Does Russia need a fixed percentage of originality and the very originality of scientific papers: reflections of a lawyer

Belikova Ksenia Michailovna ORCID: 0000-0001-8068-1616 Doctor of Law Professor of the Department of Entrepreneurial and Corporate Law, Kutafin Moscow State Law University, Professor 125993, Russia, Moscow, Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya str., 9 BelikovaKsenia@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Earlier, we addressed in our work [1. p. 1-11] the issue of (not) conscientiousness of researchers and other persons involved in the implementation of scientific activities, its ethical principles, the costs of its implementation by these persons and the work of the "Anti-Plagiarism" system.In this article, we want to touch upon a number of new issues that have arisen before us after participating in the Anti-Plagiarism Webinar on January 24, 2023 on the topic "Borrowings in scientific publications.

Culture of citation" (lecturer, PhD, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Vocational Education Technologies of the Republican Institute of Vocational Education (RIPO); Official representative of the company "Antiplagiat" in Belarus for training Strelkova I.B., URL: https://www.antiplagiat.ru/training/24-01-2023 (accessed: 28.01.2023)).

After registering at the Antiplagiat system webinar on 01/24/2023 and listening to it, the author of this article received a Certificate and sent materials of the Antiplagiat system, including a Presentation file in the format.pdf with a title similar to the name of the Webinar (hereinafter referred to as the mailing file based on the results from the webinar on 01/24/2023). The author starts from its content in the arguments in this article, since the information provided during the Webinar raised questions that should be understood.

They are as follows:

1. Can "new knowledge" be "born" as a result of writing a dissertation that is 100% "quoting" the works of other authors?

2. Where is the line between conscientious self-citation, understood on slide 59 "Self-citation" of the mailing list file based on the results from the webinar on 01/24/2023, as "... the author's repeated use of his own texts from earlier works, to the extent justified by the purpose of citation, and with a reference to the source, issued in accordance with the established rules of citation."...and unfair self-citation, understood there as "... (self–plagiarism, self-plagiarism, recycling fraud) - the author's repeated use of his own texts from earlier works without reference to the source or to the extent not justified by the purpose of quoting." (fig. 1)Fig. 1. Self-citations (opinion of the author of the presentation and the "Anti-Plagiarism" system)

Source: Mailing list file based on the results from the webinar 24.01.2023 "Borrowings in scientific publications.

Culture of citation", author – I.B. Strelkova. Sl. 59. (transl. - the author of the article)

 3. Is it legal, as recommended by the representative of the Anti-Plagiarism system during the webinar:- using the criterion of "independent scientific work", combine the indicators of the originality of the text and self-citation to fix the share of the author's text, as shown and proposed on slide 78 "Self-citation in the dissertation" when checking the dissertation in the "Antiplagiat" system, in order to fix the share of the author's text, as shown and proposed on slide 78 "Self-citation in the dissertation.

Expert opinion" of the attached Presentation file from the webinar on 24.01.2023 (Fig. 2), and

Fig. 2. Self-citations in the dissertation (opinion of the author of the presentation and the "Anti-Plagiarism" system)Source: Mailing file based on the results from the webinar 24.01.2023 "Borrowings in scientific publications.

Culture of citation", author – I.B. Strelkova. Sl. 78. (transl. - the author of the article)

 - on the basis of such a combination of types of verification results, include in the text of the dissertation in the form of its paragraphs the graduate student's own individual scientific articles published by him during the preparation of the dissertation4. Dg e, in which legal act of Russia is the requirement to fix the percentage of originality established?

5. Is it legitimate/expedient to fix the percentage of the originality of the dissertation at the level of a local regulatory act (for example, at the level of the Rector's Order), linking the independence of the dissertation work to its originality, since slide 77 "Self-citation in the dissertation" of the attached Presentation file from the webinar 24.01.2023 says the following:

"- Volumetric criteria are not applicable

- "Too original" work should raise more questions than work with a large number of borrowings – all the results of the dissertation research should be published before the defense!

- Self-citation can be up to 100%." (Fig. 2A)

Fig. 2A. Self-citations in the dissertation (opinion of the author of the presentation and the "Anti-Plagiarism" system)Source: Mailing list file based on the results from the webinar 24.01.2023 "Borrowings in scientific publications.

Culture of citation", author – I.B. Strelkova. Sl. 77. (transl. the author of the article)

In other words, according to the representative of the "Anti-Plagiarism" system, there may not be any originality in the dissertation based on the results of the check in the "Anti-Plagiarism" system at all.6. Is the "originality" itself needed as a result of checking in the "Anti-Plagiarism" system?

What is "originality"?According to the Anti-Plagiarism system (https://www.antiplagiat.ru/about/documents (date of application: 27.01.2023) the legal basis for its operation and fixing the percentage of originality through which the "independence" of the dissertation work is determined are the following acts and documents:

1) About copyright protection:

 The Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part four) of 18.12.2006 N 230-FZ (with subsequent amendments and additions), Chapter 70.

• "Copyright" and Chapter 71 "Rights related to copyright";
• Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 13.06.1996 N 63-FZ (with subsequent amendments and additions), Article 146;
• The Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses of 30.12.2001 N 195-FZ (with subsequent amendments and additions), art. 7.12

2) On the verification of qualifying works for borrowing:Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia dated 10.11.2017 N 1093  

• "On approval of the Regulations on the Council for the defense of dissertations for the degree of Candidate of Sciences, for the degree of Doctor of Sciences" (Registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on 05.12.2017 N 49121), paragraph 10 ("In the application of the organization for permission to create a dissertation council on its basis ... provides information ... about ...the availability of a system for verifying the use of borrowed material without reference to the author and (or) the source of the borrowing, the results of scientific works carried out in co-authorship, without reference to co-authors ...", URL: https://www.antiplagiat.ru/documents/download/Regulation_of_Ministry_of_Education_and_Science_of_Russia_N1093_10.11.2017.pdf (accessed: 27.01.2023)),
• Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of 24.09.2013 N 842 "On the procedure for awarding academic degrees" (together with the "Regulations on awarding academic Degrees") (with subsequent amendments and additions), paragraphs 14, 20 g), 18 (Hereinafter – the Resolution on awarding academic degrees, URL: https://www.antiplagiat.ru/documents/download/Russian_Federation_State_resolution_N842_24.09.2013.rtf (accessed: 27.01.2023));
• Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation No. 636 dated 29.06.2015 (ed. dated 28.04.2016) "On approval of the Procedure for the state final certification of educational programs of higher education - bachelor's degree programs, specialty programs and master's degree programs" (Registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation No. 38132 on 22.07.2015), item 38 ("38. Texts of final qualifying works, except for texts of final qualifying works containing information constituting a state secret, are placed by the organization in the electronic library system of the organization and are checked for the amount of borrowing. The order of placement of texts of final qualifying works in the electronic library system of the organization, checking for the amount of borrowing, including meaningful, identifying unauthorized borrowings is established by the organization....", URL: https://www.antiplagiat.ru/documents/download/Regulation_of_Ministry_of_Education_and_Science_of_Russia_N636_29.06.2015.rtf (accessed: 27.01.2023);
• Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia dated 18.03.2016 N 227  "On approval of the Procedure for the state final certification of educational programs of higher education - training programs for scientific and pedagogical personnel in postgraduate (adjunct), residency programs, internship programs" (Registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on 11.04.2016 No. 41754), item 34 ("34. Texts of final qualifying works performed in writing, and scientific reports, with the exception of texts of final qualifying papers and scientific reports containing information constituting a state secret, are placed by the organization in the electronic library system of the organization and checked for the amount of borrowing. The order of placement of texts of final qualifying papers and scientific reports in the electronic library system of the organization, checking for the amount of borrowing, including meaningful, identifying unauthorized borrowings is established by the organization....", URL: https://www.antiplagiat.ru/documents/download/Regulation_of_Ministry_of_Education_and_Science_of_Russia_N227_18.03.2016.pdf (accessed: 27.01.2023));
• Comments in the "Questions and Answers" section on the WAC website, subsection "Unfair borrowings" (URL: https://www.antiplagiat.ru/vak.ed.gov.ru/77 (accessed: 27.01.2023));
• Recommendation of the Higher Attestation Commission dated 06/24/2021 No. 1-pl/5 "On the use of electronic systems to confirm the originality of dissertation research" (hereinafter referred to as the Recommendation of the Higher Attestation Commission on the use of electronic systems to verify originality, URL: https://www.antiplagiat.ru/documents/download/HAC_recommendations_on_the_use_of_electronic_systems.pdf (accessed: 27.01.2023)).

As well as Federal Law No. 127-FZ of August 23, 1996 "On Science and State Scientific and Technical Policy" (with amendments and additions) (NWRF of August 26, 1996 No. 35, Article 4137. URL: https://base .garant.ru/135919/?ysclid=ldegz5gclp991946635 (accessed: 01/27/2023) (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Science), from the provisions of Article 2 of which follows, for example, "Scientific (research) activity (hereinafter referred to as scientific activity) - activity aimed at obtaining and applying new knowledge, ...", and scientific and (or) a scientific and technical result is a product of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activity containing new knowledge or solutions and recorded on any information medium.

The "originality" of scientific results/texts, etc. is not mentioned.

According to the Regulations on awarding academic Degrees:Item 9. ... A dissertation for the degree of candidate of Sciences should be a scientific qualification work, which contains a solution to a scientific problem that is important for the development of the relevant branch of knowledge, or outlines new scientifically based technical, technological or other solutions and developments that are essential for the development of the country.

Clause 10. The dissertation must be written by the author independently, have internal unity, contain new scientific results and provisions put forward for public defense, and testify to the personal contribution of the author of the dissertation to science.

A dissertation having an applied nature should contain information on the practical use of the scientific results obtained by the author of the dissertation, and a dissertation having a theoretical nature should contain recommendations on the use of scientific conclusions.

Item 11. The main scientific results of the dissertation should be published in peer-reviewed scientific publications (hereinafter - peer-reviewed publications).

The "originality" of scientific results/texts, etc. is not mentioned.

Clause 14. In the dissertation, the candidate for the academic degree is obliged to refer to the author and (or) the source of borrowing materials or individual results.

When using in the dissertation the results of scientific works carried out by the applicant of the academic degree personally and (or) in co-authorship, the applicant of the academic degree is obliged to note this circumstance in the dissertation.

P. 20. The basis for refusal to accept a dissertation for defense is:

...d) the use of borrowed material in the dissertation without reference to the author and (or) the source of the borrowing, the results of scientific works performed by the applicant for a degree in co-authorship, without references to co-authors;

P. 67 ¹. Documents and materials confirming the existence of grounds for submitting an application for the deprivation of an academic degree specified in paragraph 66 ¹ of this Regulation must be attached to the application for the deprivation of an academic degree. At the same time, in the case of submitting an application for the deprivation of an academic degree on the grounds provided for in subparagraph "b" of paragraph 66 ¹ of this Regulation, the application for the deprivation of an academic degree must additionally be accompanied by:

a) copies of the dissertation pages containing fragments of text that, in the applicant's opinion, were borrowed without reference to the author and (or) the source of borrowing materials or individual results;

b) book and scientific periodicals or copies of the pages of these publications, other sources of publication (placement) of scientific information, which, in the applicant's opinion, contain borrowed materials or individual results used in the dissertation of the person in respect of whom the application for deprivation of an academic degree was submitted, without references to the author and (or) the source borrowings, indicating information about international standard book (ISBN) or serial (ISSN) numbers, publisher, publishing house, registration of the journal as a mass media.

In our opinion, the essence of these provisions is to protect the copyrights of the authors of texts that graduate students (doctoral students) use in their work and to emphasize the issue of the correct design of citations/references to such authors (therefore, a pdf file "citation_culture" was also sent out in the newsletter following the results of the Anti-Plagiarism Webinar on 24.01.2023.), and not in obtaining an "original" text that would pass "machine verification" through the fight "man and his brain against artificial intelligence/mathematical algorithm" (the "Anti-Plagiarism" system).Experience has shown (See: History of AI and human competitions: who is who.

June 1, 2018. URL: https://vc.ru/flood/39184-istoriya-sorevnovaniy-ii-i-cheloveka-kto-kogo ?ysclid=ldeiiu15d8181283561 (date of application: 27.01.2023)) that in such a fight a person inevitably loses:- already in the early 2000s, computers consistently won against world champions, and chess became the first game in which people lost to computers;

- In 2015, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, president of Y Combinator, founded OpenAI to create an open and friendly artificial intelligence;

- in 2017, as part of an experiment, the development team decided to train their neural network in Dota 2, a game in which two teams of five people fight each other using many combinations of more than a hundred heroes. Each of them has their own set of skills, and players can collect items to strengthen the character. This is the largest game in modern esports.

In two weeks, the neural network was able to train and defeat several of the best players in the world in one-on-one mode, and now its creators are preparing to release a version for the main mode, five by five;

- in 2017, the algorithm for playing the game go - AlphaGo fought with Ke Jie, the first go player in the world ranking, and won three matches out of three, and in October Google DeepMind released a version that was more powerful than Master. AlphaGo Zero self-taught without human involvement at all, just endlessly playing with itself. After 21 days, he reached the Master level, and after 40 he was already better than all previous versions. So go became the second game in which people can no longer win;

- in 2017, after more than 10 years of attempts and failures, two teams independently developed their own AI models capable of beating poker professionals – a psychological game built on emotions, non-verbal communication, the ability to bluff and recognize a bluff.

The University of Alberta presented DeepStack, a neural network with an artificial form of intuition, and researchers from the already familiar Carnegie Mellon University showed Libratus AI. In 20 days, the neural network conducted 120 thousand games against professionals who gathered every evening to discuss possible loopholes and flaws in Libratus. Every game day, the neural network was also analyzed, improving on its results.

In less than a month Libratus won $1.7 million (virtual so far) from professionals, and one of the participants of the experiment described his impressions as follows: "It's like playing with someone who sees all your cards. I'm not accusing the neural network of unfair play, it's just that it's really that good.";

- at the beginning of 2018, algorithms from Alibaba and Microsoft surpassed a person in the test for reading comprehension;

- in March 2018, a small robot assembled a Rubik's cube in 0.38 seconds. The record among people is 4.69 seconds. And so on (See: The history of AI and human competitions: who is who. June 1, 2018. URL: https://vc.ru/flood/39184-istoriya-sorevnovaniy-ii-i-cheloveka-kto-kogo ?ysclid=ldeiiu15d8181283561 (accessed: 27.01.2023)).

We can no longer and will not be able to compete with artificial intelligence (a computer algorithm, hereinafter referred to as AI) without special improvements to ourselves (a connector in the head for connecting to a computer or a chip for storing information instead of our own memory installed in the head, which were respectively the characters of the famous movie "The Matrix" (1999, The Matrix, USA, Australia. URL: https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/301 / (accessed: 10/21/2022)) Neo and the eponymous hero of the movie "Johnny Mnemonic" (1995, Johnny Mnemonic, Canada, USA. URL: https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/3800 / (accessed: 10/21/2022)). This is the way to create semi-cybernetic organisms that can be part of a computer system, learn faster than a human, and so on.

But such competitions with AI are not necessary.

The "Anti-Plagiarism" system or similar domestic and foreign systems (e.g., the Australian product - the "Turnitin" system (https://www.turnitin.com /), etc.) should be the assistants of the author – graduate student, undergraduate, scientist, and not the enemies that the graduate student, graduate student, scientist are trying to "bypass". How we propose to do this will become clear from the text below.

The fact that a person is not able to compete with AI is partly recognized by the Recommendation of the Higher Attestation Commission on the use of electronic systems to verify originality, taking an intermediate position - both "yes" and "no" - on the issue of originality, saying:Item 3. "... the solutions proposed by the author (graduate student – author) should be reasoned and should be evaluated in comparison with other known solutions.", at the same time:

Item 1. "The heads of scientific organizations, organizations of higher and additional education, under which dissertation councils have been established, should (?) independently determine the electronic systems used to confirm the originality of dissertation research."

Thus, the Higher Attestation Commission, with its Recommendation on the use of electronic systems to verify originality, arbitrarily, contrary to the above normative acts, introduces not only into scientific circulation, but also into the practice of scientific and other organizations the term "originality", not fixed in other documents of the Russian Federation, trying at the same time to remain within the legal framework of its paragraph 3, quoted above. And this is the answer to the 4th question of the questions we have asked.

It should be noted that according to reports in the open press 10 years ago, the statement of the Ministry of Education and Science in response to the heated discussion in the media, scientific and university circles about "fake" dissertations and methods of combating this is as follows: ""The system for detecting illegal borrowings (the so-called Anti-Plagiarism program) has nothing to do with either the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia or the Higher Attestation Commission."". Also, "In the information message, which was officially sent out by the press service of Dmitry Livanov's department, it is said that the mentioned computer system "was developed on an initiative basis; it did not pass any certification or accreditation under the Ministry or the Higher Attestation Commission. The use of such programs is carried out by citizens or organizations independently, the issue of payment for use is established by the copyright holders - private individuals"." (See, for example: Emelianenkov A. VAK and the Ministry of Education and Science have disowned the "Anti-Plagiarism" system. 10.04.2013. URL: https://rg.ru/2013/04/10/antiplagiat-site.html (accessed: 28.01.2023))

Why did the support from the Higher Attestation Commission appear in 2021?

Trying to answer the 2nd of the above questions, the same Recommendation of the Higher Attestation Commission on the use of electronic systems to verify originality in paragraph 2 says: "2. Determining the proportion of the dissertation text perceived by the electronic system as borrowing and (or) quoting, if necessary, taking into account the comparison of the text of the author of the dissertation with the texts of his previously published works (which cannot be considered illegal borrowing), guided by the regulatory provisions of copyright law." // Ibid.That is, if not illegal borrowing, then legitimate borrowing (?), that is, legitimate self-citation (?), for example?

In a sense, a similar position is reflected in the "Methodological recommendations for the expert assessment of the originality of dissertation texts in the Anti-Plagiarism system" / O. S. Belenkaya, I. B. Strelkova, O. A. Filippova, Yu. V. Chekhov. — St. Petersburg : Lan, 2021. - 92 p. : ill. — Text : direct. — p. 16: "Is self–citation permissible? As noted above, the text of the dissertation will almost always have intersections with previously published or published scientific works of the applicant (abstracts at conferences, articles, monographs, lectures for students, etc.). According to the authors, conscientious self-citation in the dissertation is permissible in any volume, without any restrictions. If the dissertation council still adheres to quantitative assessments, then the percentage of self-citation can be summed up with the percentage of originality." (the idea coincides with the idea on slides 77 and 78 of the Presentation from the webinar 24.01.2023, Fig. 2 and 2A).

It seems that this idea is rooted in the fact that the use of their own previously published texts does not violate copyright. At the same time, there is an opinion that "In the text of the dissertation work, the volume of quotations from the author's own texts should be in a reasonable proportion to the total volume of work. The content of the texts referred to by the author, it is desirable to state the thesis, briefly, reflecting only the meaning of the publication.", "According to the existing norms of scientific ethics, the share of self-citation in one work should not exceed 25%." (See, for example: Self-citation and self-plagiarism in scientific articles. URL: https://sibac.info/blog/samocitirovanie-i-samoplagiat-v-nauchnyh-statyah?ysclid=ldfv19833h597683758#6-v-dissertacii (accessed: 01/28/2023)).

Giving our own answers to question 1, we believe that new knowledge can be born as a result of citations of already published works, since new knowledge is the result of insight, inspiration, and not senseless movement from place to place of the words of a certain text, and this new knowledge can be stated in your own words, but published in some scientific publication probably won't work from the fact that:

- requirements for publications are limited to the "originality" of the text submitted to the editorial office (for more details, see below),

- the "dissertation" itself, based on the results of such a citation, will not meet the requirement of paragraph 10 of the "Regulations on awarding academic Degrees" that "The dissertation must be written by the author independently, ..." - it will only be a compilation, a review of what was written earlier by other authors.

But what about the first principle of dialectics - the transition of quantity into quality? Deny it?

Answering question 2, there are two more questions to answer: 1) what is the purpose of citation in general and self-citation, in particular (slide 7 of the Presentation from the webinar on 01/24/2023 shows the types (forms) of citation, such as "• the quote is enclosed in quotation marks; • coincidence with the collections "Garant", "ADILET"; • template phrases • bibliography" (earlier (before the introduction the type of verification result in the "Anti–Plagiarism" system is "Coincidences" instead of "Borrowing") the "Bibliography" section of any work in most cases was identified by the "Anti-Plagiarism" system as "Borrowing")), but the purpose of the citation was not disclosed, and the "Self-citation" itself is named as "... fragments (italics - author), coinciding or almost coinciding with the text of the source, the author or co-author of which is the author of the document being checked.") (Fig. 3)

Fig. 3. The results of the check displayed in the interface of the Anti-Plagiarism systemSource: Mailing list file based on the results from the webinar 24.01.2023 "Borrowings in scientific publications.

Culture of citation", author – I.B. Strelkova. Sl. 7. (transl. the author of the article)

and 2) what is a dissertation (PhD/doctoral), as a scientific work, and why citation in the form of self-citation (not) may be permissible in it.So, we believe that the first and most important purpose of quoting is to cite in your work the opinions of authors who have considered the topic (question) you are studying in order to show the degree of research of the studied (considered, analyzed) issue and the range of available opinions with which you agree/disagree, the criticism of which will allow you to reasonably express your opinion about the issue under study.

Similarly, there is a need to self-cite their own works when the work being done is their continuation.

After all, it is impossible to create a new one without relying on what was done earlier - before you (even if it is an invention).

Therefore, the authors, on the one hand, rely on their own previous works, without repeating them (for example, when performing work on grants covering the activities of an integration association (EurAsEC, BRICS, etc.) from various sides, on the other hand, the research is always based on the work of other scientists (Russian and foreign).

Is there a need to rely on your articles in scientific research, completely repeating them? We believe there are such cases. This is a monograph on a dissertation, since the readership of the dissertation and monographs on it are different. In the first case, this is the scientific community, or rather a narrow circle of specialists (supervisor, reviewers at the department, official opponents and the leading organization, persons who provided feedback on the abstract of the dissertation, members of the dissertation council in which the defense was conducted, and, by and large, everything. In the second case, if the monograph is offered for sale in paper or electronic form, the reader can be, in fact, any interested person (an entrepreneur, a judge, another graduate student, a housewife with a higher education who previously wrote a term paper or thesis on similar topics, etc.). The dissertation itself, candidate's, for example, understood according to "The Regulation on awarding academic degrees" as "... a scientific qualification work that contains a solution to a scientific problem that is important for the development of the relevant branch of knowledge, or sets out new scientifically based technical, technological or other solutions and developments that are essential for the development of the country.", may contain articles by a graduate student, previously published in peer-reviewed scientific publications in which, according to clause 11 of the "Regulations on awarding academic Degrees", the main scientific results of the dissertation should be published precisely for the reason indicated above, the differences in the readership of the dissertation and scientific articles in which the main scientific results of the dissertation are reflected and published.

And this will be the case until there is a clear distinction between journals that are intended exclusively for the publication of the main scientific results of dissertations, and those that are read by practitioners of various kinds (judges, lawyers, lawyers and economists of organizations, etc.). In our opinion, monographs also belong to this category, in which the results of work on grants that have previously been tested in scientific articles are accumulated - because of the passage of testing by publishing the results (articles are read by reviewers, then by a wide readership, etc. – who can, if necessary, correct the views of the author or start a scientific discussion on the model of those conducted in scientific periodicals (see, for example, the discussion on the subject, method and principles of civil and business law, expanded on the pages of issues No. 1-2022 - No. 3-2023 of the Journal "Modern Law").

