Autoplagiarism is the act or process of plagiarizing one’s own work. Sometimes, we must quote or describe our own previous works, then what? Most of the definition say that we must only quote our works, because must be shown clearly what we do in the new article. What ro do when our works are under review? Most journals don't permit quoting article under review.
For example:
The article (A1) on the new method is sent to journal A. Afterwards, the article (A2) on application of this method is sent to journal B.
If A2 will be sent after publicized article A1. This takes a lot of time, but we avoid autoplagiarism. Is it possible to sent them simultaneously and avoid autoplagiarism?
U can either put A1 on arxiv or ship it along when submitting A2. Easy.
Wojciech - Nice Question!
This is a fundamental issue that entails the majority of researches in our present time and particularly for the future whereby new anti-plagiarism techniques are becoming more readily available, such as iThenticate among others.
This is a double-edged sword, where on the one hand editors and reviewers are taking it very seriously without giving consideration to reasonable issues - such as materials and perhaps methods in certain projects remain the same - and on the other hand experts are building knowledge in specific areas of their expertise and keep publishing incremental advancements occurring within their research. Certainly, these researchers are going to use the same background literature reviews and the same materials and somehow the same methods in their work to note some time later that they have fell in the nets of auto-plagiarism.
Well, to remedy this situation, and while authorities are urged to develop guidelines as to how to deal with auto-plagiarism in a fair way, the advise is to reference your early work that contains the literature review per se, and to paraphrase the text in the materials and methods that were published beforehand.
I believe that this is one safe ethical way to deal with this issue for the time being.
Good Luck!
Found this window while googling "self-plagiarism science technology publish".
I think you might like this article link attached here. The point is how much is literal self-plagiarism (e.g. plain copy-paste, same face of tables and figures, and the such), and how much is the result of our own long-term and consolidated research line, which in real terms would be far from being totally different or new out of the standard makings of science and technology. In other words, since the last 10 or 15 years it is difficult for an average scientist like me to write about something outstanding extraordinary in my disciplines overall. Indeed we rely on methods established by the Gurus in the theme, We use antecedents of previous applications or examples of the method, and we adapt available/useful knowledge to our purposes. Therefore I believe the limit between self-plag and write about our own work looks quite clear to me. In any case, if you are writing a new manuscript --very likely a continuation/complement of your own previous work or reserach project-- somewhere you must cite, explain, discuss, compare, etc. what makes the differences from your previous (and similar) publication (s). Actually, one of the clear definitions of self-plagiarism is when your own papers are not even mentioned.
That is. I wanted to share with y'all since I arrived at random to the same path.
http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/11/11/ethical-editing-practices-and-the-problem-of-self-plagiarism/#.WCuiwtV95aQ
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Composition Studies
- Articles