In academics, the note [sic] is used to make it clear that material lifted from a secondary source was incorrect as the author found it, as opposed to a mistake in the text.
Is there an opposite term which can be used to denote a paraphrased usage, informing the reader that the source material has been changed.
For instance:
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.
– 1 Timothy 6:10
Is often mis-quoted as:
Money is the root of all evil.
Could I make it clear that if I was using the second version, that I know it is a variation on the actual source?
Update: It has been suggested that this question is a duplicate of one about using squared brackets to fill in possibly missing words. This is a question about denoting a paraphrase, or changed meaning, in texts which sit between the source and my own writing.
Best Answer
Square brackets are used for interpolations and clarifications from the author and can enclose arbitrary meta-text (though this normally kept short). Examples are:
So you could simply use "[paraphrased]", "[translated]" or, dare I say, "[not sic]" as the "opposite" to "sic" to add clarification.
Depending on the situation it may be appropriate to interpolate the paraphrasing itself with the source text using square brackets. E.g.:
The Chicago Manual of Style (Section 13, 16th Edition) has recommendations on using bracket notation, translations and paraphrasing.