Answering the third, fourth and fifth questions, it is necessary to ask a number of other questions: firstly, what task does fixing the percentage of originality solve, secondly, how is this issue solved abroad, is the percentage of originality fixed there, thirdly, how to develop an AI (computer algorithm) that will not it is primitive to capture a sequence of letters, words, phrases, generating, for example, recommendations from the developers of the Australian system that works like this: "Question: My report on originality suggests that I used the work of other students. It's not like that, what can I do? Answer: Apply the filter ‘exclude matches of less than 5 words’ (Apply the filter for ‘exclude matches less than 5 words’.). Coincidences with other students are found in the legal literature because Australian law publishers do not allow access to Turnitin. In addition, the same legal authorities constantly appear when the same point of the law is discussed (usually the point specified in the assignments). Save your own research notes to prove that you have accessed these sources and used them correctly. You may want to use headers or footers indicating the dates when you worked on your assignment, or send drafts by email to yourself as a backup version." (See: Turnitin: Faculty guidelines - Law (Monash University, Australia). URL: https://guides.lib.monash.edu/turnitin/faculty-guidelines (accessed: 27.01.2023).But the "Anti-Plagiarism" system does not allow a domestic scientist or student to do this either.

In any case, a student, a scientist, should "spin" both in Australia and in Russia – save notes, make notes / marks, etc., spending a limited resource on this and such a fleeting and brief human life in attempts to compete with AI.

Let's start with the third question. To date, a lot of information has accumulated from MRI studies: the activity of departments and systems in response to various stimuli, data on the brain activity of patients with schizophrenia, dementia and other diseases, the functioning of the brain in different types of activities and conditions, for example, meditation. All this data - Big Data - can be processed to understand how a person thinks. Such projects have been implemented by scientists at various universities around the world, including Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh (USA), Kyoto University (Japan), etc. In general, the scientists collected various data from MRI studies and developed a deep learning algorithm for the neural network to analyze them in order for the neural network to then interpret brain signals and build a chain of its activities during the creation of thoughts. So the neural network has learned to predict what a person is thinking about, according to the MRI readings and vice versa - by receiving data on human action, the neural network creates an MRI snapshot. The accuracy of prediction among Americans was 87%. At the University of California, San Francisco (USA), scientists have developed a neuroimplant and software that translate human brain activity into words and sentences. Working on the technology of translating impulses read from the brain, transmitted to a special chip, and from it via the usual USB-C protocol to any device – computer, phone, etc., to control them with the "power of thought", for example, sick people. And so on (See, for example: Risks to. Is mind reading real and how it can change our lives. September 30, 2019. URL: https://rb.ru/longread/mind-reading /?ysclid=ldfx91pzdw488895966 (accessed: 28.01.2023)). By analogy, the technology of "recognition" of new knowledge, solving a scientific problem, identifying meanings, etc. from the texts of scientific papers uploaded to the system is a matter of the near future.

But maybe the problem is wider and scarier? And humanity or the inhabitants of a single country (countries) are not able to create new knowledge /solve scientific problems, etc., and instead, to mask the deplorable situation of science and brains in the broadest sense of the word, the "Anti-Plagiarism" system and its analogues in its current form in Russia have been introduced, forcing absolutely everyone from the student do doctors of sciences rearrange letters, words and phrases, rephrase, write expositions, fix notes, etc., in search of originality, instead of meaningfully forging new knowledge, solving scientific problems, etc.?

But no. Speaking, for example, about our country, we can give examples of the practical implementation of scientific information in such new intellectual property objects as cryptographic systems, electronic warfare systems, methods of growing new body parts, organs, etc. (See, for example: Polonsky I. What electronic warfare systems can do: from facts to exaggeration of possibilities. February 18, 2020. URL: https://topwar.ru/168025-chto-mogut-sistemy-rjeb-ot-faktov-do-preuvelichenija-vozmozhnostej.html (date of application: 29.01.2023); Dobryukha A. Russian scientists have grown new skin right on the site of severe wounds. URL: https://www.kp.ru/daily/27065/4134259 / (date of application: 29.01.2023), etc.). Do the military check their scientific work in the "Anti-Plagiarism" system? Did the Russian mathematician G.Ya. Perelman, who proved the Poincare hypothesis, check his proof in the Anti-Plagiarism system before submitting it to the Clay Mathematical Institute, which awards the Millennium Prize? Unlikely. And if I had, I probably wouldn't have proved anything.

Again, the identification of meanings, new knowledge, solutions to scientific problems, etc. from the texts of scientific papers uploaded to the system is a matter of the near future. And it is better now, when the country needs new knowledge for the future, to put before scientists the question of changing the paradigm of such a program from formal tracking of "originality" - to identifying from the texts of scientific papers uploaded to the system, meanings, new knowledge, solutions to scientific problems, etc.

But we have a negative experience: in the Soviet Union they did not see or did not have the means to develop the idea of Academician V.M. Glushkov, who in the mid-1960s proposed a project of a Nationwide automated system for collecting and processing information for accounting, planning and management of the national Economy (OGAS) (See, for example: Automated V.M. Glushkov is an ideologist and one of the creators of the automated control system industry in the USSR. URL: https://glushkov.su/ogas ?ysclid=ldbam6a181132410858 (accessed: 01/24/2023)). This project was, in fact, the world's first holistic project of a digital state. Ignoring it caused the lack of feedback between the needs of enterprises (in equipment, products, etc.) and the planned supplies for them, and, ultimately, the collapse of the economic (and then ideological) system of the East in the face of the USSR. Now the reluctance to change the paradigm of the Anti-Plagiarism system will cost even more.

As for the second question, systems abroad that track plagiarism and documents of law faculties (e.g., Swinburne University (Australia), which uses the Turnitin verification system) and others about checks in such a system are built differently than the "Anti-Plagiarism" system and our documents of this kind.

In the center of both the system and the documents put such a verification result as "Coincidence" / "Similarity" (Fig. 4) (it has only recently been introduced into the interface of the "Anti-Plagiarism" system, slide 7 of the Presentation 24.01.2023, see Fig. 3 above), and in order to avoid it, they give a recommendation: "You must cite your sources to ensure academic integrity and avoid plagiarism" ("You must site your sources to ensure academic integrity and avoid plagiarism" (Fig. 5)).

Fig. 4. The result of the "Coincidence"/ "Similarity" check is central in the Turnitin system (on the example of its use at Swinburne University (Australia))Source: An online lesson on how to work with the Originality Report Turnitin from specialists of Swinburne University (Australia).

URL: https://youtu.be/19rUg0Mf3rQ (accessed: 28.01.2023)

Fig. 4A. ContinuedSource: Ibid.

Fig. 5. Recommendations from an online lesson on how to work with the Originality Report Turnitin from specialists of Swinburne University (Australia). URL: https://youtu.be/19rUg0Mf3rQ (accessed: 28.01.2023)Source: Ibid.

Therefore, even cases of plagiarism abroad are described by such terminology, for example: "The Minister for Family Affairs of Germany Francisca Giffey was suspected of incorrectly quoting sources when writing a dissertation that she defended in 2009, the German publication Spiegel reports." (See, for example: Plagiarism was found in the dissertation of the German minister. February 8, 2019. URL: https://news.rambler.ru/other/41694348-v-dissertatsii-nemetskogo-ministra-nashli-plagiat /?ysclid=ldg0ssyzv2897399670 (accessed: 28.01.2023))Why should we avoid plagiarism and quote our sources?

Because the accusation of plagiarism is a court and the need to pay money to compensate the damage caused by plagiarism to the author. In Russia, according to paragraph 1 of Article 146 of the Criminal Code, "Attribution of authorship (plagiarism), if this act caused major damage to the author or another copyright holder, is punishable by a fine of up to two hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to eighteen months, or compulsory work for a period of one hundred eighty to two hundred and forty hours, or arrest for a period of three to six months."

In our previous work [1. pp. 1-11] we wrote why it is difficult to do this with us. Abroad, various regulators are used, forcing scientific honesty, determined, probably, by cultural characteristics. On the American continent, for example, in the USA, on the basis of §8 art. I of the Constitution, according to which "the Congress should have powers... to promote the progress of science and useful arts by granting authors and inventors for a limited time the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" and §106 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C.) (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Law), which grants the copyright owner a set of exclusive rights (confers a bundle of exclusive rights to the owner of the copyright), including the rights to publish, copy and distribute the author's work (rights — to publish, copy, and distribute the author's work), which belong to the author the original work from the moment of its creation (these are vest in the author of an original work from the time of its creation) (Quoted by: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 US 539, Supreme Court 1985. URL: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/Harper-Row.html (accessed: 30.01.2023), see also at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506#a_1_A (date of application: 31.01.2023)) the provisions on civil liability for copyright infringement are based on the idea of "strict" (innocent) liability (strict liability) (approaches to imposing strict liability in the USA, see, for example, in the work: Rumyantsev M.B. Legal regulation of relations from causing harm by a source of increased danger in the Russian Federation and the USA : dissertation ... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.03 / Rumyantsev Mikhail Borisovich; [Place of defense: Russian University of Friendship of Peoples]. - Moscow, 2013. - 222 p.), the norms on criminal liability are concentrated in sections 17 and 18 of the Code of the United States of America (17 U.S.C. §506(1)(a) and 18 U.S.C. §2319). According to 17 U.S.C. §506(1)(a) "anyone who violates copyright intentionally (willfully) and for commercial advantage (commercial advantage or) or personal financial gain (private financial gain)" (we believe the latter case applies to anyone – from a student to a doctor of sciences – resorting consciously to the unfair practice of preparing scientific papers, since earlier in our work [1. p. 1-11] we drew attention to the fact that "the actions of plagiarists are directly related to their vision of the issue of the goals of creating a scientific work: personal enrichment and its subsequent self-citation and "cross" (mutual) citation by a circle of "close friends of such the "author" for raising their Hirsch indices, etc."), is subject to punishment under 18 U.S.C. §2319. §2319, in turn, provides that the punishment specified in subsection (b) §2319 18 U.S.C. imposed for violation of 17 U.S.C. §506(1)(a) is additional to any other provisions of Section 17 U.S.C. or any other law and is as follows: "(b) any person who has committed an offense under Section 17, Section 506(a)(1)(A)—

(1) shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine in the amount specified in this section, or both, if the crime consists in reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, at least 10 copies or phonograms, 1 or more copyrighted works, the total retail value of which is more than $ 2,500;(2) is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine in the amount specified in this section, or both, if the offense is a serious offense and is the second or subsequent offense in accordance with subsection (a); and

(3) shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year or a fine in the amount specified in this section, or both in any other case." (See: 18 U.S. Code § 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright.URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319 (accessed: 01/31/2023))

It means the following motivated distinction between a 5-year and a one-year prison sentence: according to paragraph (1) above, the crime belongs to the category of felony (felony), for which the corresponding punishment (felony penalties) follows, if there is a quantitative compliance with the specified in the article, whereas if the defendant does not meet the numerical and monetary thresholds or if the defendant is involved in the violation of other rights granted to the copyright owner, including the right to prepare derivative works or the right to publicly perform a copyrighted work, according to paragraph (3) above, the crime belongs to the category of misdemeanors (misdemeanor) and then the punishment for it is also appropriate – misdemeanor penalty.

At the same time, according to the 1992 amendment to paragraph 2319, it was allowed to apply sanctions at the level of a criminal offense for violations concerning all types of copyrighted works, including computer software and other works written, stored or transmitted in digital format, if other elements of the law are observed (1847. Criminal copyright infringement - 17 U.S.C. 506(A) and 18 U.S.C. 2319 / This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. Updated January 17, 2020. URL: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1847-criminal-copyright-infringement-17-usc-506a-and-18-usc-2319 (accessed: 30.01.2023)).

According to paragraph 3 of this paragraph, "(3) the term "financial gain" is understood in the meaning set out in paragraph 101 of section 17" (Ibid.), which states that the term "financial gain" includes receiving or expecting to receive something of value, including receiving other copyrighted works (See: 17 U.S. Code § 101 – Definitions. URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 (accessed: 31.01.2023)). Thus, it is noted (Unicheck by Turnitin. Recent Findings on Plagiarism in Education. August 11, 2015. URL: https://unicheck.com/blog/plagiarism-stats-in-education (date of appeal: 30.01.2023)), for example, that the value of plagiarism for students of American universities (both girls and boys, whereas a study by Stanford University showed that thirty years ago, boys admitted to significantly greater academic dishonesty than girls) is that that they are deceiving their future employers by not giving them an accurate picture of their abilities, because their grades are skewed towards better (high) ones, since the university has turned into a ruthless enterprise, and students feel that they should do everything possible to succeed, and plagiarism seems to be the optimal choice.

