary of the original text, followed by proper citation, is always preferred to superficial rewording.

Self-plagiarism, or “text recycling,” is becoming increasingly scrutinized in academic publishing and typically involves reusing one’s own material. While recycling may seem harmless, it can mislead readers about the novelty of the work, distort citation metrics, or violate copyright agreements.

That said, not all self-reuse is problematic. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) acknowledge that limited reuse of methods or background text may be reasonable, if disclosed. At Wounds, we urge authors to alert editors during submission if any portion of a manuscript has been previously disseminated.

Importantly, similarity does not equal plagiarism. Editors must interpret results with discernment:

• Are the matches confined to the references or methods section?

• Is the overlap appropriately cited?

• Does the repetition reflect standard phrasing or copied insight?

Authors are encouraged to run drafts through institutional plagiarism checkers before submission. While not infallible, such tools can flag overlooked attributions or overreliance on prior text.

Beyond ethical concerns, inclusion of plagiarized material in a manuscript can expose both the authors and the journal to legal liability. Even inadvertent reuse of protected content may violate license agreements and publisher policies. This is especially relevant when text is taken from previously published works that require explicit permission for reuse. Moreover, if the infringing material is detected after publication, the journal may be compelled to retract the article or issue a correction, eroding trust with readers and damaging the authors’ reputations.

Authors should take care to:

• Verify copyright status before reusing previously published text.

• Obtain written permission when required, particularly for figures or substantial excerpts.

• Clearly attribute and cite all sources, even when paraphrased.

Responsible authorship requires diligence at every stage of the writing process. Here are several recommendations:

• Keep detailed notes on sources during literature reviews.

• Use quotation marks for verbatim text and always include citations.

• Paraphrase properly by fully understanding the material, then restating it in your own words.

• Disclose any prior presentations, abstracts, or preprints.

• Coordinate with coauthors to avoid unintentional duplication across papers.

Plagiarism, even when unintentional, compromises the clarity and originality of scientific progress and slows down the publishing process.

Suggested Reading

Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE): https://publicationethics.org

ICMJE Recommendations: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations

Roig M. “Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices.” Office of Research Integrity. https://ori.hhs.gov/avoiding-plagiarism-self-plagiarism-and-other-questionable-writing-practices-guide-ethical-writing