Self-plagiarism is a re-edition of the same or similar scientific texts without references. Plagiarism is a violation of the law, and self-plagiarism is a violation of publishing ethics. Yes, with self-plagiarism, a scientist cannot steal something from himself, but this can cause some damage to his reputation and publication.

It is interesting to note that the term "self-plagiarism" is not in dictionaries. With great effort, information on the topic under discussion was found in the scientific literature.

Secondly, the term "Self-plagiarism" is not used in international and national legislation, which is completely logical from the point of view of the very essence of the institution of intellectual property. Furthermore, The ban on copying to the author (copyright holder) of the work is absurd from the point of view of copyright. The essence of the institution of copyright lies, in fact, in providing self-copying, self-quoting, but copying the work or its parts by any third parties is prohibited.

Moreover, the entry into force of the provisions on "self-plagiarism" would mean the "death" of performance, both for the authors of works and for the authors of performances. All market relations, show business, art, science, production are based on the creation and distribution

copies. The ban on copying products (goods and services) of one's intellectual activity is contrary to international law and national institutions of intellectual activity.

Initially, it is the author, and not a third party, who owns all the rights to use the work, including the right to copy: initially, only the author has the right to "violate" the antimonopoly law for a certain period limited by law.

Why can a third party use a work, for example, under a license, for educational and scientific purposes, but the author cannot?

Thirdly, the entry into force of self-plagiarism would mean the destruction of the international quality management system, because the latter prescribes to repeat the execution of procedures by any of the employees organizations in accordance with the rules and regulations.

Fourthly, self-plagiarism in science is the destruction of its foundations, because science rests on reproducibility (repeatability) in a copy of the results (executions): no reproducibility - no experimental confirmation of the pattern - there is no science.

Fifthly, the content of any work is not protected by copyright, and therefore self-plagiarism of the content of a work is an excess in the square.

The term "self-plagiarism" is not correct and therefore should be taken out of use. If necessary, the phrases self-quoting or self-copying should be used instead.

I think the next problem is

Self-citation is the use by the author in his writings of ideas and conclusions from earlier publications. This approach is quite justified and not prohibited, however, the abuse of self-quoting is an ethical problem that the scientific community is trying to combat. They try to equate it with Self-plagiarism - this is the deliberate reuse by a scientist of an already published own article or part of it. This action is considered a violation of scientific ethics.

When is self-citation justified?

There are situations when citing previous works is quite correct: conscientious authors who have authority in the academic community also resort to reusing their texts. Self-citation is evaluated positively when:

the scientist continues the research described in earlier works;

previous works of the author were published in a foreign language;

the author gives a link to more general or theoretical material, while the article explores a narrower aspect of a scientific problem;

the author informs the reader about the existence of other works on the research topic;

the researcher is working on a unique topic that no one has addressed before;

the author compares the latest, relevant research results with data obtained earlier;

a cycle of publications for different audiences is planned.

It is obvious that it is impossible to completely abandon self-citation, however, the amount of use of citations of one's own works in the works must be reasonably limited. Otherwise, the effect of the so-called "information noise" occurs, which significantly worsens the quality of the bibliographic search.

If the cited part of the previous article is in agreement with a part of the other article, there will be no problem, but if it is (sticked) to it in a way or another, it is not accepted. Regards.

Self plagiarism typically is found in duplicate publication of the same article.

Prof. Dai-Long Ngo-Hoang: Please have a look at the following golden rules on how to avoid plagiarism, especially Self-Plagiarism:

Finally, believe me, or not: If you make one plagiarizing, you may solve one problem and fall into many others where some of which may be described as a knockout. Again and again, please always remember that if there were accusations of plagiarism, it is not well for any researcher's reputation, in any meaning.

Dear Dai-Long Ngo-Hoang . See the following useful RG link: Article What is plagiarism and how to avoid it?

Kindly see also the following useful RG link: Article Self-Plagiarism or Appropriate Textual Re-use?

Also check please the following useful links: https://www.medtextpert.com/self-plagiarism-explained/

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol25/iss1/19/

The following RG link is also very useful: Article Recycling Is Not Always Good: The Dangers of Self-Plagiarism