Thus, in order to be charged with violating §506(1)(a) 17 U.S.C, four main elements must be present - the government must demonstrate that: 1) a valid copyright (a valid copyright), (2) was violated by the defendant, (3) intentionally (willfully) and (4) for commercial gain or personal financial gain. An attempt to commit such a crime is prohibited in the same way as a completed crime.

In this regard, it should be noted that, of course, in the United States, as in other common law countries, judicial practice and a system of precedents give life to any prescriptions of the law. Therefore, this issue has received justification in a number of cases considered in the courts. And here we can also find a partial answer to the sixth question. So, in the 1985 Harper case & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (471 US 539, Supreme Court 1985. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/539 / (date of appeal: 29.01.2023)), considered by the U.S. Supreme Court judge, referring to the case of 1936 Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. (81 F. 2d 49, 56 (CA2), cert. denied, 298 U.S. 669 (1936). Cit. according to: Ibid.) noted that "no plagiarist can justify his mistake (wrong action - the wrong) by showing part of his work that he did not pirate (showing how much of his work he did not pirate)". "Conversely, the fact that a significant part of the copyright infringing work was copied verbatim testifies to the qualitative value of the copied material for both the author and the plagiarist, who seeks to benefit from the presentation outside (seeks to profit from marketing) of someone else's copyrighted expression.". At the same time, the opinion is that "The protection of literary form should prohibit something more than just verbatim appropriation of essential parts of the author's work. Otherwise, the plagiarist could have avoided the violation by making insignificant changes." was reflected in the 1930 case Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. (45 F. 2d 119, 121 (CA2 1930). Cit. by: Ibid.) The same thing was written and told at the lecture "The Twelfth Annual Donald C. Brace Memorial Lecture" in 1982 by Robert A. Gorman [2. P. 560-593], showing the depravity of other reasoning and the connection of the concepts of "too literal and substantial copying and paraphrasing... language" ("too literal and substantial copying and paraphrasing of . . . language"). Whereas it is this principle - the protection of sequences of letters, words and expressions regardless of their meaning and the search for their originality and pushing them to paraphrase instead of verbatim legitimate citations – that is the main one in the work of the Anti-Plagiarism system.

At the same time, the opinion that "... a step beyond the narrow and clear prohibition on mass copying is a risky venture and a step into the unknown (a venture on some unknown terrain)" was also reflected in court decisions in the case of 1977.Wainwright Securities Inc. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp. (558 F. 2d 91 (CA2 1977). Cit. by: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises...) and in the case of 1980 Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (Inc., 618 F. 2d 972, 974 (CA2 1980). Cit. according to: Ibid.), based on the ideas of an earlier doctrine, as, for example, in the work of R. M. Perkins (Rollin M. Perkins) "Criminal Law" of 1969 [3. P. 234], where it was noted that the provisions on the assignment of criminal liability for copyright violations cause concern in the light of the justification of criminal sanctions in order not to cause significant harm to individuals or the national policy of the United States, since in many cases what is considered a criminal encroachment or "theft" from the standpoint of traditional criminal law, within the framework of criminal liability for copyright infringement, cannot be considered as harm caused to the copyright holder and differs from the standard concepts of theft, since the violator did not take and he did not take any personal property of other people with him.

On the one hand, we consider such reasoning obsolete in the digital age, on the other, such logic of reasoning is generally characteristic of Americans, and such reasoning is found, for example, on the pages of the story of the American science fiction writer Clifford Simak (Clifford Simak) "Death in the House" (URL: https://sharlib.com/read_413330-1 ?ysclid=ldk1nhosqr254765174 (accessed: 01/31/2023)), in which farmer Mose Abrams found an alien in the forest, decided to help him, but the alien died because Mose did not know how to help him. Then, deciding that he "should take care of the funeral," he first visited a funeral home to buy a plot for the alien's burial, but was refused, "In order for me to take up the funeral arrangements, I need a person. By the way, do not try to bury him in the cemetery, it's illegal.", then the pastor: "I do not know what kind of creature this is," he added [Mose Abrams - auth.]. "It seems to me that no one knows this. But it has passed away and it needs to be buried honorably, and I can't do anything about it. I can't bury him in the cemetery, and I'll probably have to find a place for him on the farm. So I'm wondering if you would like to come and say a few words over the grave." The pastor also refused: "I'm very sorry, Mose," he finally said. - I think it's impossible. I am far from sure that the church will approve of such an act." "After returning to the farm, he [Molze Abrams – auth.] took a pickaxe and a shovel, went out into the garden and dug a grave there in the corner.", "... carefully wrapped the corpse in a tablecloth. He took it out into the garden and lowered it into the pit. Grave grave solemnly standing in the heads, he uttered a few words befitting the occasion and covered the grave with earth.", then decided to plow the plot so that later he would not be disturbed by the search for the alien. "And just when he was finishing plowing, a car pulled up and Sheriff Doyley got out of it. ...He immediately got down to business.

"I heard," he said, "that you found something in the woods.

"So it is," Mose agreed.

- They say that this creature died in your house.

"Sheriff, you heard right.

"Mose, I'd like to see him."

- It won't work. I buried him. And I won't tell you where.

"Mose," the sheriff said, "I don't want to cause you any trouble, but you broke the law. You can't pick up people in the forest and bury them without anything when they suddenly decide to die in your house.

"Have you talked to Doc Benson?"The sheriff nodded.

"He said he'd never seen anything like it before. That it wasn't a person."Well, then," Mose said, "it seems to me that you have nothing to do here.

If it was not a person, then no crime against the person has been committed. And if the creature did not belong to anyone, there is no crime against property. After all, no one has claimed a swap right to him yet, right?The sheriff scratched his chin.

- Nobody.

Perhaps this is true. And where did you study the laws?- I have never studied any laws.

I've never studied anything at all. I'm just thinking straight."Doc was saying something about university scientists-like they might want to take a look at him.

"Tell you what, Sheriff," Mose said. "This creature came here from somewhere and died. I don't know where it came from or what it was, and I don't want to know. For me, it was just a living being who really needed help. Alive, he had his dignity, and when he died, he demanded some kind of respect for himself. When all of you refused to bury him properly, I did everything in my power myself. I have nothing more to say.

"All right, Mose," the sheriff said, "have it your way.

He turned and stalked back to the car. Standing beside old Bess harnessed to the plow, Mose watched him go. Ignoring the rules, the sheriff drove the car at high speed, and it looked like he was seriously angry." (URL: https://sharlib.com/read_413330-1 ?ysclid=ldk1nhosqr254765174 (accessed: 31.01.2023))

However, the idea of protecting non-verbatim text still wins in the minds.This is again the answer to the sixth question. So, "Personality always contains something unique. She expresses her uniqueness even in her handwriting, and in a very modest work of creativity (a very modest grade of art) there is something irreducible with nothing else, inherent in only one person. This is something that a person can protect by copyright, unless there is a restriction in the words of the law." - Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. spoke in 1903 in the decision in the case of Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. (188 U.S. 239, 250 (1903). Cit. according to: [4. P. 7]) But when the "law" interferes with its restrictions, is it not reasonable to cancel its restrictions? Further. "The border... it lies somewhere between the author's idea and the exact form in which he wrote it down. ...The protection extends to the "ornament, drawing" of the work (pattern' of the work)," says Z. In the 1945 article "Reflections on Copyright" in the journal Columbia Law Revie [5. P. 503-529; 13. C. 45-61]. "It is the special selection and arrangement of ideas, as well as a certain specificity in the form of their expression, that guarantee protection," M. Nimmer notes in the work "Copyright" of 1984 [6. P. 1-73-1-74] In D. Nimmer's work "Copyright in the Scrolls of the Dead Sea. Authorship and originality" 2001 ^[4] the issues included in the title are investigated in detail. So, for example, speaking about the amount of originality (Quantum of Originality is used in everyday life to describe something insignificant, small, for example, it is used in this meaning in the movie Quantum of Mercy (English Quantum of Solace, UK, USA, 2008) - the twenty-second film from the EON film series Productions about the English agent James Bond, the hero of Ian Fleming's novels. URL: https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/258475/?ysclid=ldlc21wq1k633060831 (accessed: 01.02.2023)) the author asks the question "What can be a greater proof of originality than exclusivity (distinctiveness)...contribution? (What greater proof of originality could there be than the distinctiveness of … contribution?) [4. P. 98]. "It has been repeatedly stated," this author notes on page 14 of his work under consideration, "that the threshold for copyright protection is low. (...the threshold for copyright protection is low)", referring to the 1991 case Feist Public'ns Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. (499 U.S. 340, 362 (1991). Cit. by: [4. P. 14]). The definition of distinctive ability is helped by the concept of "authorship" of a work (about it, as well as again about originality on the example of the US Copyright Act of 1976, it will be said below): "... the lesson is that the US copyright law uses the concept of authorship, which is surprisingly broad, although not completely unlimited. Its roots lie not in theory, but in an uncritical study of whether the work in question owes its origin to the alleged author" [4. P. 13]. Thus, here we come back to the question of the need only for the correct citation of the sources used (the link "quote-list of sources used / "quote- reference list"). Because according to the Court's approach, "The author ... is "the one to whom something owes its origin; the compiler; the creator; the one who creates a scientific or literary work." (An author ... is "he to whom anything ows its origin; originator; maker; one who completes a work of science or literature.”). "At the same time, of course," D. Nimmer notes, "it is necessary to keep in mind the change in the concept of the concept of "authors" who create works that the Constitution considers as the promotion of "science". It remains to be noted that, in contrast to its meaning in 1789, “science” today it does not refer to literature and the like, but rather to the field of inventions, which is regulated by patent law. Thus, the terminology underlying the copyright doctrine itself has changed over the past two centuries." [4. P. 13.] one certainly cannot disagree with this. This is the key to understanding the current problem with the Anti-Plagiarism system, and at the same time to solving it.

The diametric opposite of the considered approach is the approach of Egypt (the information is gleaned from a conversation with A.G. Kharekhanov, a doctor of theology who completed his studies and defended his dissertation at the theological institution of the Republic of Egypt – Al-Azhar University, associate professor of the MRO VDO RIU. Kunta-Hadji (Chechen Republic)), and probably it can be extended to other countries like the Arab East and other Muslim countries and regions, because it is also practiced in the regions of the Russian Federation (Chechen Republic, Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, etc.), for example (Institute of Public Censure in Balkaria. URL: https://youtu.be/p0KE25yYgWw (date of appeal: 01.02.2023)), which finds expression in an act of public censure (Public censure as a form of punishment. URL: https://youtu.be/Jco-FQ8eEvc (date of appeal: 01.02.2023)) for plagiarism of scientific papers, which, as noted above, has lost its force in the USA, for example.It is worth noting that the author of this work in 2005, during the study of the Arabic language at the Faculty of Philology of the University of Helwan (Egypt), with her classmates attended, along with her studies, the public defense of her PhD thesis in philology.

The defense was conducted in a huge room by the standards of any domestic premises for similar purposes, which was completely occupied by friends, acquaintances, close and distant relatives of the defender. During his defense, they danced in large groups, standing on their mets, cheered him with shouts, smiled, rejoiced, everything in general resembled the behavior of fans at some sports competition, for example, the Football World Cup or the Figure Skating Olympics. Those present expressed approval, joy and pride for what was happening and personally for the defender. The defense was a moment of spiritual uplift, an act of awareness that after it the defender will certainly acquire a very high status and respect in society, which his relatives are proud of already during the defense. From this point of view, for everyone present to find out later that the work protected by their friend, son, brother, or part of it was an act of plagiarism, will be a huge blow and an irreparable breach in respect for such a person, his status and, of course, the future.

