HeQihan

HeQihan

HomeArchives

Are they really "twin brothers"?

#Law21
AI Translation
This post is translated from Chinese into English through AI.View Original
AI-generated summary
The article discusses how to evaluate the similarity between two academic papers, focusing on several key steps: 1. **Identify Themes and Background**: Analyze if the papers address the same issue, the context of their research, and their specific objectives. Differences in focus can indicate varying insights. 2. **Examine Theoretical Frameworks**: Investigate whether the papers rely on the same theories or concepts. Different theoretical foundations can lead to different interpretations, even with similar topics. 3. **Assess Methodology**: Look at the research methods used. Differences in methodology can significantly affect the quality and depth of the analysis. 4. **Compare Core Arguments and Conclusions**: Determine if the main points and evidence presented in the papers are fundamentally similar. Overlapping conclusions may suggest a lack of originality. 5. **Evaluate Self-Assessment**: Review how each paper claims its originality and contributions. Similar claims of novelty may indicate a lack of genuine innovation. 6. **Check References**: Analyze the references to see if the papers draw from the same sources or scholars, which can reveal shared academic influences. After these evaluations, you can form a judgment about the papers' similarity, ranging from nearly identical to merely related. The process enhances critical reading skills and encourages deeper engagement with academic literature. Ultimately, it emphasizes the importance of honesty in assessing originality and the value of thoughtful comparison.

Editorial review, many articles have been seen, but how similar are they? This article will reveal the truth.

When you see an article that is very similar to another, but there are no issues with plagiarism checks, what should you do? It's very simple: rely on your feelings, experience, and a bit of "detective" intuition. When you think, "Hey? Why do these two look so alike?" consider how to analyze it. I guarantee to speak plainly; if there's something to critique, I will.

Step One: Where does that damned sense of déjà vu come from? — Unpacking themes and backgrounds#

You definitely don't feel they are similar for no reason. Usually, the first glance at the title, abstract, and the first few paragraphs makes your heart skip a beat. At this point, don't rush to conclusions; first, ask yourself:

  • Are they really concerned with the same issue? For example, both discussing "the rights protection of delivery workers" sounds like a single topic, right? But you need to look closely; one may be criticizing platform algorithms for exploitation, while the other might be studying how workers spontaneously organize mutual aid. Both are about rights protection, but one points outward, while the other focuses inward. This difference is significant.
  • Is the opening paragraph's "why this research is necessary" a script? Is it because a new policy was just introduced, or a social event just occurred, leading them to think, "Oh, this issue is too important; it must be studied"? Many articles have that opening background significance written in a uniform manner, filled with "correct nonsense," feeling like they were copied and pasted from the same template library. So, just looking at the background being similar doesn't explain much; you need to see if they aim to solve the same "little knot" based on that background.
  • What do they want to achieve? Are their "visions" similar? Research objectives! Are they both trying to offer the government some bland suggestions? Are they both challenging a certain big shot's classic theory? If the goals are highly consistent, the probability of the content being similar later is high.

This step is like assessing a person; first impressions are important, but you can't just look at the face (title) and family background (research background). Many "internet celebrity" topics are being written about, so the openings naturally look alike. The key is to see if they have found their own unique point beyond what everyone else is saying. If the opening makes you feel like "here we go again," then the rest might not be that new either, but don't dismiss it outright; what if there's a twist later?

Step Two: Delve into the "soul" and see if their "thinking chip" is the same? — Digging into theories and concepts#

Just looking at the surface isn't enough; you need to see if their "operating systems" in their minds are the same, which refers to theoretical frameworks and core concepts.

  • Do they both believe in the same "deity" or the same set of "scriptures"? For instance, do they frequently reference Foucault, Habermas, or mention some latest "digital governance" theory? If they use completely different core theories, such as one explaining through economics and the other through cultural studies, then even if the research subjects are the same, the outcomes will certainly differ.
  • Do those "sophisticated" terms mean the same thing to them? There are definitely some keywords in the articles that are used repeatedly. You need to ponder carefully; do they have the same definitions and emphases for these terms? For example, if both say "empowerment," one might refer to providing money and resources, while the other might mean enhancing abilities and awareness. This difference is significant. Many times, the authors themselves may not fully understand these trendy terms and just use them, resulting in "word collisions" with others, but their understanding may not be the same.
  • Who are they "arguing" with or giving "thumbs up" to? Look at whose viewpoints they are citing, refuting, or supporting. This can help you locate their faction and stance in the academic "world." If the theoretical giants they cite and the targets they criticize are similar, it indicates they are likely on the same "channel."

This step looks at the "intellectual background." If the theoretical foundations are the same, the angles of viewing problems and the tools for analysis are likely similar. It's like painting with the same brand of paint; the styles may be close. However, I must critique that many studies today use theory as a "disguise," making it seem sophisticated, but the analysis inside is completely different, lacking integration. This kind of "false similarity" should also be cautioned against. What truly matters is whether the theory genuinely guides the analysis, rather than being mere decoration.

Step Three: Observe the "posture"; are they "gracefully gesturing" or "rolling up their sleeves to work"? — Examining methods and paths#

Knowing what they want and how they think, you also need to see how they specifically get the work done, which refers to research methods.

