Article

Song From Myself: An Anatomy of Self-Plagiarism

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

Self-plagiarism raises knotty conceptual, legal, ethical, and theoretical questions. This essay pro- vides an extended definition of self-plagiarism, re- views the case law regarding self-plagiarism in copy- right infringement, examines the ethics of self- plagiarism, considers self-plagiarism relative to post- modern critiques of authorship and originality, and concludes, finally, that we do and should give writ- ers legal and ethical latitude for limited self-copying, although certainly not for egregious duplication. This leeway for authors fits well within a more gen- eral ambivalence toward plagiarism, an uneasiness born of definitional, moral, and theoretical uncer- tainty.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

... Despite the mounting attention, the ethical substance of self-plagiarism has often been assessed in inadequate terms, with many knee-jerk reactions and superficial labeling still common in the literature. Some authors writing on the subject seem to consider such acts particularly serious, even while simultaneously admitting to a vast grey zone (e.g., Scanlon 2007). Thus, self-plagiarism in general has been judged, mostly in abstracto, as ''highly reprehensible'' (Brochard and Brun-Buisson 2007, 212), a ''scourge'' of the world of academic publishing (Green 2005), or a ''major sin'' flanking that of plagiarism (Errami and Garner 2008, 397). ...
... They will be briefly discussed below not in an attempt to achieve conceptual clarity-I will suggest a different route out of the current morass in the concluding section-, but rather in order to establish a terminological baseline and to provide the reader with a frame for the criticisms advanced later on. Neither does this list of terms aim to be exhaustive, especially since, as with many recent and exciting discoveries, self-plagiarism has spawned many varieties of allegedly illicit recycling, including some with exotic names (e.g., cryptomnesia). 2 As an umbrella term, self-plagiarism typically covers dual or duplicate publication, redundant publication, ''salami slicing'', and several forms of textual recycling (e.g., Roig 2006;Scanlon 2007;Bretag and Mahmud 2009). As with plagiarism proper, self-plagiarism is also used in connection with rehashing ideas and data, not exclusively or necessarily text. ...
... It may be claimed that what makes self-plagiarism worthy of the ''plagiarism'' label is not misappropriation of text, ideas or data, but misrepresentation (Scanlon 2007) or outright deceit (Hexham 1999). Thus, Samuelson (1994, 25) notes that the ''self-plagiarist does not … misrepresent the identity of the author of the work, but implies that the work the reader currently sees is new and original and not copied from previous work.'' ...
Article
Full-text available
The paper discusses self-plagiarism and associated practices in scholarly publishing. It approaches at some length the conceptual issues raised by the notion of self-plagiarism. It distinguishes among and then examines the main families of arguments against self-plagiarism, as well as the question of possibly legitimate reasons to engage in this practice. It concludes that some of the animus frequently reserved for self-plagiarism may be the result of, among others, poor choice of a label, unwarranted generalizations as to its ill effects based on the specific experience (and goals) of particular disciplines, and widespread but not necessarily beneficial publishing practices.
... This type of plagiarism is quite difficult to detect as most essays attempt to structure a range of arguments and thinking. Another form of plagiarism is through the submission of a student's Downloaded by [203.48.58.148] at 21:16 21 November 2013 original work on several occasions, which is known as self-plagiarism (Bretag & Carapiet, 2007;Evans, 2000;Scanlon, 2007). In addition to paraphrasing, Harris (2001) identified a list of plagiarism activities including downloading free papers from the Internet, buying papers, copying an article from the Internet, translating a foreign article into English or another language, copying from another student, cutting and pasting from several sources, quoting less than all the words copied, changing some words but copying whole phrases, paraphrasing, summarizing without attribution, and faking citations. ...
... Frequency counts were used to quantify the content analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. In this article, four common types of plagiarism were explored in the content analysis: (a) patchwork plagiarism (Klausman, 1999), (b) copying from other students (Howard, 1995), (c) self-plagiarism (Scanlon, 2007) (1) 3% (4) from the Internet (Harris, 2001). To ensure confidentiality of all submitted reports, the names and student identification numbers were not recorded or revealed in this article. ...
... (b) Copying from other students (Howard, 1995) was identified based on similarity between two or more students in the same school. (c) Self-plagiarism (Scanlon, 2007) looks at submissions of a student's original work on several occasions. And (d) buying article(s) from the Internet (Harris, 2001) involves students buying and paying for an external source to do the assignment for the student. ...
Article
Full-text available
On average, it is recommended that academics go through assignments at least four times to detect plagiarism (Martin, 199425. Martin , B. 1994. Plagiarism: A misplaced emphasis. Journal of Information Ethics, 3(2): 36–47. View all references) At many Australian higher education institutions, such as the Curtin University of Technology, Newcastle University, Adelaide University, and the Blue Mountains International Hotel Management School, students are required to submit their assignments to Turnitin (a text-matching software) as a deterrent to plagiarism. Despite knowing that Turnitin will be able to detect plagiarism, students still choose to submit plagiarized assessments. This article investigates plagiarism behavior among Year 1, 2, and 3 undergraduates (n = 369) using Turnitin. Results of this study revealed plagiarism levels were higher among Year 1 students as compared with senior students in their 3rd year. This study also showed patchwork plagiarism as the most common type of plagiarism among undergraduates.
... Some have argued that it is unethical to reuse substantially similar methodology sections or literature reviews (e.g., Roig, 2006). Quite a few have argued that it is unethical to publish multiple journal articles emanating from a single larger study, calling this practice salami-slicing (e.g., Bretag & Carapiet, 2007;Roig, 2006;Scanlon, 2007). A major plagiarism-detection software company used by many publishing houses (including Sage) published an article arguing that "Even reusing a sentence or paragraph from your own previous paper can constitute self-plagiarism" (Creutz, 2010, para. ...
... However, within many of the works cited by scholars studying the so-called scourge or plague of self-plagiarism, there are cautions that it is normal and acceptable for multiple works by the same author to have commonalities in ideas and text (e.g., Hexham, 2005;Scanlon, 2007). As Hexham (2005) noted, authors often develop different aspects of an argument in several papers that require the repetition of certain key passages. ...
... Many simply contend that legitimate recycling must be formally cited (e.g., Bretag & Carapiet, 2007); they fail to acknowledge, however, the accompanying breach of misuse of self-citation (Clarke, 2009). Scanlon (2007) noted that an unintended consequence of this overemphasis on self-plagiarism is that the angst of diligently avoiding any hint of plagiarism is exacerbated by threats of self-plagiarism because it is natural for prolific writers to have created a vocabulary that includes similarities. To cite each instance of common text is not only stressful, but it "is generally regarded with distaste by reviewers and editors, because it smacks of self-promotion" (Clarke, 2009, Section 4.2, para. ...
... [2] Various forms of self-plagiarism have been recognized and even classified. [3] Duplicate publication is where authors publish almost entirely their original work in a second journal with minor changes such as title and authors. A more duplicitous form of self-plagiarism might involve situations where authors try to mask the publication by altering or adding to original data to make it meatier to create what is called an augmented publication. ...