Procedurally , this type of punishment is applied when the fact of plagiarism is revealed along with others: 1) the work is canceled, 2) an administrative fine is imposed, 3) an appropriate commission is assembled and an act of public censure takes place. There is no criminal liability.

It is worth noting, in this regard, that researchers of plagiarism in "Western" and "eastern" societies note [7. P. 54-67; 8; 9. P. 1-26] that, although there is an initial difference in the societies themselves and the ways of thinking generated by them, but the motives for which they resort to plagiarism, they are partly similar with a number of fundamental differences. Thus, Western societies are designated by researchers as societies of an individualistic type (an individualistic type of society), generating "Western thinking as 'low context' thinking" (Western thinking as 'low context' thinking), as ".. a disadvantage that neglects a significant part of thinking abilities and strength. ... limits itself to only one approach and is therefore too linear.... "...as delusional and based on the institutionalized need to control "everything" and the widespread notion that the bureaucrat knows what is best;"^[8] type of thinking, on the other hand, there are "High context societies, also called "collectivist" societies societies), [which – auth.] pay more attention and power to the extended family (the traditional concept of an undivided Hindu family, requiring the mandatory birth of a male child or, in appropriate cases, the adoption of a male individual, assumes the existence of a family of at least three persons: father, wife and son (co-heir of the father), acquiring by birth a share in the property of the ancestors equal to the share his father. The "classic" list of a large family includes co-heirs, their mothers or stepmothers, wives, children (excluding married daughters), widows and unmarried daughters of deceased co-heirs, illegitimate sons from continued cohabitation, subject to the consent of other co-heirs, if there are no other children. According to the customs of some Shudryan castes, married daughters may also be part of a united family, whose "coming" husbands, according to the custom of their castes, do not bring their wives to their father's house ^[10]) or other social groups" [11. P. 1-26]. Members of a collectivist society live in a strong version of the "shame and honor" society: if the actions of a group member are shameful, they bring shame on the whole group, clan or family. On the other hand, in an individualistic society, each person is responsible for his own actions, and therefore his behavior does not reflect on anyone else, i.e. other members of the group, clan or family do not feel shame [11. P. 1-26]. However, such thinking has a second side of the coin: "if one person brings honor, honor is attributed to the whole group. This pressure can lead to dishonest behavior in order to ensure success at any cost. Consequently, plagiarism can be considered culturally excusable if it allows an individual to succeed and avoid shame for the collective." [7. P. 54-67] So, for example, regarding the countries of the Arab East, "Razek (2014) reports that Saudi students are under pressure to succeed, peer pressure, ... the desire to simply get degree, regardless of whether knowledge is obtained or not, and financial pressure to keep scholarships." [11. P. 143-154]. That is, here in this part of the motivation for plagiarism, there is a coincidence with the motives of students from the USA, for example (see above). As for Asian countries, plagiarism can be accepted to some extent, because ideas are considered to belong to society, and not to an individual. For example, "Chien (2014) argues that in collective cultures such as China, Japan and Korea, knowledge belongs to society itself; therefore, it is considered less important to trust original sources." [12. P. 120-140]At the same time, Russian studies concerning the issue of Confucius' legacy ^[27], for example, cite his views, according to which "the foundations of humanity, reverence, respect, obedience, self-knowledge, self-initiative, altruism, honesty (italics - author), nobility, friendliness should be laid during study." It is noted that "In teaching, Confucius emphasized the development of the ability of students to be ashamed of their actions, for themselves." At the same time, Confucius' answer is given at the same time, when asked, "... is it necessary to simplify his teaching, he replied:

"My teaching is the teaching bequeathed to us by our forefathers. I have no right to add or subtract anything to it. I transmit it in all its primitive purity. In relation to my teaching, I am the same as a sower is to the seeds he sows. Can the sower give the seed a different shape or force it to give a sprout, a shoot or a harvest before a certain time? The sower's job is to plant seeds in the ground, water them, take care of them — everything else is not in his power… My teaching is not a straight, ordinary path, it is unchangeable like the Sky, which is its creator, and has flowed like a stream since the ancient times of Yao and Shun"" (Shelukhin A.F. Confucius on Enlightenment. URL: https://www.sovremennoepravo.ru/m/articles/view/Êîíôóöèé-î-ïðîñâåùåíèè (date of application: 03.02.2023)). Thus, it seems that this approach serves in favor of the habit of repeating statements verbatim without changing them. Perhaps such respect for authority can slow down progress in various fields. At the same time, and in the movie "The Shadowy Samurai" (Japan, 2002, URL: https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/63735 / (date of appeal: 03.02.2023)), telling about a samurai official of the early 20th century and his family, demonstrates the moment when the samurai's daughters run to school, and their actions are accompanied by the words "Confucius said ...", "Confucius said..." for example, "Confucius said that a strong man is always calm and restrained" (the movie "The Gloomy Samurai" (Japan, 2002, URL: https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/63735 / (date of reference: 03.02.2023)), which again speaks in favor of the fact that not only invariably quoting, but since childhood, a child is taught to remember not only "what" is said, but also "who" said it, as an obligatory element of learning. This approach seems to speak in favor of the knowledge that students brought up in the spirit of Confucianism know how and what to quote in the work.Nevertheless, the approaches of India from among Asian countries and Poland from among European countries are legislatively close to the US approach.

So, in 2012, in India, the former vice-president of Delhi University (Dheli University) Deepak Pental and his postdoc L.V.S.K. Prasad (K.V.S.K. Prasad) were accused by citizen Sarad Parthasarathy that they committed an act of plagiarism of his scientific article and published it was used between 2000 and 2002 as its own, thereby violating Articles 63 and 70 of the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 (See: Ex-VC of DU sent to jail for 'plagiarism', released. // The Time of India. Nov 26, 2014. URL: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ex-VC-of-DU-sent-to-jail-for-plagiarism-released/articleshow/45278628.cms (accessed 01.02.2023); The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957). URL: https://copyright.gov.in/documents/copyrightrules1957.pdf (date of appeal: 29.01.2023)) (hereinafter – the 1957 Law). According to Article 63 "The crime of infringement of copyright or other rights granted by this Law" of the 1957 Law "Any person who knowingly violates or incites violation -

(a) copyright in the work or

(b) any other right granted by this Law except for the right granted by Section 53A,

- is punishable by imprisonment for a term of at least six months, which can be extended to three years, and a fine of at least fifty thousand rupees, which can be increased to two lakh rupees, at the same time, if the violation was not committed for the purpose of obtaining benefits in the course of trade or business (...the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business...) The court may, for appropriate and special reasons that must be specified in the decision (for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment), impose a penalty of imprisonment for a period of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousands of rupees.

Explanation.— However, the construction of a building or other structure that infringes or which, if completed, would infringe the copyright of any other work is not an offense under this section.

Article 70 explains which Court has the right to consider such an offense, the question is caused, in particular, by whether it is permissible to release the accused of such crimes on bail (due to the fact that they can destroy some evidence of their guilt, etc.) [14. pp. 1-17] (Dipak Rao and Nishi Shabana. Whether Infringement of Copyright Is a Cognizable Offence? URL: https://www.manupatrafast.in/NewsletterArchives/listing/ILU%20RSP/2015/Sep/TerraLex%20Connections%20-%20W hether%20Infringement%20of%20Copyright%20Is%20a%20Cognizable%20Offence_.pdf (accessed: 04/27/2019)).

In 2012 "In Poland, Professor Stanislav T. (full name is not disclosed in accordance with Polish laws on privacy), who is also ordained a priest, consistently denied that he deliberately plagiarized the works of other authors. So, at a disciplinary hearing at the University in March 2012, he admitted that some parts of his work are similar to the works of other authors, but it was an unintentional coincidence. Whereas according to the District Prosecutor's Office in Lublin, the professor in 2008 submitted for publication the book "The Evolution of Polish Church Law until the 19th century in the light of codification" ("The evolution of Polish Church law until the 19th century in the light of codification"), declaring himself the sole author of the work. However, after its publication, other scientists were outraged. For example, a professor of law at Jagiellonian University in Krakow cited numerous examples when Stanislav T. apparently copied the works of other authors without specifying the sources. "This concerns excerpts from the publications of five other people," Beata Sik-Jankowska, spokeswoman for the Lublin Prosecutor's Office, said in an interview with the Polish Press Agency (PAP). "The professor was threatened with up to 3 years in prison in accordance with Polish copyright law (See, for example: Polish professor could face three-year sentence for plagiarism / Radio Poland. 05.12.2012. URL: http://archiwum .thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/120508 (date of application: 01.02.2023)). In which university regulations an attempt to prevent such situations finds expression, let's look at the example of Poland below.

That is why university documents contain different formulations than ours. Let's give an example. We have analyzed the Law "On Higher Education and Science" of Poland dated July 20, 2018 (ACT of July 20, 2018: The Law on Higher Education and Science. s. 1/261. URL: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjxz7fvyuf8AhWTPewKHfchBo8QFnoECAgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.pl%2Fattachment%2Fd6975935-4b24-4be3-96f1-09c51589958a&usg=AOvVaw3X5_jWfWtbFKQZImtRORfM (date of application: 29.01.2023)) (hereinafter referred to as the Law of 2018) and local regulatory documents of one of the oldest and the most prestigious universities of Upper Silesia (a region divided after the First World War between Poland (Eastern Upper Silesia was transferred to it) and Germany (Western Upper Silesia was transferred to it) and at the same time one of the five universities of national economy in Poland - the University of Economics in Katowice:

- Appendix No. 1 to Resolution No. 88/2021/2022 of the University of Economics in Katowice of April 28, 2022 "Rules and Regulations of Studies at the University of Economics in Katowice" (Appendix No. 1 to Resolution No. 88/2021/2022 of the University of Economics in Katowice of April 28, 2022 "Rules and Regulations of Studies at the University of Economics in Katowice”. URL: https://www.ue.katowice.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/ue_english/Rules_and_Regulations_of_Studies_2022.docx (date of appeal: 01.02.2023)), according to paragraph 5 §27 of which "5. If the final dissertation is written, the university verifies it before the final exam using the Uniform Anti-plagiarism System mentioned in Section 351 (1) of the 2018 Law, according to the latter, "The Minister must maintain a Unified System for Combating Plagiarism. 2. A unified anti-plagiarism system should provide support in preventing violations of copyright and related rights. (2. The Uniform Anti-plagiarism System shall provide support in preventing infringements of copyright and related rights - the purpose of the system, therefore, is not to identify the originality of the text of the work – author) 3. A unified system for combating plagiarism should use the data contained in the repository of written theses (dissertations - repotory of written diploma theses) and a database of documents in the promotion procedure (s in promotion procedure). 4. The Minister should ensure that higher education institutions, institutes of the Polish Academy of Sciences, research institutes, international institutes, the Polish Accreditation Committee and the Council for Scientific Excellence use the Uniform Anti-plagiarism System free of charge for free.),

- Order of the Rector of the University of Economics in Katowice No. 116/22 of September 30, 2022 on the procedure for assessing the authorship of dissertations and doctoral dissertations written at the University of Economics in Katowice R-0161- 116/22 (Order No. 116/22 of September 30, 2022, of the Rector of the University of Economics in Katowice on the proce-dure for assessing the authority of dissertations and doctoral dissertations written at the University of Economics in Katowice. R-0161- 116/22. URL: https://www.ue.katowice.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/jednostki/szkola-studiow-i-i-ii-stopnia/Podania_i_wzory/Zako%C5%84czenie_studi%C3%B3w/JSA/ang_116-22/Order_No.116-20-procedure_for_assessing_the_authorship_of_dissertations.docx (date of reference: 01.02.2023)) (not about the evaluation of originality! – auth.).

According to paragraph 1 §1 of this Order "1. This Order defines the scope and schedule of activities applicable to students, staff and candidates for a doctoral degree (students, staff and candidates for a doctoral degree) at the University of Economics in Katowice (hereinafter referred to as the "University") in terms of assessing the authorship of dissertations and doctoral dissertations (in terms of assessing the authority of dissertations and doctoral theses). – thus, the purpose of this anti–plagiarism system is to establish authorship, and not the originality of the text submitted for verification.

