Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Andrew Thye Shen Wee, Jan 03, 2016
  • 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.
    Full-text · Article · May 2014 · Accountability in Research Policies and Quality Assurance

  • No preview · Article · Jan 2012 · European Journal of Clinical Investigation

  • No preview · Article · Nov 2012 · Vaccine
Show more