... Usually, it involves multiple measures from the same sample without disclosing that its data are derived from the same experiment. [3] Another form of self-plagiarism which is not as censured but nevertheless frowned upon is text recyling. It occurs when authors reuse large portions of text already published. ...
... It is often attributed to intellectual laziness and sloppiness rather than an intention to decieve. [3] ...
Article
Full-text available
... 25). Scanlon (2007) agrees, and recommends both clear definitions self-plagiarism and appropriate editorial guidelines. Some academics argue that selfplagiarism is impossible because plagiarism is theft and you cannot steal from yourself. ...
... According to Scanlon (2007) duplicate publication and 'salami-slicing' are not only deceptive, but in some cases could even be called fraudulent. Collberg and Kobourov (2005) focus on the phrase 'textual re-use' rather than self-plagiarism to refer to texts or sections of text which are published a number of times. ...
... The major types of self-plagiarism include redundant and duplicate publications, partitioning a larger study into smaller published studies, copyright infringement and text recycling (Roig, 2006). Whether these practices constitute a breach of academic integrity is subject to debate (see Scanlon 2007 for details of a case where charges of self-plagiarism were dropped after a committee determined that verbatim text in the context section of two papers was acceptable practice). According to Samuelson (1994) selfplagiarism is transgressive from both legal and ethical standpoints. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper reports on the preliminary findings from a pilot project which sought to identify self pla- giarism in Australian academic publications. Ten Australian authors were selected at random from top published authors on the Web of Science (Social Science and Humanities) database. Evidence of tex- tual re-use was collected from 269 electronically available published journal articles using the text- matching software program, Turnitin. Self-plagiarism was defined for this study as "10% or more textual re-use of any one previous publication by the author without attribution". The preliminary findings sug- gest that textual re-use is widespread in academic research, with 60% of the authors in the sample having committed self-plagiarism in at least one of their published papers in the period 2003-2006.
... [2] Various forms of self-plagiarism have been recognized and even classified. [3] Duplicate publication is where authors publish almost entirely their original work in a second journal with minor changes such as title and authors. A more duplicitous form of self-plagiarism might involve situations where authors try to mask the publication by altering or adding to original data to make it meatier to create what is called an augmented publication. ...
... Usually, it involves multiple measures from the same sample without disclosing that its data are derived from the same experiment. [3] Another form of self-plagiarism which is not as censured but nevertheless frowned upon is text recyling. It occurs when authors reuse large portions of text already published. ...
... It is often attributed to intellectual laziness and sloppiness rather than an intention to decieve. [3] ...
Article
Full-text available
... Apart from the fairly specific situations in which the scientific value of some articles is questioned, there is an area of questionable publication practices(QPP) in which the reasons for rejection are based instead on non-compliance with ethical standards(ethical writing) and legal regulations (copyright issues): plagiarism, overlap, authorship [18][19][20][21]. While plagiarism is rejected and considered a form of scientific misconduct, text re-use/recycling/self-plagiarism is still under debate about the quantity and type of recycled materials [21], and the decision to retract a scientific paper is mainly an editorial one. ...
... We tried, in this article, to formulate a representation of the impact(citations received) that retracted research (all retraction reasons, without editorial reasons, country of the first author, countries of all authors) for the top 30 countries (tables 18,19,20,21). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
This article looks at the dynamic of retractions and retraction notes, retraction reasons for questionable research and publication practices, countries producing retracted articles, and the scientific impact of retractions. Four thousand eight hundred forty-four retracted articles published between 2009 and 2020 and indexed in PubMed were analyzed. RESULTS Mistakes/inconsistent data account for 32% of total retractions, followed by images(22,5%), plagiarism(13,7%) and overlap(11,5%). Thirty countries account for 94,79% of 4844 retractions. Top five are: China(32,78%), United States(18,84%), India(7,25%), Japan(4,37%) and Italy(3,75%). The total citations number for all articles is 140810(Google Scholar), 96000(Dimensions). Average exposure time(ET) is 28,89 months. Largest ET is for image retractions(49,3 months), lowest ET is for editorial errors(11,2 months). The impact of retracted research is higher for Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and other nine countries and lower for Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, and other six countries, including China. CONCLUSIONS Mistakes and inconsistencies represent the main retraction reason; images and ethical issues show a growing trend, while plagiarism and overlap still represent a significant problem. There is a steady increase in QRP and QPP article withdrawals. Retraction of articles seems to be a technology-dependent process. The number of citations of retracted articles shows a high impact of papers published by authors from certain countries. The number of retracted articles per country does not always accurately reflect the scientific impact of QRP/QPP articles. The country distribution of retraction reasons shows structural problems in the organization and quality control of scientific research, which have different images depending on geographical location, economic development, and cultural model.
... If by rewriting cultural discourse we are carrying out an emancipatory and political subversive act, is it possible to go forward and seriously think that plagiarism is not a crime given that we are rewriting the discourse of others, even though we are violating rules? Scanlon (2007) discusses about the undermining of the very idea of plagiarism as a consequence of the postmodern critiques of authorship and originality: ...
... self-plagiarism may be seen as a tool of resistance. Scanlon (2007) discussed plagiarism as a subversive act, but I do so in a slightly different way. (p. 6) As at other moments in this review, when I digged into the use of the phrases creative subversion and subversive creativity, I have been overwhelmed given the extensive use of the subversive act phrase that can lead us to a cul de sac. ...
Article
Full-text available
It is important to define the ethnographical practices as a way of thinking and doing critical qualitative inquiry. Creative subversion currently arises as a breaking of rules, institutional change, social or political protest, popular or civic rebellion, fighting the law or simply radical transformation of situations. Today it is everywhere even though there is too much silence around it, which could be catastrophic for qualitative research. Reflexive methods could be enriched if researchers looking for social transformation and collaborating in civil resistance integrate in their ethnographical practices the creative subversion as shared knowledge object. It is pertinent to interpret the social action involved in such transformative processes as a poetics of rage collective or individually performed. Doing a review of how creative subversion has been dealt in the contemporary social science, this article is an effort to provide a nuance and rigorous definition.
... This is considered a sin as the findings or the material have already been revealed to the public. According to Scanlon (2007), self-plagiarism is a form of "academic fraud." Self-plagiarism is increasingly a vexed act of scholarly misconduct. ...
... Refer to the most recent edition of a style guide for references. 10. Keep all the research notes and research drafts in separate files. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
In this chapter, we have learned various aspects of the plagiarism.We have tried to understand the difference between intentional and unintentional plagiarism. Besides that, we came to learn about various types of plagiarism. The paper further provides a list of do’s and don’ts to avoid plagiarism. We have also discussed various issues related to plagiarism in India.