According to paragraph 2 §1 of this Order, "2. The anti-plagiarism procedure is used to assess the authorship of student dissertations and doctoral dissertations developed at the university, (2. The anti-plagiarism procedure is used to assess the authorship of students' dissertations and theses developed at the University) using a Unified Anti-plagiarism System (hereinafter referred to as "JSA"), specified in Article 351 of the Law "On Higher Education and Science" (hereinafter referred to as the "Law")." - thus, the purpose of the verification is to establish the authorship of the work, and its originality.

According to paragraph 5 §1 of this Order "5. The similarity percentage (hereinafter referred to as “PRP") represents the level of similarity collected from all JSA reference databases. (The Resemblance Percentage (hereinafter referred to as “PRP”) presents the level of similarity gathered from all JSA reference databases. – two terms "similarity" (similarity) and "similarity" (resemblance) are used here – similarity/similarity is a prototype of the result type recently introduced in our Russian Antiplagiate – "Coincidence" (see Fig. 2 above).

According to paragraph 2 §3 of this Order "2. The supervisor may exclude parts of the thesis from the assessment if, in his opinion, such parts do not provide sufficient similarity to the source or have their justification in the dissertation." (2.A Supervisor may exclude parts of the thesis from the assessment). – because the system is free, I don't want to use it.

According to paragraph 1 §4 of this Order:

"1. The supervisor, after assessing the authorship of the dissertation mentioned in § 3: ... 2) conducts investigations in case of exceeding the threshold value, i.e. increasing the value of the PRP index or objections regarding the authorship of the dissertation (undertakes investigations if the threshold is exceeded i.e., there is an increase in the value of the PRP (i.e. the Resemblance Percentage - percentage of similarity) index or o projections regarding authority of the dissertation)" – thus, we are talking here about the threshold value of coincidences (see paragraph 5 above), not about a fixed percentage of originality! Although, if we fix the percentage of matches, what remains is, in fact, the percentage of originality, fixed indirectly, from the reverse, let's say.

Note along the way that Russian publishers do this.

So, in the Regulation "On the procedure for checking articles submitted for publication in the journals of the IG "Lawyer" for the presence of an unoriginal text (technical borrowing), borrowing and/or unjustified self-citation" of the IG "Lawyer" No. 11 on 19.02.2018 (URL: http://lawinfo.ru/for-authors/10911 / (accessed: 29.01.2023)), in which it is indicated that "The volume of non-original text (technical borrowing) should not exceed 20%, borrowing and/or unjustified self-citation should not exceed 15%. If this limit is exceeded, but the author of the article considers it permissible, he must provide the necessary arguments to justify exceeding the established limit in an explanatory note addressed to the editor-in-chief of the journal to which the article is sent." (clause 2.3 of the Regulation). Thus, the percentage of "originality" is fixed, apparently, at the level of 65%.

Another example is similar prescriptions on the page of the Russian journal "Journal of Digital Technologies and Law" in the section "Checking the originality of a scientific publication" in the "Rules for Authors" (URL: https://www.lawjournal.digital/jour/about/submissions#authorGuidelines (accessed: 30.01.2023)) (Here we intentionally omit consideration of the issue of sources of ethics of scientific publications on the side of publishers and editors (why and why they establish such requirements), for example, such as:

"? Recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE));

? Recommendations of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE)) for authors and translators of scientific articles to be published in English;

Recommendations on the ethics of Elsevier publications (Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK)) for scientific peer-reviewed publications;

Recommendations of the White Paper on Publication Ethics Council of Science Editors;

? recommendations of the Declaration "Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications" of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ANRI)." (URL: https://www.lawjournal.digital/jour/about/submissions#authorGuidelines (accessed: 30.01.2023))):

"All manuscripts submitted to the journal are checked using the Anti-Plagiarism system for the presence of borrowings. The percentage of the original text of the manuscript cannot be less than 75.Verification of the original text of the manuscript in English is carried out in the "iThenticate" or "PlagiarismCheck" systems.

The share of the cited text and borrowings in the manuscript should not exceed 25%."Returning to the Order under consideration according to paragraph 3 §4 of this Order:

"In the event of a situation described by the provisions of paragraph 2) paragraph 1 of this paragraph 2), the dean is obliged to immediately notify the rector of the suspicion of a student committing an act specified in art. 287, (2) (1)-(5) The Law ["On higher education and Science" - author]. The Dean is obliged to inform the student about the decision. The original decision must be kept in the student's personal file. 3) The Rector orders an investigation in accordance with Article 312, (3) of the Law."

Article 287 of the 2018 Law in paragraphs (1)-(5) of paragraph 2 says that a student commits copyright infringement of other people and falsification of scientific results: "2. The investigation process must be initiated ex officio in the case of an act contained in such actions as:

1) misappropriation of authorship or misleading about the authorship of all or part of the work or artistic performance of another person;

2) distribution, without specifying the author's name or pseudonym, of another person's work in its original version or in the form of a derivative work;

3) distribution without specifying the name or pseudonym of the author of another person's artistic performance or public distortion of such a work, artistic performance, phonogram, videogram or broadcast;

4) violation of someone else's copyright or related rights in a way other than specified in subparagraphs 1-3;

5) falsification of scientific research or its results or other scientific fraud;".

3) The Rector orders an investigation in accordance with Article 312, (3) of the Law.

- Appendices 1 "Formal requirements for final dissertations for full-time and part-time undergraduate studies" (Appendix No. 1 to Order No. 117 /22 "Formal requirements of final dissertations for full-time and part-time under-graduate studies". URL: https://www.ue.katowice.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/jednostki/szkola-studiow-i-i-ii-stopnia/Podania_i_wzory/Zako%C5%84czenie_studi%C3%B3w/wymogi_formalne_dla_prac_dyplomowych/ANG/2.1.Za%C5%82._1_Wymogi.formalne_I.stopien-2_t%C5%82um_ENG.docx (date of application: 01.02.2023)) and Appendix 2 "Formal requirements for final dissertations for full-time and part-time Master's degree" (Appendix No. 2 to Order No. 117 /22 “Formal requirements of final dissertations for full-time and part-time gradu-ate studies”. URL: https://www.ue.katowice.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/jednostki/szkola-studiow-i-i-ii-stopnia/Podania_i_wzory/Zako%C5%84czenie_studi%C3%B3w/wymogi_formalne_dla_prac_dyplomowych/ANG/2.2.Za%C5%82._2_Wymogi.formalne_II.stopien-2_t%C5%82um_ENG.docx (date of appeal: 01.02.2023)) to the Order of the Rector of the University of Economics in Katowice dated September 30, 2022 No. 117 /22 on defining formal requirements for graduate theses of masters and bachelors (Order No. 117/22 of September 30, 2022, of the Rector of the University of Economics in Katowice on defining formal requirements of graduate and undergraduate final dissertations. R-0161-117/22. URL: https://www.ue.katowice.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/jednostki/szkola-studiow-i-i-ii-stopnia/Podania_i_wzory/Zako%C5%84czenie_studi%C3%B3w/wymogi_formalne_dla_prac_dyplomowych/ANG/2._Zarz%C4%85dzenie-_wymogi_stawiane_pracom_dyplomowym_t%C5%82um_ENG.docx (date of appeal: 01.02.2023)), according to similar articles of which:

- «2. The final dissertation is an individual work prepared by a student independently (prepared independently by a student) under the supervision of a supervisor. 3. The final dissertation can be theoretical, empirical or project-oriented. 4. If the dissertation is theoretical or empirical in nature, it should be framed in the form of a scientific article, which is described in detail in § 3." (paragraphs 2-4 §1).

-"1. The final dissertation is a work in which the student demonstrates that he can apply his knowledge, as well as formulate and solve problems related to his field of study." (paragraph 1 §2).

- "1. Copyright must be respected (1. Copyright must be respected) when preparing the final dissertation. 2. The final dissertation should contain footnotes that allow identifying the literary sources used. (2.The final dissertation must contain footnotes that allow identification of the literature sources used.) 3. The final dissertation is subject to verification using the Unified Plagiarism Protection System (JSA). 4. The final thesis should not be admitted to the final exam if its author does not comply with copyright. 5. The author(s) is personally responsible for any violation of copyright." (§5). - here again we see a link to copyright compliance, and not to the originality of the work.

- «1. The final dissertation may be considered completed by awarding the desired degree (A final dissertation may be awarded) if at least one of the following conditions is met:

1) the research (theoretical, empirical or project-oriented) and its comprehensive interpretation were conducted properly (properly conducted research),

2) an innovative approach to the studied problem" (§6) – again, it is about the results, not about their originality.

Returning to the concept of "originality" in the Originality report of Turnitin (question 6), for example, this report and the check in the system itself have a different purpose than ours, namely: to force everyone (from a student to a doctor of sciences) at all costs, under threat and the fear of not accepting scientific work for protection and other (see above) negative measures and consequences, firstly, to form YOUR own list of scientific papers on which HIS scientific work (dissertation, etc.) is based, secondly, to read it, thirdly, to QUOTE according to the rules of the academic community (placing quotation marks) EXCERPTS FROM IT.Thus, plagiarism (plagiarism) consists in whether the work is quoted correctly (example from Purdue University Copyright Office: "Plagiarism is the use of a line or even an entire poem by Maya Angelou in an article without specifying the author of the poem – Maya Angelou - and without reference to the source.

This makes it seem that the poem is the creation of the person who wrote the article, and not Maya Angelou." (Plagiarism // Copyright Infringement Penalties / by Purdue University Copyright Office. URL: https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/infringement (accessed: 30.01.2023)). When a poem is quoted incorrectly, there is a link with copyright infringement (copyright infringement), focusing on how third parties use the original/original cited work (example from Purdue University Copyright Office: "Copyright infringement is the inclusion of an entire poem by Maya Angelou in a published work without her permission. The poem is the property of Miss Angelou." (Ibid. URL: https://www.plagiarism.org/blog/2017/10/27/is-plagiarism-illegal (accessed: 29.01.2023)).

Thus, the check in the system for plagiarism is of a helping nature, it shows the subject of the check which places in his scientific work were left without quotes, the copyrights of which persons he may violate, who will sue him, to whom he will give his money for this prank.

I believe the idea of such checks (and this is the answer to the question of what task fixing the percentage of originality solves) was born in countries where private property and ideas about it are inviolable, and copyrights are seen as a continuation of such inviolable "property", and violations are punished inexorably and strictly. But only for "their own".

So, although, for example, it is noted that "Academic integrity is a growing problem in American universities. Students do not do their own work and submit assignments that should be their own original work, but are not. The data show that every fifth student is suspected of plagiarism. This is a trend that can be observed all over America." (Unicheck by Turnitin. Recent Findings on Plagiarism in Education. August 11, 2015. URL: https://unicheck.com/blog/plagiarism-stats-in-education (accessed: 30.01.2023))

Nevertheless, foreign students studying in the United States become subjects that attract close attention. For example, according to an article in the South China Morning Post, academic dishonesty was demonstrated by 23% of Chinese students expelled in the United States. According to the Pittsburgh company specializing in overseas education services, 8,000 Chinese students were expelled from American universities in 2014. Andrew Chen, development director of the consulting company WholeRen Education for Chinese students in the United States, also speaks about plagiarism on the part of Chinese students. At the same time, according to the Stanford University fact sheet, fraud no longer carries the stigma that it used to. Less public disapproval, combined with increased competition for admission to universities and graduate school, has made students more willing to do everything possible to get an A (to get the A- by the way, where did this gradation of grades come from in our country? How did it appear?). According to a report in the Christian Science Monitor, Stanford is one of several elite universities, including Harvard University, Dartmouth College, the University of North Carolina, the Air Force Academy and Stuyvesant High School, which have investigated violations of the relevant academic honor codes over the past few years. Therefore, in 2015, American educational institutions were offered a free online plagiarism checker (free plagiarism checker online) of the same developer as used in Australia (see above) - Unicheck from Turnitin (Unicheck by Turnitin. Recent Findings on Plagiarism in Education. August 11, 2015. URL: https://unicheck.com/blog/plagiarism-stats-in-education (accessed: 30.01.2023)). Exactly the same way, and even more so, she carries out a simple idea of searching for textual matches (Match), citations (Quote) of the list of sources from which citations (References) are taken, without focusing on originality (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Results of verification of works by a free online plagiarism verification program offered in 2015 to American educational institutions by the same developer as used in Australia - Unicheck from TurnitinSource: Student's Guide.

