On 1/28/2003 Rachel wrote: >What the uncited author of the first passage might have been refering to is the >phenomenon where the first author(the one who wrote the paper and may have done > some or most of the actual research) and the last author (the one whose lab the >work was done in, also known as the one who writes the grants that funded >the research) get most of the credit while the middle authors(of which there are >frequently many), although technically an author on the paper, don't get much >notice. Thankyou Rachel, you always stick up for me, even when you don't realize it. But----I did mean that one source is plagiarism, several is research. It's an oversimplifacation, but I maintain its validity, maybe I should say within my own field. I get several journals every month with articles about eye conditions and diseases. Yes, the articles are footnoted properly, but, they are not new research. They are rehashes of the footnoted articles. This is acceptable 'research' in the medical field. These authors are considered 'published'. Were they to cite only one author, no matter how well footnoted, it would not be considered research, but plagiarism. I hope this clears up the confusion, I apologize, this little quip is often quoted among my peers, and I guess I did not make it's meaning clear enough. John D. Barbato, OD.