... Self-plagiarism can describe a situation in which a researcher uses a part of his/her previous work, which has already been published, in a new publication without mentioning the original publication as a citation in the latter (Cosma & Joy, 2008;Karasalidis & Embalotis, 2018). What is more, both multiple publications and publication of research findings of scientific work in different articles, using common data, are also some forms of self-plagiarism (Scanlon, 2007;Kyridis & Chronopoulou, 2008;Karasalidis & Embalos, 2018). Copying refers to the use of information from a source without being accompanied by a reference to that specific source within the text (Handa & Power, 2005;Wan et al., 2011). ...
Article
Full-text available
Recently, cases of plagiarism in education have been on the rise with the underlying causes of their appearance being numerous. Due to the large extent of this phenomenon, specialised software has been developed and is available for users to check the presence or absence of plagiarism. The purpose of this paper is to study cases of plagiarism in education, as well as the available plagiarism software. Also, this case study presents a practical example of the implementation of the control process using plagiarism software, as well as its results, in an already published article. This case study points out the importance of performing a further quality control to those parts of the text where a textual coincidence was spotted by the plagiarism detection software.
... Knowing the faculty member's behaviors' significant influence on the formation of a student's values and standards (Swazey, Anderson, & Louis, 1993), educating prospective academicians in high ethical and moral environment is very vital for the future of the academy. The unethical plagiarism behaviors give harm to both the plagiarized authors and readers in many ways; dishonoring authors, causing decrease in their work, and misleading readers (Scanlon, 2007). How these severe level of plagiarism in Turkey will affect the future behaviors of an individuals, and the degree of educational institutions academic attainments will be seen soon. ...
Article
Full-text available
The present review attempted to address the direction of plagiarism literature in Turkish context. 15 studies conducted in Turkey on plagiarism were analyzed through content analysis. The context, purposes, methodological issues and results of researching plagiarism were categorized. The findings of this review indicated that although plagiarism's raising legal and ethical concerns is acknowledged by Turkish researchers, there are limited numbers of studies exploring the plagiarism perceptions, views, situations and reasons of Turkish graduate students and professors.
... Patch writing could lead to paraphrasing when students attempt to use their own words to write published materials without changing the original meaning and can be seen as plagiarism if the vocabulary used is similar to the original even if the original source has been cited. Another common form of plagiarism is known as self-plagiarism and involves the resubmission of a student's original work (Bretag & Carapiet, 2007;Scanlon, 2007). Lastly, a bold type of plagiarism is the faking or falsifying of citations from original work to claim them as legitimate citations (McCabe, 2005;Wright & Armstrong, 2008). ...
Article
Full-text available
This article is a follow-up to a study on plagiarism research published in the Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism by E. Goh (2013) and seeks to report qualitative findings with regard to why students engage in extreme plagiarism behavior. Extreme plagiarism is identified in this article as more than 75% similar text match. Out of the sample group of 369, 11 undergraduate students were identified as extreme plagiarism cases. Six key reasons were identified: (a) poor time management, (b) fear of failure, (c) improve grade point average, (d) personal/family problems, (e) poor level of English, and (f) unsure about referencing and plagiarism policy. A key finding in this study is that senior students plagiarize for self-actualization needs (to improve their grade point average), whereas Year 1 students tend to engage in extreme plagiarism because of their poor level of English and uncertainty about referencing and plagiarism policies.
... There are many other definitions, but most of them are similar and have the same meaning described earlier. Plagiarism occurs in a number of forms, like self-plagiarism [3], direct plagiarism [4], paraphrase plagiarism [4][5] and mosaic plagiarism [6]. An extended report on plagiarism forms can be found in work of Ercegovac [5], Bretag [6] and Jones [7]. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The introduction of eLearning led to a number of advancements in student assessment and evaluation. Conventional methods of assignment submission, evaluation and feedback were substituted by online workflows and were enhanced with plagiarism detection tools to assist tutors in evaluating large numbers of assignments. The increasing number of eLearning students along with the huge amount of freely accessible information on the Internet, require tools and services for tutors, to assist the grading of student assignments and check the originality of their work. In this paper, we present the methodology used for introducing and delivering a plagiarism detection service in the Open University of Cyprus eLearning platform and integrating it with the assignment submission process. Additionally, we describe the challenges faced during and after the implementation and the actions taken to train tutors in using the service in a proper way. We conclude by presenting an evaluation of the service, both for its educational and technical soundness, along with statistics of its usage during the last four years.
... Various amounts are mentioned in this connection. Sometimes 30% of text is put forward as an acceptable limit for textual recycling (Samuelson,1994;Scanlon, 2007). A recent medical journal editorial cites an informal poll showing that many experts accept recycling of up to 10% (Kravitz and Feldman, 2010). ...
Article
Full-text available
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.
... See also footnote 14 above. 17 See Samuelson (1994),Bird (2002),Dellavalle et al. (2007),Scanlon (2007),Smith (2007),Baggs (2008),Bretag and Mahmud (2009), Roig (2009), The Lancet (2009), and Bonnell et al. (2012 for further discussion of these concepts, including specific advice on how to avoid self-plagiarism. ...
Article
This extended editorial asks whether peer-review is continuing to operate effectively in policing research misconduct in the academic world. It explores the mounting problems encountered by editors of journals such as Research Policy (RP) in dealing with research misconduct. Misconduct can take a variety of forms. Among the most serious are plagiarism and data fabrication or falsification, although fortunately these still seem to be relatively rare. More common are problems involving redundant publication and self-plagiarism, where the boundary between acceptable behaviour (attempting to exploit the results of one's research as fully and widely as possible) and unacceptable behaviour (in particular, misleading the reader as to the originality of one's publications) is rather indistinct and open to interpretation. With the aid of a number of case-studies, this editorial tries to set out clearly where RP Editors regard that boundary as lying. It also notes with concern a new form of misconduct among certain journal editors, who attempt to engineer an increase in their journal's ‘impact factor’ through a practice of ‘coercive citation’. Such problems with research integrity would appear to be unintended, and certainly undesirable, consequences of the growing trend to quantify research performance through various indicators.
... Other studies indicated that 'self-plagiarism' is more common than plagiarism (Sun, 2013). Along with uncertainty over the extent of improper text recycling, questions about its causes and potential ways to avoid its occurrence have been posed (Honig and Bedi, 2012;Martin, 2013;Scanlon, 2007;Sun, 2013), but so far largely remain without satisfactory answer. ...
Article
Full-text available
Among the various forms of academic misconduct, text recycling or 'self-plagiarism' holds a particularly contentious position as a new way to game the reward system of science. A recent case of alleged 'self-plagiarism' by the prominent Dutch economist Peter Nijkamp has attracted much public and regulatory attention in the Netherlands. During the Nijkamp controversy, it became evident that many questions around text recycling have only partly been answered and that much uncertainty still exists. While the conditions of fair text reuse have been specified more clearly in the wake of this case, the extent and causes of problematic text recycling remain unclear. In this study, we investigated the extent of problematic text recycling in order to obtain understanding of its occurrence in four research areas: biochemistry & molecular biology, economics, history and psychology. We also investigated some potential reasons and motives for authors to recycle their text, by testing current hypotheses in scholarly literature regarding the causes of text recycling. To this end, an analysis was performed on 922 journal articles, using the Turnitin plagiarism detection software, followed by close manual interpretation of the results. We observed considerable levels of problematic text recycling, particularly in economics and psychology, while it became clear that the extent of text recycling varies substantially between research fields. In addition, we found evidence that more productive authors are more likely to recycle their papers. In addition, the analysis provides insight into the influence of the number of authors and the existence of editorial policies on the occurrence of problematic text recycling.