Unicheck Support. 2021. URL: thttps://support.unicheck.com/hc/en-us/articles/360016436734-Student-s-Guide#:~:text=Course%20Extension-,What%20is%20Unicheck%3F,reports%20to%20instructors%20and%20students. (accessed: 01/31/2023)

Therefore, we can and should safely abandon "their" ideas, falsely understood and transmitted to our scientific community. By analogy with how this is implemented, albeit partially, firstly, amendments to Article 1360 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation that entered into force on August 1, 2021 (Part Four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2006 N 230-FZ. // Federal Law of the Russian Federation of December 25, 2006 No. 52 (Part I) of Article 5496.) "Use of an invention, utility model or industrial design in the interests of national security", according to which "1. The Government of the Russian Federation has the right, in case of extreme necessity related to ensuring the defense and security of the state, protecting the life and health of citizens, to make a decision on the use of an invention, utility model or industrial design without the consent of the patent holder, notifying him about it as soon as possible and paying him a proportionate compensation. 2. The methodology for determining the amount of compensation and the procedure for its payment are approved by the Government of the Russian Federation." (For more details, see, for example: Speech Vorozhevich A.S. // Varaksin M. Review of the thematic conference "Ïðàâî.ãè "November 16, 2021 "From marketplaces to Rospatent: rules for Intellectual Property protection". URL: https://pravo.ru/story/236678/?ysclid=ldjub9yucr746355810 (date of application: 30.01.2023)); secondly, in the draft Law No. 184016-8 "On Amendments to the Federal Law "On the Entry into Force of Part Four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation" submitted to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on August 19, 2022 (URL: https://sozd.duma.gov.ru/bill/184016-8 (accessed: 30.01.2023)) (hereinafter referred to as the Draft Law on Content) on expanding the mechanism of compulsory licensing in relation to foreign content, and not only foreign copyright holders who have left Russia, but also in relation to films, music, software, etc. that have not yet been released in the country (as of December 2022, it was decided to return the draft law to the subject of the right of legislative initiative (Deputy of the State Duma D.V.Kuznetsov) (due to non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph "k" of part one of Article 105 of the Regulations of the State Duma (there are no official reviews of the Government of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation)).Returning to the work of the "Anti-Plagiarism" system (and the question of what task fixing the percentage of originality solves), we note that the "Anti-Plagiarism" system also attempts to emphasize that its resource has a "helping" character.

So, in the Certificate on the results of checking a text document for the presence of borrowings, there is a note of this kind: "The answer to the question whether the detected borrowing is correct, the system leaves it to the discretion of the verifier," the Report on checking for borrowings says this: "Please note that the system finds text intersections of the document being checked with indexed in the system text sources. At the same time, the system is an auxiliary tool, the determination of the correctness and legality of borrowings or citations, as well as the authorship of text fragments of the document being checked remains in the competence of the verifier."Such formulations, in fact, negate the whole essence of the applied verification, because in fact users (verifiers) either shy away from any work with the Report on the loan verification, leaving the result obtained during the verification "as is", or are excessively carried away with its adjustments, "unchecking" indiscriminately.

In both cases, the result is unreliable and does not reflect any valid picture of the evaluation of the scientific publication (work) submitted for verification. In the first case it is "deviation", in the second – "subjectivism". And all in order to "work" with the Anti-Plagiarism system.

The question arises, why do universities, for example, pay a lot of money for such checks? After all, for a private person, for example, a subscription to the FULL tariff recommended by the Anti—Plagiarism system for registration for students, postgraduates and scientists is recommended (search for all modules of the combined collection, the validity period of checks is 180 days, as of January 2023) costs from 386 ? / one (1) check (Fig. 7), in fact – 472 ?/one (1) check (Fig. 8).

 Fig. 7. The cost of one (1) check announced by the Anti-Plagiarism system at the FULL rate for students, postgraduates and scientists recommended (search through all modules of the combined collection)Source: Personal account of the user of the Anti-Plagiarism system

Fig. 8. The actual cost of one (1) check at the FULL tariffSource: Personal account of the user of the Anti-Plagiarism system

Turning again to the first question about why to fix the percentage of originality (what task does such a fixation solve), and the sixth question, what is the originality of the text in general, how to measure it and whether it is needed, we note that national legislation and international acts and documents are based on this concept. Thus, the above–mentioned current Law "On Copyright" of the USA of 1976 (hereinafter - the Law of 1976) for the purpose of copyright protection (copyright protection) states that copyrights appear in relation to the original author's work (works - original works of authorship) fixed on a tangible medium (fixed in a tangible medium of expression - §102 of the 1976 Law) (Acquiring copyright protection. URL: https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/obtaining.html (accessed: 30.01.2023)). Thus, in order to be copyrighted, the work must be "original" ("original" - originality requirement), but, as indicated on the BitLaw website (BitLaw: a free legal resource focusing on intellectual property and the protection of computers, software, and bits), for example, it is noted that at the same time "...the required amount of originality is extremely small" ("For a work to be protected by copyright law, it must be "original." However, the amount of originality required is extremely small.)(Ibid.). "The work, however, cannot be a simple mechanical reproduction of the previous work, nor can it consist of just a few words or a short phrase. Also, if the work is a compilation, the compilation should include some originality beyond a simple alphabetical sorting of all available works (see the discussion of compilations below for more information). In addition, almost any work created by the author will meet the requirement of originality." (emphasis – author) ("Beyond that, almost any work that is created by an author will meet the originality requirement." (Acquiring copyright protection. URL: https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/obtaining.html (accessed: 30.01.2023))Whereas in the domestic Internet segment devoted to the explanation (interpretation) by various subjects of what is originality, we can find, for example, this: "The most important parameter is, of course, the uniqueness of the text.

In another way, it is the independence of your document, what you have read and stated absolutely in your own words. The uniqueness of the text is expressed as a percentage. If the result that the anti–plagiarism system showed is 50% originality, it means that you wrote half of the work yourself, using exclusively the author's text and your own thoughts" (See, for example: Uniqueness, plagiarism and quoting in the anti-plagiarism - a detailed review. URL: https://killer-antiplagiat.ru/blog/unikalnost-plagiat-i-citirovanie-v-antiplagiate--podrobnyj-obzor?ysclid=ldik88j7we443923088 (accessed: 30.01.2023)). (The spelling and punctuation of the author of the text is preserved). The term "uniqueness" is introduced, which is tied again, what would we think? To the "independence" of the work performed. 

As for the other criteria stipulated in the 1976 Law, the phrase "works of authorship" is used to describe the types of works that are protected by the 1976 Law. "This intentionally broad phrase was chosen by Congress," as noted in the interpretation of the 1976 Law from the BITLAW website (Acquiring copyright protection. URL: https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/obtaining.html (date of appeal: 30.01.2023)), - "to avoid the need to rewrite the Copyright Law every time a new "medium" was discovered. This intentional ambiguity allows Copyright Law to protect web pages and applications for mobile devices, even if these elements did not exist at the time of writing the Copyright Law. To clarify what is considered an author's work, Congress included a list of eight copyrighted works in the Law itself:

• literary works;
• musical works, including any accompanying words;
• dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
• pantomimes and choreographic works;
• paintings, graphic and sculptural works;
• films and other audiovisual works;
• sound recordings; and
• architectural works.

Although this list is not intended to be comprehensive, most protected works fall into one of these categories." (Acquiring copyright protection. URL: https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/obtaining.html (accessed: 30.01.2023))

As for another criterion – the "method of fixation", then "in order for a work to be protected, it must be fixed on a tangible medium. A work is considered fixed when it is stored on any medium on which it can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated externally (perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated.). For example, you can fix a song by writing it down on a piece of paper. Paper is a medium on which a song can be perceived, reproduced and communicated externally. It is not necessary that the environment be such that a person can perceive the work, the main thing is that the work can be perceived at least by a machine. Thus, the song is also recorded at the moment when the author records it on a dictaphone. Similarly, a computer program is fixed when stored in the computer's memory. In fact, the courts have even ruled that a computer program is fixed when it exists in the computer's RAM. This is true even though this "fixation" is temporary and will disappear after the power is turned off from the computer." (For more information about when a work is not fixed, see the BitLaw discussion on how unfixed works are not copyrighted / see the BitLaw discussion on how unfixed works are not protected by copyright law) (Ibid.).

At the same time, 17 U. S. C. § 102 (b) states: "In no case does copyright protection for an original author's work extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of work, concept, principle or discovery, regardless of the form in which they are described, explained, illustrated or embodied in such work."

 Back in 2019, in the representative of the Commissioner under the President of the Russian Federation for the protection of the rights of entrepreneurs in the field of the Internet (Internet Ombudsman) and the head of the Radius Group company, D. Marinichev, said: "We have never thought about the fact that we need to register the rights to meanings (italics auth.). We are sure that it is necessary to license the final product, but every user has huge categories of data and resources in social networks today," he said (Experts: social media accounts will become objects of intellectual property. 15 Mar 2019. URL: https://tass.ru/novosti-partnerov/6219958 (accessed: 03/16/2019)).

The other side of this question is that, as the American economist and Nobel laureate Paul Romer correctly pointed out in his 1990 work (at the dawn of information capitalism) "Endogenous Technological Change", if the traditional economy is based on the production of material things and the provision of services, then the digital economy creates information products that are a priori deprived of material characteristics ^[15]. This idea was continued by Ph.D. in Economics, Ph.D. of the Federal Research Center "Informatics and Management" of the Russian Academy of Sciences I.Kamenev: "In the economy there is a traditional differentiation of goods into competitive and non-competitive. Competitive goods are goods that have become "mine". Let's say if I eat an apple, no one else can eat it anymore. Non-competitive goods are goods that are consumed jointly. For example, air or public safety. And it soon turned out that digital goods within the digital economy are uncompetitive. But instead of distributing them freely, property rights were imposed on them in the old-fashioned way. This created an internal conflict" (Sysoev T. Why pay for air: Will copyright survive in the digital economy. Updated 17.08.2020. URL: https://trends.rbc.ru/trends/social/5f349a6f9a79471af142ff23 (date of application: 01.02.2023)). This fact was due, for example, to the proposal of the President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev in a message to the leaders of the "Big Twenty" in Cannes in 2011 to freely use copyright objects on the Web, if there is no statement of the copyright holder to the contrary (Medvedev: You need to freely use copyright objects on the Web. November 03, 2011. URL: https://er.ru/activity/news/medvedev-predlozhil-svobodno-ispolzovat-obekty-avtorskih-prav-v-seti ?ysclid=ldikkkbx4t556920198 (accessed: 30.01.2023)).

Discussing the question of the originality of the work, of course, you need to look into the history and consider examples.

The first. On the Internet, users often analyze the well-known case of the publication of A.N. Tolstoy's fairy tale "The Golden Key or the Adventures of Pinocchio" (https://azbyka.ru/fiction/zolotoj-kljuchik-ili-prikljuchenija-buratino-tolstoj / (accessed:: 12/15/2023)), written on the basis of the ideas of the fairy tale by K.Deck "Adventures Pinocchio" (https://frigato.ru/skazki/drugie-avtory/44-pinokkio.html (accessed: 12/15/2023), without repeating it. The differences between Pinocchio's Adventures and Pinocchio's Adventures can also be seen at the link https://www.kakprosto.ru/kak-852041-razlichiya-mezhdu-buratino-i-pinokkio (accessed: 12/15/2023) Arguments in favor of the originality of Tolstoy's fairy tale are usually associated with the fact that the differences relate to "... and the main character, and all minor characters, and storylines.  (See, for example: DmitryChemodanov. Differences between Pinocchio and Pinocchio. May 21, 2014. URL: https://www.kakprosto.ru/kak-852041-razlichiya-mezhdu-buratino-i-pinokkio#ixzz7rshrjBpE (accessed: 12/15/2023)). We are talking about ideas here in this way, and can the exception "ideas are not protected" be applied? Is this (not) originality? What would be the result when checking in the "Anti-Plagiarism" system?

