Search

The failure to acknowledge the ideas or writing of another and presenting of the ideas or writings of another as if they are one's own are longstanding misdemeanours and challenges in academic writing and publishing. As currently defined, plagiarism is correctly regarded as serious academic misconduct. However, research processes and outputs are now being influenced by: greater access to electronic resources, open access journals, Google scholar and other search engines, plagiarism detection software and other elements of the so-called fourth industrial revolution. It can be argued that these factors are contributing not only to the number of instances of plagiarism, but also how plagiarism is manifest. Within a "normal science" paradigm, as described by Kuhn, it is inevitable that there are substantive overlaps in authors' reviews of literature and prior research. Conventionally, authors are expected to use their own words when reviewing prior research, but mere paraphrasing the words of other authors adds little to no value. In this paper it will be shown that the current definition of plagiarism fosters trivial paraphrasing of other authors, rather than explicit application of that prior knowledge or the synthesis of new understanding from existing knowledge. An underlying assumption of the current definition of plagiarism is that absence of direct attribution implies the author's claim to originality. It will be posited that plagiarism can and should be reframed to exclude implied claims of originality, and to regard readily accessible knowledge as "common knowledge" which therefore requires no direct attribution. Such reframing could weaken the constraints of "normal science", and thereby encourage more efficient research and expedite paradigm shifts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We first sketch a prototype implementation of a battlefield command and control system that maintains shared situation awareness among units. We then analyze the conditions for coordination among units. Common knowledge is critical here and is achieved in the prototype by an arrangement with the formal structure suggested by one account of the notion of theory of mind in psychology. Common knowledge regarding the current state is distinguished from that which provides scaffolding for mission coordination, and the analysis reveals how both are maintained by the prototype. The notions addressed are critical generally for shared situation awareness. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper proposes that the study of boundary brokering roles offers indications on the formation and the exchange of common knowledge. The notion of common knowledge is elusive and, although it has been identified as an important underlying factor in the effectiveness of Knowledge Management practices in SMEs, there is little understanding of how, where and when it emerges in organisations. This study deployed a qualitative approach to investigate work practices in five European Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) of varying sizes, as part of the EU FP7 OrganiK project. The conceptual frameworks for boundary activities provided by Wenger (2002) and Carlile (2002, 2004) were adapted for the analysis of social interaction in these organisational contexts. We found that, although not explicitly described as such, the management of knowledge bases is an important factor in the way these organizations operate. Different types of knowledge brokering practices occurred via either formalised roles specifically created for the purpose or through undefined informal interactions between co-workers. These knowledge brokering roles are important for the formation of common knowledge, as the knowledge workers in question hold highly significant knowledge (in effect, acting as knowledge silos), that is crucial to the daily operation of the organisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]