... Bretag and Carapiet, 2007;Martin, 2013), while others have argued that scholars can, do, and even should reuse their written words and ideas, within reason and without citation (e.g. Andreescu, 2013;Anonymous, 1893;Chalmers, 2009;Hexham, 2005;Scanlon, 2007;Vermuelen, 2012). As the anonymous letter writer argued in 1893, reissuing one's own ideas is much like the state reissuing money; ideas, like currency, have greater impact if widely circulated through multiple outlets by the same 'issuer', such as an author (Anonymous, 1893). ...
Article
Full-text available
The ‘scourge of self-plagiarism’ has begun to find a place in the discourse of organization and management scholarship. Whether a real issue of concern or a moral panic, self-plagiarism has captured the attention of authors, editors, publishers, and plagiarism-detection software companies. The types of behaviors castigated as self-plagiarism and the severity of approach toward those behaviors vary, as power brokers in the publishing process argue they hold an ethical high ground. Yet, little has been done to problematize self-plagiarism as a concept and how, and why, it came to occupy such a central role in the academic discourse. In this article, I explore these issues and argue that self-plagiarism is a misnomer that has been retrospectively (im)moralized through regimes of power. I review the spectrum of behaviors that now fall under the self-plagiarism umbrella and problematize issues associated with self-plagiarism. I identify and challenge the power interests that are negotiating the spaces in which self-plagiarism has risen to the forefront and present a call to action to more transparently, and ethically, deal with issues that are currently labeled as ‘self-plagiarism’. Furthermore, in presenting this article, I engage in a form of ‘guerrilla plagiarism’ to resist the appropriation of my authorial voice by power elites in the institutional field of publishing.
... Using self-plagiarism detection metrics such as percentage of material copied and number of separate word strings copied verbatim (Warn 2006); some authors have suggested up to 30 percent of the text may be safely copied from a previous article (Boisvert 2006;Samuelson 1994;Scanlon 2007). Naturally, if the manuscript is a follow-on study, or a replication study, editorial discretion may raise the hurdle to perhaps 60 percent. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper provides a discussion of assessment outcomes of service-learning assignments for students in a marketing course. Specifically, the coverage includes a description of service-learning, the formulation of service- learning objectives, the utilization of service-learning assignments for marketing students, and assessment methods for service-learning objectives. Further, it sets forth the results of an empirical study to measure service-learning outcomes for students in a marketing principles course. The results include data that was collected at a Western U.S. university over an eight-year period. The inquiry indicates that many of these students benefit from a service-learning project with regards to their career, academics, personal development, and civic responsibility. The results also demonstrate that team-based service-learning projects tend to receive more positive assessments than individually-based projects across career, personal development, and civic responsibility outcomes.
... στο Καρασαλίδης & Εμβαλωτής, 2018. Ο τεμαχισμός και η δημοσίευση ερευνητικών ευρημάτων σε διακριτά άρθρα με κοινά δεδομένα (Scanlon, 2007), η υποβολή μιας εργασίας σε διαφορετικά Πλαγιαρισμός σε μεταπτυχιακές διατριβές φοιτητών/τριών 7 μαθήματα (Park, 2004• Walker, 1998 και η πολλαπλή δημοσίευση (Κυρίδης & Χρονοπούλου, 2008), συνιστούν ορισμένες μορφές του αυτοπλαγιαρισμού. ...
Article
Full-text available
Εισαγωγή: Η διάδοση του πλαγιαρισμού αποτελεί ένα θέμα με διεθνές ερευνητικό ενδιαφέρον. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό έχουν διερευνηθεί (μερικώς) η έκταση και οι μορφές του πλαγιαρισμού στο φοιτητικό πληθυσμό. Ωστόσο, από την ανασκόπηση της σχετικής βιβλιογραφίας, διαπιστώθηκε ότι το συγκεκριμένο ζήτημα δεν έχει ερευνηθεί σε σημαντικό βαθμό στην ελληνική ακαδημαϊκή κοινότητα παρά τα αναδυόμενα ανά διαστήματα περιστατικά, καθιστώντας έτσι αναγκαία τη διεξαγωγή της παρούσας έρευνας. Σκοπός της έρευνας: Με την παρούσα έρευνα επιδιώκεται η διερεύνηση της διάδοσης και των μορφών του πλαγιαρισμού σε μεταπτυχιακούς φοιτητές. Δειγματοληπτικός σχεδιασμός: Το δείγμα της έρευνας αποτελείται από 155 μεταπτυχιακές διατριβές και 8 αποφοίτους Προγράμματος Μεταπτυχιακών Σπουδών (ΠΜΣ) σε κάποιο ελληνικό Πανεπιστήμιο. Αξιοποιήθηκε το λογισμικό ανίχνευσης πλαγιαρισμού Turnitin για την εξέταση των διατριβών και η ημιδομημένη συνέντευξη με τους αποφοίτους του ΠΜΣ για τη διερεύνηση του φαινομένου. Ευρήματα: Διαπιστώθηκε ότι οι μεταπτυχιακοί φοιτητές ολισθαίνουν σε πρακτικές πλαγιαρισμού μέσω αυτολεξεί αντιγραφών, ανεπαρκών παραφράσεων και λανθασμένων ενδοκειμενικών αναφορών και παραπομπών ή/και επιμέρους ειδικών περιπτώσεων πλαγιαρισμού. Συμπεράσματα- Προτάσεις: Προτείνεται η επέκταση της διερεύνησης του θέματος (πλαγιαρισμός στην τριτοβάθμια εκπαίδευση) τόσο στους φοιτητές όσο και στο ακαδημαϊκό προσωπικό, για την αναγνώριση και πρόληψη σχετικών πρακτικών στο πλαίσιο της διασφάλισης της ποιότητας στην τριτοβάθμια εκπαίδευση. Introduction: The engagement in plagiarism constitutes a theme with research interest worldwide. In this context students’ engagement in plagiarism and its forms have been examined (partly). However, studying the relevant bibliography it’s concluded that the particular theme has not been examined to a significant extent in Greek tertiary education while a lot of academic dishonest actions have been found. So, the current research is appropriate to fill the research gap. Purpose of the study: The current research aims at exploring graduate students’ engagement in plagiarism and its forms. Method: The sample consists of 155 theses and 8 graduate students of a graduate program in a Greek university. The software Turnitin was utilized for the examination of theses. Furthermore, semi structured interviews were conducted with graduate students. Results: Graduate students have been found to engage in plagiarism. The particular forms are word to word copying, inadequate paraphrasing, errors in citations and bibliography and other subcategories of plagiarism. Implications- Conclusions: The examination of the relevant theme (plagiarism in tertiary education) among students and academic staff needs to be continued. So, the recognition and addressing of these actions will secure quality in higher education.