Second. "Everyone knows this phrase well. It is believed that it is an analogue of the famous aphorism of F. Bacon: "Hope is a good breakfast, but a bad dinner." The history of the appearance of this phrase in the Russian language cannot be traced. It is only known that she appeared in a poem by Gleb Glinka:

The shelter is doubtful of hopes. "The hopes of young men are nourished,Joy is served to the elders",

But they are gradually melting away.

And finally, in the declining days

Suddenly the human understands

The futility of hopes, the futility of ideas...

"There are no others, but those are far away",It is interesting to note that the phrase in question is taken in quotation marks.

Of course Glinka could not help but know the famous ode of Lomonosov "On the day of Elizabeth's accession to the throne."

Sciences nourish young men,Joy is served to the old,

In a happy life, decorate,

In an accident , they take care of;

In domestic difficulties, joy

And in distant wanderings is not a hindrance.

Science is used everywhere,

Among the nations and in the desert,

In the city noise and alone,

They are sweet in peace and in work.

But here it is not hopes at all, but science (emphasis – auth.). Distortion, the result of creative processing, forgetfulness? But did Lomonosov himself come up with this text? No, he stood forever on the shoulders of the ancients, artistically reworking the material. Let us recall the speech of Marcus Tullius Cicero in defense of the poet Archias.

After all, other classes are not suitable for all times, not for all ages, not in all cases, but these classes educate youth, cheer old age, under happy circumstances serve as an ornament, under unhappy circumstances – a refuge and consolation, please at home, do not burden in a foreign land, stay awake with us at night, wander with us and they live with us in the village.That's how two completely different semantic contexts intertwined in such a strange way." (See, for example: AriSha.

They feed the hopes of young men. April 9, 2019. URL: https://dzen.ru/a/XKzKv9yfWACv3o2j (date of reference: 30.01.2023)) (The punctuation of the author of the text is preserved). Is the approach the same as in the first example? Is this (not) originality? What would be the result when checking in the "Anti-Plagiarism" system?

The above shows that the concept of "originality" of a work, including scientific works, is vague, indefinite.It was developed and crystallized (for example, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Bern, September 9, 1886, d ed.

from September 28. 1979 URL: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ru/text .jsp?file_id=283698 (accessed: 05/11/2020), World Copyright Convention (Geneva, September 6, 1952, ed. dated July 24, 1971 // Collection of Resolutions of the Government of the USSR. -1973. – No. 24. – Article 139.), adopted at the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Marrakech, April 15, 1994) URL: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/ru/details.jsp?id=12746 (date of application: 05/11/2020) (Agreement TRIPS) (in part, for example, current programs for electronic computing machines (computers) and data compilations, Article 10), the WIPO Copyright Agreement of December 20, 1996 URL: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ru/ip/wct (accessed: 05/11/2020) in the preceding non-digital era and the modern digital era in which the economy, having acquired the character of an information network, and having also changed the law (the superstructure of the basis) ^[16], does not correspond.

The ambiguity, vagueness and obsolescence of the concept of "originality" gives rise to a number of interrelated problems that need to be solved:1. There is an increasing need to understand what should be understood by "originality" in the digital age, since the latter is characterized (in comparison with the previous non-digital market economy) along with the absence of such factors as exclusivity, competitiveness and transparency in it (the owner of the goods in the network economy is not able to simply, cheaply and to get rid of competitors quickly, since the replication and delivery of products within the time available by electronic means practically negate the "exclusivity", which is located in the first place of the list of market postulates.

Due to the fact that the replication of "digital" products is approaching zero, "competitiveness" also loses its meaning in the network economy, where competitive differences between sellers in terms of sales costs and service support of orders are leveled with the increase in the number of the latter. Currently, in many cases, the purchase of goods loses the status of "transparency" because the fact of purchase increasingly needs the continuation of the buyer's relationship with the seller in the form of service, updating software versions, receiving bonuses, etc. promotions that turn the purchase into a long-term interaction ("cooperation") of the buyer with the seller [17. Pp. 58-59; 18]) (OISP) with the ideas of a "free" society, including "free" software and other intellectual property objects and open innovations, "free" information, etc. (for example, in South Africa, the national free operating system (OS) Ubuntu was created, which became the most popular OS distribution based on the Linux kernel (See: Roman @artifex. The history of the creation of Ubuntu. October 21, 2010. URL: https://habr.com/ru/post/106582 / (accessed: 03.02.2023)); ideas of open innovations (OI), being described in the works of G. Chesborough: Chesbrough H. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA (2003) and Chesbrough H. Open business models. How to thrive in the new innovation landscape, Harvard Business School Press, 2006, are reflected in the practical implementation of a large number of countries in the field of robotics, pharmaceuticals, biomedicine, high-tech, military sphere [16. pp. 361-465]) resulting from the action of the IPR, since in such an economy the virtualization of economic processes [19. pp. 1-28].

2. The issue of plagiarism, as we have already noted earlier [1. C. 1-11], on the one hand, becomes much broader and more complex than direct verbatim borrowings from scientific works of other authors, caught by the "Anti-Plagiarism" system used for some time in our country, and, on the other hand, requires a rethinking of the prevailing theories (the doctrine) and the practice of approaches to identify the "originality" of the "Anti-Plagiarism" system used in Russia and the question of ways to identify originality, requirements for it and methods, mechanisms, forms of its expression (consolidation).

3. There is a need for discussion, the beginning of a broad discussion, rethinking and finding consensus in society regarding:

• the prevailing approaches in theory (doctrine) and practice to identify the "originality" of the "Anti-Plagiarism" system used in Russia and the question of ways to identify originality, requirements for it and methods, mechanisms, forms of its expression (consolidation),
• the fact that intellectual property objects, in particular, copyright objects should be subject to the openness regime (cease to be protected by copyright).

In this regard, it is proposed:1. As one of the ways to ensure national security, taking into account the international situation and gaining Russia's leadership in the development of science and technology as a key factor in ensuring such security:

a) to review the approaches of the scientific community and the operators of the Anti-Plagiarism system to the assessment of the "originality" of scientific works by analogy with the above foreign experience, that is

 at least (with a temporary short-term preservation of the primitive approach of work aimed at capturing the sequence of letters, words, phrases):

- to focus attention in the interface of the "Anti-Plagiarism" system and the minds of students, scientists, etc. (from a student/graduate student to a doctor of sciences) on fixing by the system "coincidences"/"similarities" of the works being checked with those already available in the database/life in order to introduce into their minds the need to cite really used (really readable) in preparation the works of other authors from their own list of used sources compiled by them, which, as a result of checking in the "Anti-Plagiarism" system, will show a direct correspondence of the work cited by the student /graduate student / doctor of sciences to its original source (and not how it is repeated in the works of subsequent authors).

 For this purpose, raise the issue of prescribing at the state level:

- the "Anti-plagiarism" system

1) solve the technical problem identified in our previous article, designated as ".. if, say, a conscientious author legitimately quotes (placing quotation marks, making a link, etc.) a well-known (and not very) work on the right of prominent (and not very) authors, for example, Fleishits E.A. Obligations from causing harm and from unjustified enrichment. - M.: Gosyurizdat, 1951. - 239 p. or Khalfina R.O. The general doctrine of legal relations. – M.: Legal lit. -1974. – 340 p., etc., then in the case when before such a legitimate bona fide borrowing some unscrupulous author (Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov, Afghan and others) copied this work verbatim for his authorship, the "Anti-Plagiarism" system will show borrowing from such an unscrupulous "author" who is engaged in plagiarism (Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov, Afghani, etc.), and not legitimate quoting of books by Fleishits, Halfina, etc. Such a situation is also facilitated by such a circumstance as the presence or absence of the cited work and various publications of the authors Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov, Afghan, etc. on the Internet, on various library and other resources, etc. Accordingly, such a situation calls, in fact, forces even a very conscientious author to rephrase what the system shows as written off (borrowed) from Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov, Afghani, etc. And here there is a fundamental difference between conscientious and unscrupulous scientists. A conscientious author is forced to paraphrase the text by Khalfina, Fleishits, etc., in order to avoid references in the "Anti-Plagiarism" system to parts of his work allegedly "borrowed" from Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov, Afghani, etc., because the "rules of the game" force him to be checked in the "Anti-Plagiarism" system. He makes a paraphrase and puts a link - see: Halfina, Fleischitz, etc. An unscrupulous author does not put a link, attributing the authorship of the paraphrased text to himself. What this leads to we will consider below."

2) the second most important (after the result of the "coincidence" check) in the interface of the "Antiplagiat" system is to fix the result of the "citation" and "list of used sources" check in it, the third is "self–citation",

3) replace the concept of "originality" in the interface of the "Anti-Plagiarism" system and the minds of students, scientists, etc. (from student/graduate student to doctor of sciences) with "author's contribution to solving a scientific problem";

- Universities/scientific community, including editorial offices of journals

1) to allow self-citations in dissertations to an unlimited extent due to the permissibility of publication before the defense in the form of articles, at least the entire text of the dissertation,

2) to promote academic integrity in dissertations and scientific publications (theses, articles) uniformly in the bundle "citations – a personal list of personally read sources in the preparation of scientific work – the admissibility of 100% self-citation", and not in any other way.

as a maximum:- raise the issue of the prescription at the state level:

- the "Antiplagiat" system to rebuild the work of its algorithm (AI) and equip the "Antiplagiat" system by analogy with the technologies described and repeated here (Risks to Is mind reading real and how it can change our lives. September 30, 2019. URL: https://rb.ru/longread/mind-reading /?ysclid=ldfx91pzdw488895966 (accessed: 01/28/2023)) technology(s) of "recognition" of new knowledge, a new solution to a scientific problem, identification of meanings, etc. from the texts of scientific papers uploaded to the system and related databases to capture "the author's contribution to solving a scientific problem."

b) oblige students/scientists (doctors and candidates of sciences), etc. to emphasize their author's contribution to solving a scientific problem:

 1) to make proposals in their scientific works on the law to improve legislation, for which they should abandon the "harmful" idea that "students cannot give recommendations such as "it is necessary to establish interaction between state authorities"." Any reasonable person can (see K. Saimak's story above). And the students provide a medical certificate that they are healthy, there are no mental abnormalities, so as not to understand what they are advising, especially the scientific supervisor for what? controls what students write, after all,

2) to test the obtained scientific results at industrial enterprises, etc. (recall the Soviet-era practice of implementing acts),

c) to implement paragraph b) above, oblige universities to submit amendments to the current legislation to the Government of the Russian Federation (thereby helping the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation) and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education for use as one of the indicators of (new) efficiency of their activities: how many amendments to the legislation the Government has adopted – an educational institution offering amendments will receive so much money to finance its activities (such a system is adopted in China and works, so university teachers have very high salaries, they work well for the benefit of the country and live well).

In addition, the world is already living in conditions of resource scarcity, which will only increase and which will lead to the introduction of new performance indicators. Why not think about it in advance, that is, today?

The organization of such an order of work can be well facilitated by the fixation of both the results of intellectual activity and the contribution to the results of each co–author - participants of such scientific activity in a system based on distributed ledger technology (blockchain), open innovations are created and used and AI is applied.

2. Universities teaching law:

1) initiate a discussion on the two issues outlined above.

2) focus on and promote one of its following results:

• the concept of "originality" should be replaced by the concept of "author's contribution to the solution of a scientific problem",
• the concept of copyright hinders the development of science and the exchange of knowledge and scientific results (see, for example, the idea of open innovation), and therefore scientific results must be made open by taking the position: "the subsequent author acknowledges that he took ideas from the previous one (the first in time), and he has the right to develop them, but the first author is always the first.". The fact of the championship will help to record the use of distributed ledger technology (blockchain) - a digital database that is able to reflect all transactions made.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.