We often work on R&D projects that evolve in time using the same literature review and the same materials and methods; yet, when we publish our incrementally progressing work we have to repeat certain background information within the new article so as the reader wont have to be referred to older texts.
Today, peer reviewed journals and conferences are utilizing anti-plagiarism software (e.g. iThenticate) to counterfeit against plagiarized material - one of which is self plagiarism.
In your professional opinion, to what extent should self-plagiarism be tolerated?
Dear Marcel: In some cases, I have just cited a previous paper to see the experimental procedures, but the reviewer want me to describe the procedure. If the people just want to criticize, they can find plenty of reasons doesn't matter they are useful/creative or not. I have some other experiences too.
Self plagiarism is sometimes unavoidable, especially when you're, as you note, building on your own previous research: sometimes you simply must repeat the previous background information that serves as the foundation for the new text.
In that case 'self-plagiarism' is a bit of a misnomer, even though it will be indeed caught by filters. Readers should be made aware of older texts but when needed a synopsis of same should absolutely be included, and deploying iThenticate against this is both unwarranted and totally counter-productive.
Following H. Chris, why should there be a problem when the sources are cited? Auto-citations are often perceived as negative, but obviously useful to track the history of a research team and its findings.
Usually I prepare different materials/membranes for different applications. But I use the same instruments for characterization of these membranes/materials. Obviously while describing the materials and methods, normally I have to write the same procedures even though the membrane and materials are different. Not only in my case, if anyone use the same instrument and procedures anywhere in the word could face the same issue. I don't think the plagiarism is an issue in such cases.
I agree with Lijo. Methods are often too poorly described because of several reasons, obviously complicating replication of research procedures.
Dear Marcel: In some cases, I have just cited a previous paper to see the experimental procedures, but the reviewer want me to describe the procedure. If the people just want to criticize, they can find plenty of reasons doesn't matter they are useful/creative or not. I have some other experiences too.
Self plagiarism reflects using your own writing with a projection that it is a new paper/write up.
There is a need to be transparent in what we do, project that we have done this, and must be honest in acknowledging our own sources.
Sometimes, plagiarism can be inadvertent; but in case the intention to be dishonest is evident, it should be taken seriously.
The culpability could however be of a somewhat lower order than the one involving anyone else's work.
Every texts can't be free from plagiarism say terminologies, standard method, facts (e.g. anatomy in medical), prevalence etc...
I have known of a recent situation whereby a track chair of a reputable international conference reacted very violently to an iThenticate score which indicates a relatively high auto-plagiarism.
The paper was a new study on a specific type of research that utilized the same literature of an older paper with a description of the same materials and methods... and the paper was rejected.
Subsequently, the authors of the same paper modified the text appropriately and submitted it to a more specialized international conference and the paper got accepted because of originality.
I believe that the original reviewer over-reacted on the issue and that he has used the score from the iThenticate in a detrimental manner.
The first lesson to be learned from this experience is that users of anti-plagiarism software - a new tool that has been recently introduced - ought to utilized the output of these tools in a wise manner as there is no manual to what extent should an author avoid using the same words to describe the same issues in studies that are built incrementally.
In the old school - when there were no such utilities as anti-plagiarism software - my advisors used to keep some materials the same and not care about changing them... The main thrust was towards advancement.
The second lesson in my professional opinion about this subject matter is that today we have to respect new concepts and work around them. Avoid auto-plagiarism as much as possible!
Dear Ziad: I would say this is nothing but pure politics, but sometimes unavoidable...
Very recently I came to know that one of the research paper has got rejected for some serious reasons, and the author included a professor's name, who is friend of an editor of a highly reputed journal (people say that in terms of impact factor) as co-author and published without any objection.
I think that No kind of plagiarism can be tolerated. All resources by the author or others should be cited ; nevertheless, sometimes one might repeat innocently an idea that is not fundamental and does not influence the decision of the referees and the editors; if this is the self plagiarism you mean then it can be tolerated.
I agree with Lijo. Writing the same procedures and instruments even though the membrane and materials are different, is not considered to be self plagiarism.
Great question!
The self plagiarism can be somewhat a facility for us researchers, but is also a lack of respect with fellow readers.
The self plagiarism can be avoided with a few hours of work and the company of a good glass of wine or amount of coffee!
Dear Ziad
It is considered that an author plagiarizes himself when reuses own material that has already been published , without indicating the reference of his previous work . In fact , more editorial rigor , depending on the context and extent of the publication of the copied text , the inclusion of the reference could be enough, for not clearly indicate to the reader ( or the editor ) the scope of copy
A simple definition of self-plagiarism is to use the previous own research and submit it for publication as something new and original
Pamela Samuelson (1994 ) , a well known author and expert in law at the University of Berkeley , addresses the issue of self-plagiarism more sparingly . She cites several factors that justify the use of previously published work , and among these cases highlights the following situations :
The previous work is the basis for a new contribution presented in the second labor;
Substantial amounts of previous work must be repeated to explain the new evidence or new arguments to defend ;
If you write for a different audience in different places and you must make the message understandable. For example , an article published in a journal of biotechnology, then published in a journal of economics ;
The issue of self-plagiarism is becoming more common , and in some areas , especially in the journals of science, technology and medicine , such as biomedicine , there has been a growing trend in self-plagiarism
In my opinion every text cannot be free from plagiarism as terminologies, standard method, facts ..
I think that in a well structured paper self plagiarism should be absent completely in original part of work describing new results. Other sections, like Introduction, Methodology and even Discussion can have certain degree of self referencing. To what extent - it should be defined by the journal rules and checked by Editor and referees during the peer review process.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics