I want to know if I cite my own articles, would that be self-plagiarism. In global scenario is it well accepted? if yes then with what conditions?
As others mentioned, we should differentiate between self citation and self plagiarism.
Self-citation can help authors to promote and advertise their previous publications. There are circumstances in which self-citation is necessary (continuation of previous articles, two part articles, ...). There are also authors who have excessive and unnecessary self citations. I believe that excessive self-citation is also not ethical and there should be a limit on the percentage of self-citations on the total number of citations.
Self-Plagiarism is defined as a type of plagiarism in which the writer republishes a work in its entirety or reuses portions of a previously written text while authoring a new work. Writers often maintain that because they are the authors, they can use the work again as they wish; they can’t really plagiarize themselves because they are not taking any words or ideas from someone else. But while the discussion continues on whether self-plagiarism is possible, the ethical issue of self-plagiarism is significant, especially because self-plagiarism can infringe upon a publisher’s copyright.
You may also like to have a look at
20 Q&A's about Self-plagiarism form ithenticate software website.
http://www.ithenticate.com/resources/webcasts/self-plagiarism/q-and-a
Dear Rahul Pratap Singh Kaurav; In my opinion plagiarism is not ethical et al in any form. Even self plagiarism may be avoided. Thanks.
Citing your previous work unnecessarily is debatable and some see it unethical because it is one of the broken parts of the current publishing incentive system (some authors cite themselves to increase the citations their papers receive and help build a better reputation). Self-plagiarism is different though. If you quote something you wrote in one of your papers and cite it, then that would not be considered self plagiarism. Self plagiarism is when you do so without citing the paper, or when you use a figure that was in one of your published papers, and specifically doing so without requesting the permission from the journal that published your paper.
In some places, self-plagiarism game is played this way: a research paper is published for a certain "scholar" in journal (A). The "scholar" will go over the paper changing the words of the title & the contents by extensive use of synonyms so as to get another superficially 2 new papers (B & C). B & C are published in another 2 different journals. However, A, B, and C are basically the same research project. The "scholar" will get 30 points which will enhance the promotion from assistant prof. into associated prof. & beyond!! Of course, this deceit is totally unethical. My advice to all institutions: if an assoc. prof. or a full prof. applies for work in your institution, please examine very well.
A very good question by Rahul Pratap Singh Kaurav. I, while agreeing with Dr Sarwan Kumar Dubey that it should be avoided, feel that at times one does quote from his previous work and that should not be called unethical if there is a genuine need for doing so, i.e. clarify, explain or making a point in a publication.
Plagiarism is when you copy portions from some other persons work without citing the source and not when you cite your own work also quote the source but unnecessary self citation is of course not a good thing to do and should be avoided as far as possible.
I believe it is better for a researcher to avoid self-plagiarism. Both plagiarism and Self-plagiarism are unethical. If you use large chunks of previous works of yours, then you need to reference those words.
I agree with most of the researchers that self citation and plagarism are entirely different. It also depends on how you see it. I have seen several paper adopt a standard methodology and have to write it each time they publish a paper in that field. Often they use it from their previously published paper. Many of them paraphrase it others don't. This amounts to self plagarism to avoid that they cite their previous work so add a reference as well now this becomes self citation as well. So how unethical is this? We have to differentiate between them and all self plagarism cannot be considered same although by definitation is all wrong and unethical.
As others mentioned, we should differentiate between self citation and self plagiarism.
Self-citation can help authors to promote and advertise their previous publications. There are circumstances in which self-citation is necessary (continuation of previous articles, two part articles, ...). There are also authors who have excessive and unnecessary self citations. I believe that excessive self-citation is also not ethical and there should be a limit on the percentage of self-citations on the total number of citations.
Self-Plagiarism is defined as a type of plagiarism in which the writer republishes a work in its entirety or reuses portions of a previously written text while authoring a new work. Writers often maintain that because they are the authors, they can use the work again as they wish; they can’t really plagiarize themselves because they are not taking any words or ideas from someone else. But while the discussion continues on whether self-plagiarism is possible, the ethical issue of self-plagiarism is significant, especially because self-plagiarism can infringe upon a publisher’s copyright.
