• Source
    • "Lastly, it is often argued that duplicate or redundant publication is wrong because it squanders the time of reviewers and editors. As a recent ACS Nano editorial complains, " time wasted on a self-plagiarized paper [by an 'already overloaded peer review and editorial system'] is, simply time wasted, and in research, no one has the luxury of excess time " (Bonnell et al., 2012, p. 1; see also Wager and Wiffen, 2011). Andreescu responds that this argument is compelling only insofar as self-plagiarism is wrong for other reasons (Andreescu, 2012, p. 17). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The concept of self-plagiarism frequently elicits skepticism and generates confusion in the research ethics literature, and the ethical status of what is often called "textual recycling" is particularly controversial. I argue that, in general, self-plagiarism is unethical because it is deceptive and dishonest. I then distinguish several forms of it and argue against various common rationalizations for textual recycling. I conclude with a discussion of two instances of textual recycling, distinguishing them in terms of their ethical seriousness but concluding that both are ethically problematic.
    Accountability in Research Policies and Quality Assurance 05/2014; 21(3):176-97. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.848071 · 0.83 Impact Factor

  • European Journal of Clinical Investigation 01/2012; 42(10). DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2362.2012.02665.x · 2.73 Impact Factor

  • Vaccine 11/2012; 30(50):7131-3. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.08.053 · 3.62 Impact Factor
Show more


120 Reads
Available from