... 24). A growing number of researchers consider that self-plagiarism undermines the originality of research and can therefore be considered unethical (Brice & Bligh, 2004;Green, 2005;Scanlon, 2007;Sheik, 2000). ...
Article
This paper is a response to recent calls in the literature for holistic institutional approaches to address the complexity of the problem of student plagiarism in higher education. I suggest that one reason for this complexity is that the issue has two conflicting dimensions. It is seen both as a social offence, and as an area for academic learning. In the literature, the dimension of academic learning is addressed in terms of providing students with clear information and skills practice, as well as improving curriculum design and assessment practices. The perspective of plagiarism as a social offence is addressed through systematising the use of detection mechanisms, and the application of fair and consistent penalties. Proposals of holistic approaches that combine both perspectives hold promise of improvements in the effectiveness of deterring and dealing with plagiarism. However, the concern of this paper is to identify a remaining 'hole' in such proposals when these have not been explicit about the fundamental reason for the high value placed on citation and referencing conventions in student writing. I suggest that the use of referencing conventions is generally not part of students' experience outside the academy, and that the answer lies in understanding research as a defining characteristic of higher education institutions. I conclude that a holistic approach to minimising plagiarism is incomplete without an explicit focus on student induction into the culture of research and associated evidence-based writing, in an environment that is free from the stigma of misconduct.
... στο Καρασαλίδης & Εμβαλωτής, 2018. Ο τεμαχισμός και η δημοσίευση ερευνητικών ευρημάτων σε διακριτά άρθρα με κοινά δεδομένα (Scanlon, 2007), η υποβολή μιας εργασίας σε διαφορετικά Πλαγιαρισμός σε μεταπτυχιακές διατριβές φοιτητών/τριών 7 μαθήματα (Park, 2004• Walker, 1998 και η πολλαπλή δημοσίευση (Κυρίδης & Χρονοπούλου, 2008), συνιστούν ορισμένες μορφές του αυτοπλαγιαρισμού. ...
Article
Full-text available
Εισαγωγή: Η διάδοση του πλαγιαρισμού αποτελεί ένα θέμα με διεθνές ερευνητικό ενδιαφέρον. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό έχουν διερευνηθεί (μερικώς) η έκταση και οι μορφές του πλαγιαρισμού στο φοιτητικό πληθυσμό. Ωστόσο, από την ανασκόπηση της σχετικής βιβλιογραφίας, διαπιστώθηκε ότι το συγκεκριμένο ζήτημα δεν έχει ερευνηθεί σε σημαντικό βαθμό στην ελληνική ακαδημαϊκή κοινότητα παρά τα αναδυόμενα ανά διαστήματα περιστατικά, καθιστώντας έτσι αναγκαία τη διεξαγωγή της παρούσας έρευνας.Σκοπός της έρευνας: Με την παρούσα έρευνα επιδιώκεται η διερεύνηση της διάδοσης και των μορφών του πλαγιαρισμού σε μεταπτυχιακούς φοιτητές.Δειγματοληπτικός σχεδιασμός: Το δείγμα της έρευνας αποτελείται από 155 μεταπτυχιακές διατριβές και 8 αποφοίτους Προγράμματος Μεταπτυχιακών Σπουδών (ΠΜΣ) σε κάποιο ελληνικό Πανεπιστήμιο. Αξιοποιήθηκε το λογισμικό ανίχνευσης πλαγιαρισμού Turnitin για την εξέταση των διατριβών και η ημιδομημένη συνέντευξη με τους αποφοίτους του ΠΜΣ για τη διερεύνηση του φαινομένου.Ευρήματα: Διαπιστώθηκε ότι οι μεταπτυχιακοί φοιτητές ολισθαίνουν σε πρακτικές πλαγιαρισμού μέσω αυτολεξεί αντιγραφών, ανεπαρκών παραφράσεων και λανθασμένων ενδοκειμενικών αναφορών και παραπομπών ή/και επιμέρους ειδικών περιπτώσεων πλαγιαρισμού.Συμπεράσματα- Προτάσεις: Προτείνεται η επέκταση της διερεύνησης του θέματος (πλαγιαρισμός στην τριτοβάθμια εκπαίδευση) τόσο στους φοιτητές όσο και στο ακαδημαϊκό προσωπικό, για την αναγνώριση και πρόληψη σχετικών πρακτικών στο πλαίσιο της διασφάλισης της ποιότητας στην τριτοβάθμια εκπαίδευση.
... These diverse views have also appeared in other scholarship (see, e.g. Andreescu, 2013;Bouville, 2008;Bretag & Mahmud, 2009;Roig, 2008;Scanlon, 2007). For a review of the discourse on TR and related matters in the social sciences (see Eaton & Crossman, 2018); for an overview of the debate in the health sciences (see Moskovitz, 2017). ...
Article
Over the past decade, text recycling (TR; AKA ‘self‐plagiarism’) has become a visible and somewhat contentious practice, particularly in the realm of journal articles. While growing numbers of publishers are writing editorials and formulating guidelines on TR, little is known about how editors view the practice or how they respond to it. We present results from an interview‐based study of 21 North American journal editors from a broad range of academic disciplines. Our findings show that editors' beliefs and practices are quite individualized rather than being tied to disciplinary or other structural parameters. While none of our participants supported the use of large amounts of recycled material from one journal article to another, some editors were staunchly against any use of recycled material, while others were accepting of the practice in certain circumstances. Issues of originality, the challenges of rewriting text, the varied circulation of texts, and abiding by copyright law were prominent themes as editors discussed their approaches to TR. Overall, the interviews showed that many editors have not thought systematically about the practice of TR, and they sometimes have trouble aligning their beliefs and practices.
... Of the three references listed for self-plagiarism, one (Scott & Smith, 1986) is not available through the ordinary library channels. Of the other two, Michaelson's piece (1990) is a guide and Scanlon's (2007) an essay. ...
Article
When writing journal articles, STEM researchers produce a number of other genres such as grant proposals and conference posters, and their articles routinely build directly on their own prior work. As a result, STEM authors often reuse material from their completed documents in producing new documents. While this practice, known as text recycling (or self-plagiarism), is a debated issue in publishing and research ethics, little is known about researchers’ beliefs about what constitutes appropriate practice. This article presents results of from an exploratory, survey-based study on beliefs and attitudes toward text recycling among STEM “experts” (faculty researchers) and “novices” (graduate students and post docs). While expert and novice researchers are fairly consistent in distinguishing between text recycling and plagiarism, there is considerable disagreement about appropriate text recycling practice.
... While there are various different classifications for self-plagiarism, a well-accepted one developed by Miguel Roig defines 4 distinct types: recycling of text, copyright infringement, "salami slicing" or dividing 1 study into multiple publications with the intent of apparently increasing productivity, and duplicate publication. [8][9][10] Editors of scientific journals are aware of the potential of selfplagiarism when reviewing submissions, and the use of electronic plagiarism analysis software has greatly facilitated its detection. Widely used plagiarism-analysis programs are iThenticate (http:// www.ithenticate.com) in scientific publications and Turnitin (http://turnitin.com) in general education. ...
Article
Self-plagiarism is a form of research misconduct that can dilute the credibility and reputation of a scientific journal, as well as the represented specialty. Journal editors are aware of this problem when reviewing submissions and use on-line plagiarism-analysis programs to facilitate detection. The American Journal of Neuroradiology(AJNR) uses iThenticate to screen several submitted original research manuscripts selected for review per issue and retrospectively assesses 3 issues per year. The prevalence of self-plagiarism in AJNR was compared with that in Radiology; the necessity and cost of more extensive screening in AJNR were evaluated. The self-duplication rate in AJNR original research articles was compared with that in Radiology, a general imaging journal that screens all submitted original research manuscripts selected for review by using iThenticate. The rate of self-duplication in original research articles from 2 randomly selected 2012 AJNR issues was compared with the rate in the prior year to gauge the need for more extensive screening. A cost analysis of screening all submitted original research manuscripts selected for review by using iThenticate was performed. Using an empiric 15% single-source duplication threshold, we found that the rate of significant self-plagiarism in original research articles was low for both journals. While AJNR had more articles exceeding this threshold, most instances were insignificant. Analyzing 2 randomly chosen issues of AJNR for single-source duplication of >15% in original research articles yielded no significant differences compared with an entire year. The approximate annual cost of screening all submitted original research manuscripts selected for review was US $6800.00. While the rate of self-plagiarism was low in AJNR and similar to that in Radiology, its potential cost in negative impact on AJNR and the subspecialty of neuroradiology justifies the costs of broader screening. © 2015 American Society of Neuroradiology.
Book
Full-text available
Bu kitap, Üniversitelerde eğitim gören lisans ve lisansüstü öğrencilerinin araştırma metotları ile ilgili kaynak ihtiyaçlarının karşılanmasına yardımcı olmak amacı ile hazırlanmıştır. Üzerinde durulan konular mümkün olduğunca basit bir anlatım dili kullanılarak sunulmaya çalışılmıştır. Araştırma metotları ile ilintili hazırlanan birçok kitap, kısaca bilim ve özelliklerinden sonra veri toplama ve istatistik metotların uygulaması yörüngesinde yoğunlaşmıştır. Yenilik olarak bu kitapta örnekler verilerek insanlığın karşılaştığı temel sorunlar ve bunların çözümünde bilimin etkinliği vurgulanmıştır. Bilim tarihine kısaca değinilmiş ve bilim insanlarının topluma karşı sorumlulukları üzerinde durulmuştur. Kitap, hem sosyal bilimler, hem de fen ve sağlık bilimlerinde çalışan araştırıcıların kullanabileceği niteliktedir. Kitabı orijinal kılan hususlardan birisi de insan, varlık ve olayların araştırılmasını kapsayan bilim anlayışında, bilimi anlama ve kavramada maddenin metafizik boyutunun da vurgulanmasıdır. Teknolojik olarak gelişmiş toplumların göze çarpan en önemli özellikleri bilgi üretimi, kullanımı ve bunu teknolojiye dönüştürmedeki araştırma kararlılığı ve ciddiyetleridir. Bilimsel bilgi üretme sürecinin belli bir sistematik ile yapılması gereklidir. Araştırma sırasında bazı sorunlar çıkabilir. Ortaya çıkabilecek sorunların azaltılması, önceden tahmin edilmesi veya bu sırada çözülmesi veyahut da etkisinin en aza indirgenmesi gereklidir. Bu sistematik kurallar çerçevesinde elde edilen bilginin tez, makale, rapor veya sunum şeklinde yazıya dökülmesiyle hatalar azalacaktır. Üretilen bilginin güvenilirliği daha çok bu bilginin hangi metotlarla elde edildiği ve test edildiği ile ilgilidir. Kitabın öğrencilerimize, öncelikle bilimsel düşünme ihtiyacı hissettirmesi, sonrasında da araştırma isteği uyandırması ve her seviyede araştırmaya yönlendirmesi oranında amacına ulaşacağını ümit ediyoruz.
Article
Full-text available
Self-plagiarism is a controversial issue in scientific writing and presentation of research data. Unlike plagiarism, self-plagiarism is difficult to interpret as intellectual theft under the justification that one cannot steal from oneself. However, academics are concerned, as self-plagiarized papers mislead readers, do not contribute to science, and bring undeserved credit to authors. As such, it should be considered a form of scientific misconduct. In this paper, we explain different forms of self-plagiarism in scientific writing and then present good editorial policy toward questionable material. The importance of dealing with self-plagiarism is emphasized by the recently published proposal of Text Recycling Guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Article
Recent years have seen a steady stream of journal editorials condemning self-plagiarism and other questionable publishing practices. Whilst in the biomedical sciences, redundant publication is condemned for its potential to exaggerate the efficacy of clinical trials, the potential negative consequences of textual recycling are less obvious in the humanities and social sciences. The perceived evils of self-plagiarism vary widely across the academic disciplines, undermining the claim that self-plagiarism constitutes an academic integrity issue in all cases. The article argues that questions surrounding self-plagiarism should be replaced with pronouncements around the notions of ‘fortunate’ and ‘unfortunate’ academic publication. Some examples of such judgements are given.
Article
Michelle Francl suggests that self-plagiarism is a misleading term and that repeating yourself in publications isn't always a bad thing.
Article
Full-text available
Fraud can be present in some scientific medical publications; however, the magnitude of this situation is unknown. One of the associated factors for this transgression of the good practice of investigation is the need to publish and obtain recognition and benefits, regardless of the means. The deliberate fabrication and falsification of data, plagiarism and duplication of publications are some of the scientific misconducts. Many cases of fraud in publications are known, and they have reached public opinion and have been a matter of legal sanctions (the names of Woo Suk Hwang, Jon Sudbo, Joachim Blodt, Robert Slutsky, and William Summerlin reminds us a few known cases). In the last decades, national and international regulatory organisms have been created in order to intervene against this scientific misconduct. Currently, we can rely on several effective software programs, whose function is to detect plagiarism and falsification of data. The prevention of scientific misconduct through information and education of the investigators could lead to the decrease of the presence of this problem, which damages scientific credibility and put at risk the patient's safety.