  • Are they just talking or actually taking action? Are they mainly relying on logical deduction, literature integration, philosophical speculation (so-called normative research, speculative research), or are they genuinely distributing questionnaires, conducting interviews, doing fieldwork, analyzing big data (so-called empirical research)? The fundamental differences in methodology determine the quality and persuasiveness of the articles.
  • Even if they practice the same "martial arts," are their moves the same? For example, if both conduct interviews, are their interview outlines the same? Are they targeting the same groups? Are their methods for analyzing interview records the same? If they both use statistics, are their variable selections and model settings the same? Details are crucial!
  • Is the "narrative structure" the same? Are the structural arrangements, the order of arguments, and the logical chains of the articles very similar? Do they seem to be arranged according to some "writing guide"?

This step assesses whether "effort has been put in." Different methods or varying depths of method application will certainly result in different article thicknesses. If two articles have astonishingly similar details in research design, data sources (for example, both using data from the same database for the same time period), or even a specific question in the questionnaire, it becomes hard to believe it's just coincidence. Of course, some academic fields may have mature research paradigms, and everyone uses similar methods, which is understandable. But even with established methods, it matters how skillfully they are applied and whether adjustments are made for specific problems.

Step Four: The time for "the truth to be revealed" has come! — Comparing core viewpoints and conclusions#

This is the most critical step, directly related to the "originality" of the article.

  • When it comes down to it, are their core viewpoints essentially the same? Removing all embellishments and padding, are the few "golden sentences" they most want you to remember essentially conveying the same meaning?
  • What do they use to prove this viewpoint? Are the "evidences" the same? Do they both cite the same key data? Do they both discuss the same classic case? Or are the logical steps for analyzing the problem almost completely identical, as if you are looking at the same teaching slides?
  • Are the "prescriptions" they offer the same? If the articles have a section on suggestions, are these suggestions largely similar? Are they both shouting the same slogans, pointing in the same direction, or even having similar specific measures?

This is about comparing "fingerprints." If the core arguments, reasoning logic, key evidence, and suggested conclusions are highly overlapping, it becomes hard not to raise suspicions. Of course, sometimes there is only one truth, and it's normal for people to arrive at it through different paths. But if even the "paths to the truth" are identical, that becomes very suspicious. Personally, I am more interested in articles with similar conclusions but completely different reasoning processes, as I feel they might have uncovered different treasures. The worst is when an article reads like "copy-paste" from start to finish, feeling like a waste of time.

Step Five (Bonus or Penalty): Look at their "self-evaluation"#

Articles usually mention their innovations and contributions.

  • Compare their self-proclaimed "achievements"; are they boasting about the same things? Are they both claiming to have "first proposed the XX concept" or "constructed a new framework for XX"?
  • Do you think their originality is really as they claim? Is there something genuinely new, or is it just "old wine in new bottles"? Does one feel like a "draft" while the other feels like a "final version"?

This step can help you assess the authors' "self-awareness" and "honesty." If two highly similar articles both claim to be "significant originals," it becomes a bit laughable. Of course, sometimes authors genuinely do not know about others' work, and "parallel innovation" may occur. But comparing them can give you a clearer understanding of their actual originality.

Step Six (Auxiliary Verification, but sometimes very useful): Flip through the "references" and see their "academic genealogy"#

Don't underestimate that long list at the end of the article; it contains a wealth of information.

  • Are they both paying homage to the same "mountain peak"? Check if they are both citing a large number of the same core literature and authoritative scholars in the same field?
  • Are they both standing at the same "time point"? Are the cited references particularly new, or are they concentrated in certain years?
  • Are their "theoretical mentors" and "methodological mentors" from the same group? Check if the key theories and methodological papers they cite are also highly overlapping?

References are like the articles' "social relationships" and "knowledge sources." If their "core social circles" are highly overlapping, with similar readings and mentors, the probability of similar viewpoints and thoughts becomes very high. While this cannot directly prove plagiarism or imitation, it is definitely a strong signal indicating that they likely emerged from the same knowledge background and academic dialogue. This can help you understand why they are so similar.

Finally, form your "heartfelt judgment"

After all this "tossing and turning," you should have a clearer idea. Gather all the observed "evidence" together and make a judgment on the similarity between these two articles.

Are they "twin brothers" (almost identical, possibly involving improper citation or imitation)?
Are they "fraternal twins" (similar themes and frameworks, but with different emphases and details)?
Are they "fellow disciples" (from the same school, with similar theories and methods, but different applications on specific issues)?
Or are they merely "strangers in the same outfit" (related themes, but with significant differences in thought, methods, and conclusions)?

Honestly, doing such comparisons can be quite exhausting at times, but it absolutely enhances your literature reading skills. You will start to pay attention to details, question the obvious, and better appreciate truly original thinking. Moreover, when you really "crack the case" and understand the true relationship between the two articles, that feeling is quite satisfying!

The most important thing is to be truthful, be honest with yourself, and say what you see. Similarity isn't necessarily a bad thing; the key is to see whether this similarity arises from the collision of ideas and shared concerns or from laziness in thinking or even academic misconduct. Compare more, think more, and your enthusiasm will naturally be ignited in this exploration process!

Loading...
Ownership of this post data is guaranteed by blockchain and smart contracts to the creator alone.