You may also like to have a look at
20 Q&A's about Self-plagiarism form ithenticate software website.
http://www.ithenticate.com/resources/webcasts/self-plagiarism/q-and-a
Thank you all for giving your inputs on the very crucial and sensitive point. Now, it is very clear that self-citation and self-plagiarism are two different words.
Self-citation, is using your earlier point and making a new discussion valid. Whereas self-plagiarism, is just the new face of old points.
Thank you very much to all again.
Plagiarism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/plagiarism
Definition of plagiarism in English:
The practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own: there were accusations of plagiarism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Rahul,
Citing any published work with due recognition/acknowledgement does not amount to plagiarism. Hence, self-citation , also meeting this condition, is not plagiarism.
Plagiarism is wrongfully claiming somebody else's work as one's own.
While the term plagiarism has been coined in relation to others' works, there have been instances of even own publications being republished by "Wrongful appropriation" . This will certainly be termed plagiarism or so-to-say self-plagiarism.
Hope this clarifies the doubt.
Take a look to this site.
http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/92785/file-5414624-pdf/media/ith-selfplagiarism-whitepaper.pdf
Self-Plagiarism is defined as a type of plagiarism in which the writer republishes a work in its entirety or reuses portions of a previously written text while authoring a new work.
http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/92785/file-5414624-pdf/media/ith-selfplagiarism-whitepaper.pdf
www.ithenticate.com/resources/papers/ethics-of-self-plagiarism
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/.../self-plagiarism-ethical-shortcut-or-...
www.purdue.edu/GRADSCHOOL/.../rcr/ORI_Plagiarism_Guidelines.pdf
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/29245/title/When-is-self-plagiarism-ok-/
When is self-plagiarism ok?
When linkurl:Robert Barbato;http://saunders.rit.edu/directory/facstaff/28 of the E. Philip Saunders College of Business at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) heard he was being accused of plagiarizing his own work, he was a bit surprised. "I can't plagiarize myself -- those are my own words," he said. Image: Wikimedia commons, Guillaume CarelsAnd he is not alone in his views. Some scientists and publishers argue that it's "unavoidable" for scientists to re-use portions of their own text (
Dear @Rahul, here are some good articles on this issue, as well as some more threads on self plagiarism. Hope you are going to find it helpful.
The articles The ethics of self-plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism in Academic Publishing: The Anatomy of a Misnomer are relevant readings.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Self-plagiarism-why_is_it_a_issue_in_the_academic_world
Article The ethics of self-plagiarism
Article Self-Plagiarism in Academic Publishing: The Anatomy of a Misnomer
Article How do we handle self-plagiarism in submitted manuscripts?
Attached paper has explored the difference between appropriate and inappropriate textual re-use and provided a simple model for identifying self-plagiarism in academic
publications. Based on our pilot study of self-plagiarism by Australian academics, we
have found that electronic detection is a potentially useful instrument, but cannot be
used in isolation. Combined with manual analysis, nuanced academic judgement and
clear processes, it may be useful to determine if plagiarism, in any form, has
occurred.
Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2009). Self-plagiarism or appropriate textual re-use?. Journal of Academic Ethics, 7(3), 193-205.
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~brad_m/research/plagiarism_files/Bretag_selfPlagiarism_JAE08.pdf
It is natural to cite precedent works if some data or conclusions in them are inputs of the current work or publication, to let readers follow the hole idea and the research process. i really don't understood how one could self plagiarize his/her self..
Dear Fairouz,
The key thing is making sure that authors reference the previous work that they’re using in the article. It should be clear to anyone reading the paper which parts of your work have been published previously and where.
It is apparently not very natural for some authors to use correct referencing as there are incidences and discussions of self-plagiarism.
Dear Behrouz,
I think it is the role of the reviewers and editors to ensure correct referencing. Authors who cite previous work not connected with the actual should be asked to make right corrections and citations; If they don't agree their paper shouldn't be published. Self plagiarism means that someone copies him/her self, is it logical???
