>>summarizes the current state of the field, while the "original" paper is specific technique. They copied the summarizes from that those techniques. >>Why wo

>>summarizes the current state of the field, while the "original" paper is specific technique. They copied the summarizes from that those techniques. >>Why would they need to re-phrase the facts and methods the authors described themselves when all they're doing is giving an overview? A review paper is synthesis of ideas and they copied the synthesis of other authors. Ultimately, this is what plagiarism looks like in the case of a review paper.