Article
Full-text available
The publishing conduct of scientists is increasingly becoming the object of science-based ethical considerations. Studies have shown that questionable publishing conduct is not a rare phenomenon in this area. National and international scientific organisations are making recommendations about appropriate scientific publishing conduct and, in doing so, are referring to universal ethical principles. A number of science-related ethical norms, for example the prohibition to fabricate or manipulate data, can be justified for all sciences by the goal of knowledge and common epistemological assumptions. On the other hand, other science-related ethical norms, such as rules governing the assignment of authorship and the prohibition of plagiarism, can be justified by means of a science-specific incentive mechanism, which was only explicitly analysed for the first time in detail by Merton (The Sociology of Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ppl 286-324,1957/1973): the attainment of recognition in the scientific community through published original articles on scientific progress. Particularly in conjunction with forms of remuneration based on this, this incentive mechanism leads to the temptation to make one's own contribution to the development of science greater than is actually justified.
Article
Full-text available
Should authors be able to reuse the same text in multiple papers without citing the earlier source? Known as self-plagiarism, this practice is strongly discouraged in Applications in Plant Sciences (APPS) because it violates professional standards, is potentially deceptive, and lacks originality. The most frequent form of self-plagiarism in APPS submissions is text recycling, which depending on the extent and location of copied text, has consequences ranging from authors being required to rewrite duplicated text or add citations, to automatic rejection of a manuscript without review. Ultimately, avoidance of self-plagiarism will result in original articles that improve upon, and do not simply replicate, the existing literature.
Article
The Journal of Investigative Dermatology publishes basic and clinical research in cutaneous biology and skin disease.
Book
Since human beings have been writing it seems there has been plagiarism. It is not something that sprouted with the advent of the Internet. Teachers have been struggling for years in countries all over the globe to find good methods for dealing with the problem of plagiarizing students. How do we spot plagiarism? How do we teach them not to plagiarize? And how do we deal with those who have been found out to be plagiarists? The purpose of this book is to collect material on the various aspects of plagiarism in education with special attention given to the German problem of dissertation plagiarism. Since there is a wide-spread interest in the German plagiarism situation and in strategies for dealing with it, the book is written in English in order to be accessible to a larger audience. © 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. All rights are reserved.
Article
Full-text available
The perspectives of academic journal editors regarding self-plagiarism were examined by means of an online survey in which 277 editors of education journals participated. Following the survey, a sub-sample of 14 editors were interviewed. A substantial majority of editors were found to be in accord with the most recent edition of the Publication Manual of the APA in believing that re-use of long, verbatim passages or tables, figures and images from an author’s previously published work without appropriate citation is unethical, and most editors viewed less egregious self-borrowing as wrong also. However, numerous editors expressed unease with the general concept of self-plagiarism, and several of them noted contextual factors that can make limited self-plagiarism acceptable. A clear majority indicated support for a common policy regarding self-plagiarism but had doubts about the feasibility of getting agreement on a comprehensive statement.
Article
Full-text available
In this evidence-based opinion piece on responsible conduct of research a short overview of the most prominent recent cases of sanctioned scientific misconduct, developments in the field of responsible conduct of research, definitions of types of scientific misconduct, and questionable research practices is given. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of scientists to publish and perform research is discussed, as well as the perception of fraud, its acceptability and influence on science and the scientific (public) record, with a special emphasis on the frequency of sanctioned and discovered fraudulent research. Data on (self)reported willingness to perform misconduct and questionable research practices are analyzed and discussed. An extensive overview on recent publications concerning topics of responsible conduct of research is presented. Finally, some suggestions to what the stakeholders could do are given, as well as easy (self)checks against scientific misconduct.
Article
Reusing one's previously published work without alerting the reader of its prior publicatiom constitutes self-plagiarism and it is a practice that is strictly forbidden by most scientific and scholarly journals. There are circumstances that may justify the publication of an entire article or of portions of an article that had been previously published in another journal. Guidance on these matters is readily available and specifies the conditions under which secondary publication can take place. However, the mission of most scholarly journals is to publish original research. With some exceptions (e.g., translation into another language), few journals seem willing to grant the right to publish their material elsewhere or exercise the option to publish an article that had been previously published in another periodical. One area of contention for which little guidance is available is the practice of reusing verbatim portions of text from authors' previously published articles. I argue that such a practice should be avoided because it is not consistent with the high standards expected of scholars and scientists.
Article
On the basis of existing guidance, it is proposed that reuse of a limited number of one's own or of others' phrases and perhaps even longer word strings should be permissible only when the material copied is composed of highly technical descriptions of complex processes or phenomena, which are most often found in methodology sections. Reuse of simpler non-technical text is not consistent with excellence in scholarship and should be strongly discouraged, particularly amongst native speakers of the language of publication.
Chapter
The integrity of medical and scientific publishing depends on responsible and honest practices by authors. Some of the practices that threaten the integrity of scientific publication include publishing the same paper in more than one journal (i.e. duplicate publication), presenting data from one study in multiple small papers (i.e. salami-slicing), copyright infringement, and text recycling [1]. While this subject is of vital interest to authors and investigators, as well as to journal editors and reviewers, it is also relevant to the readership of these publications. This chapter will explore and analyze examples of these practices.
Chapter
If one wants plagiarism and academic misconduct to be addressed fairly and consistently, there must be good definitions available that are more or less universally agreed upon. This is where the trouble begins, as there are numerous definitions in English that focus on different aspects of the problem.
Article
Full-text available
The so called redundant publications are becoming a major theme in the academic sphere, as it has become easier to produce and reveal copied texts. Nevertheless, the academic sphere lacks precise university regulations and journal policies distinguishing ethically acceptable recycling from unethical self-plagiarism. The article analyses several norms in their academic context. Two interesting observations are shown: first, the existing rules differ significantly; second, they originate in the natural and social sciences. I argue that more precise norms are needed. It would be, however, not possible to agree on a single set of universal rules, as they must take into consideration also the specifics of each academic discipline, especially in the case of humanities.
Article
Full-text available
Η ακαδημαϊκή δεοντολογία αποτελεί μείζον ζήτημα στην τριτοβάθμια εκπαίδευση (και όχι μόνο). Η σχετική διεθνής βιβλιογραφία εμφανίζει αυξητική συγκέντρωση ερευνών που εξετάζουν διάφορες διαστάσεις της, με έμφαση στον πλαγιαρισμό και εν γένει τις ακαδημαϊκά ανέντιμες πρακτικές. Έτσι, εμφανίζονται ποικίλες αναφορές στον πλαγιαρισμό, την ακαδημαϊκή εξαπάτηση και συναφή θέματα, και γενικότερα θίγονται ζητήματα ακαδημαϊκής εντιμότητας και ευπρέπειας. Στην Ελλάδα δε διαπιστώνεται σημαντική ερευνητική ενασχόληση με αυτό το πεδίο. Στόχος της παρούσας δημοσίευσης αποτελεί η παρουσίαση εννοιών σχετικών με την ακαδημαϊκή δεοντολογία, εστιάζοντας στην έννοια του πλαγιαρισμού και των μορφών του. Academic integrity has to constitute a significant domain for higher education (and other issues). The relevant international bibliography is found to offer a great majority of articles examining various aspects of this subject with emphasis on plagiarism and other academic dishonest practices. In this context, various references to plagiarism, cheating and misconduct are encountered. Generally, aspects of academic integrity issues are also presented. There is a limited research engagement about this field in Greece. The current article aims at presenting a general description of academic integrity concepts and, especially, plagiarism and its forms.
Article
Full-text available
Self-plagiarism is a contentious issue in higher education, research and scholarly publishing contexts. The practice is problematic because it disrupts scientific publishing by over-emphasizing results, increasing journal publication costs, and artificially inflating journal impact, among other consequences. We hypothesized that there was a dearth of empirical studies on the topic of self-plagiarism, with an over-abundance of editorial and commentary articles based on anecdotal evidence. The research question was: What typologies of evidence characterize the literature on self-plagiarism in scholarly and research journals? We conducted a scoping review, using the search terms “self-plagiarism” and “self-plagiarism” (hyphenated), consulting five social sciences research databases, supplemented by a manual search for articles, resulting in over 5900 results. After removing duplicates and excluding non-scholarly sources, we arrived at a data set of 133 sources, with publication dates ranging from 1968 to 2017. With an interrater reliability of over 93% between two researchers, our typological analysis revealed 47 sources (34.3%) were editorials; 41 (29.9%) were conceptual research (including teaching cases); 16 (11.7%) were editorial responses; 12 (8.6%) were secondary research; and only 8 sources (5.8%) were primary research. There is little guidance in the available literature to graduate students or their professors about how to disentangle the complexities of self-plagiarism. With primary and secondary research combined accounting for 14.4% of overall contributions to the data set, and primary research constituting only 6% of overall contributions, we conclude with a call for more empirical evidence on the topic to support contributions to the scholarly dialogue.
Chapter
This chapter defends a fourfold heuristic for determining when academic plagiarism has occurred. Drawing from contemporary literature on research integrity, I propose that academic plagiarism has been committed when there is: (1) a non-trivial appropriation of words, images, or formulas, (2) with inadequate credit, (3) that generates an appearance of original authorship, (4) in a discrete item belonging to the scholarly record. This approach is sufficiently general to include a wide range of text manipulations, and yet it is sufficiently narrow to express to the particularities of plagiarism in the context of published research findings. In defending this heuristic, I argue that intent is not required for academic plagiarism, and I propose that academic plagiarism should be treated as a strict-liability offense. The presence or absence of a guilty mind or mens rea is irrelevant to the need to correct the scholarly record when publications themselves are deficient. Intent may be an important element to be considered by institutions that have the role of investigating and punishing wrongdoers for scientific misconduct, but intent should be considered immaterial by members of the research community who have the privilege and responsibility of maintaining the reliability of publications for the world of learning. Too often the role of correcting the scholarly record is conflated with the role of investigating and issuing punishments for research misconduct, but the two are quite different. The chapter also considers the topic of duplicate or redundant publication (often called “self-plagiarism”), and it distinguishes academic plagiarism from copyright violation.
Chapter
Despite the essential role that academic whistleblowers serve in initiating the oftentimes lengthy process of correcting the scholarly record, individuals who disclose evidence of suspected plagiarism are often subject to considerable backlash. To be sure, the evidence they provide, even when impeccable, can create a significant workload of verification for editors and publishers, as well as for research integrity officers at the institutional homes of the suspected plagiarists. I examine the benefits and hazards of multi-targeted whistleblowing and discuss the harassment and witness intimidation typically experienced by those who blow the academic whistle in good faith. The increasing awareness among researchers and institutional authorities that to harass whistleblowers is itself a form of misconduct reflects an important recent shift in academic culture. On the other hand, academic whistleblowers in recent times have been described as post-publication vigilantes for their efforts in securing corrections of the scholarly record, so the professional dangers of academic whistleblowing should not be understated.
Article
Scholarly misconduct causes significant impact on the academic community. To the extremes, results of scholarly misconduct could endanger public welfare as well as national security. Although self-plagiarism has drawn considerable amount of attention, it is still a controversial issue among different aspect of academic ethic related discussions. The main purpose of this study is to identify two concerns including what is self-plagiarism in academic journals, conceivable point of contention, based on journal editors’ viewpoint. Between 1990 and 2015, content of 57 editorials indexed in Scopus and WoS and 75 cases of self-plagiarism raised by international editors in COPE were analyzed to explore how journal editors identify these problems. The results show that self-plagiarism can be categorized to four facets, including its identification, types, norm, and remedy. And the editors are concerned about the issues about the detection software, salami-slicing and overlapping publication, the harm of copyright, and the retractions of published articles. Results from this study not only could obtain in-depth understandings on self-plagiarism among academic journal articles but also being applied on establishing academic guidelines in the future.
Article
Full-text available
The objective of our study was to obtain an updated image of the dynamic of retractions and retraction notes, retraction reasons for questionable research (QRP) and publication practices (QPP), countries producing retracted articles, and the scientific impact of retractions, by studying 4844 PubMed indexed retracted articles published between 2009 and 2020 and their retraction notes. Results: Mistakes/inconsistent data account for 32% of total retractions, followed by images (22.5%), plagiarism (13.7%) and overlap (11.5%). There were 163 cases of duplicate submission (3.36%), 180 cases of lack of reproducibility (3.72%), 181 cases of editorial errors (3.73%), 229 cases of fabricated data (4.73%) and 350 cases of fraudulent peer review (7.22%). Journals failed to properly report the retraction in 247 cases (5.1%). Thirty countries account for 94.79% of 4844 retractions. Top five are: China (32.78%), United States (18.95%), India (7.24%), Japan (4.37%) and Italy (3.75%). The total citations number for all articles is 140,810 (Google Scholar), 96,000 (Dimensions). Average exposure time (ET) is 28.89 months. The largest ET is for image retractions (49.3 months), the lowest ET is for editorial errors (11.2 months). The impact of retracted research is higher for Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and other nine countries and lower for Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, and other six countries, including China. Conclusions: Mistakes and data inconsistencies represent the main retraction reason; images and ethical issues show a growing trend, while plagiarism and overlap continue to represent a significant problem. There is a steady increase in QRP and QPP article withdrawals with a peak of 878 retractions issued in 2020. Retraction of articles seems to be a technology-dependent process. The number of citations of retracted articles shows a high impact of papers published by authors from certain countries. The number of retracted articles per country does not always accurately reflect the scientific impact of QRP/QPP articles. The distribution of retraction reasons shows structural problems in the organization and quality control of scientific research, which have different images depending on geographical location, economic development, and cultural model.
While most would admit that plagiarism, or at least its detection, has increased significantly in recent times, and this is a worldwide trend, not everyone would agree on the definition of the term, nor its application in particular circumstances. The paper discusses the problems of definition and application as revealed in recent Australian cases and controversies about plagiarism in the legal education and legal practice contexts.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.