I do find this @Miranda's thread related to this one. What do You think?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_can_researchers_do_to_avoid_self-plagiarism_What_are_the_consequences_since_self-plagiarism_was_highlighted_by_APA_6th_edition
The problem of re-using same words used in the cited work, could be understood as a form of highlighting precedent results or data. it could be as well a form of facilitating the reading of the paper, as reviewers and readers usually do not read entirely precedents works and focus on the results (new or updated). So the question how some one could copy his work by himself is challenging. The ethics is related on robing the work or data of some one else, but enhancing ones works or using same words is not a problem of ethics. The better is to use others words, reviewers could ask for changing the paragraph formulation for example, but the interests should be focused on the methodology and results (ie what is new in the research), reviewers should be aware of the correctness of the results.
You are right dear @Kamal. My RG search engine for questions does not work! So, I have to spend a lot of time in order to get the information that I am looking for. Have a look in RG feedback!
https://feedback.researchgate.net/responses/search-function-for-qa
What about second or third editions of publications. Many books first and second editions are same words, but may be with further data or information
An old economy book: 'Introduction to positive economics', by Richard G Lipsey, told about an approach to increase sales: selling the same product under two different brands adds sales, this was done by Philips with their brand: 'Radiola', some scientific magazines do require the contents submitted to it not being published or submitted elsewhere, but with some changes, you can publish different issues of the same experience, I'd say this is sometimes marketing rather than science, but it may yield some results
Self-plagiarism, also referred to as ‘text recycling’, is a topical issue and is currently generating much discussion among editors. Opinions are divided as to how much text overlap with an author’s own previous publications is acceptable, and editors often find it hard to judge when action is required. In an attempt to get some consensus and consistency on the issue, editors at BioMed Central have produced some guidelines (see below). They would very much welcome your feedback and invite you to comment on the guidelines below.
These guidelines are intended to guide editors in dealing with cases of text recycling. Text recycling, also known as self-plagiarism, is when sections of the same text appear in more than one of an author’s own publications.
Editors should consider each case of text recycling on an individual basis as the most appropriate course of action will depend on a number of factors.
When should action be considered?
Text recycling can take many forms, and editors should consider which parts of the text have been recycled. Duplication of data is likely to always be considered serious (and should be dealt with according to the COPE guidelines for duplicate publications [1,2]. Use of similar or identical phrases in methods sections where there are limited ways to describe a common method, however, is not uncommon. In such cases, an element of text recycling is likely to be unavoidable in further publications using the same method. Editors should use their discretion when deciding how much overlap of methods text is acceptable, considering factors such as whether authors have been transparent and stated that the methods have already been described in detail elsewhere and provided a citation. Duplication of background ideas in the introduction may be considered less significant than duplication of the hypothesis, discussion, or conclusions.
When significant overlap is identified between two or more articles, editors should consider taking action. Several factors may need to be taken into account when deciding whether the overlap is considered significant.
Text recycling in a submitted manuscript
Text recycling may be identified in a submitted article by editors or reviewers, or by the use of plagiarism detection software, e.g. CrossCheck. Editors should consider the extent of the overlap when deciding how to act. Where overlap is considered to be minor, authors may be asked to re-write overlapping sections, and cite their previous article(s). More significant overlap may result in rejection of the manuscript. Where the overlap includes data, Editors should handle cases according to the COPE flowchart for dealing with suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript .
Please read the rest of this interesting article at:
http://publicationethics.org/text-recycling-guidelines
Dear Behrouz thank you for your answer but my short answer to the question will be it is unethical
Citing, word-for-word, a theorem that you have written before in a publication is natural to do if you present it in a new paper simply to contrast it with the major improvement that you will provide in the next paragraph. This, I think, is important - if you wish to compare a technical result with another one you should really *cite* the previous one rather than rephrasing it. On the other hand, it is not only un-ethical, but plain LAZY, to word-for-word copy page after page of previous text that you have written.
I think if someone derives something new using previously published material then citing word by word is not plagiarism. But it should be limited to few lines otherwise one need to summarize the previously publish portion before putting it into new article. In addition one must clearly mention what things have been borrowed from previously published article.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics