Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 775–797 | Cite as

Self-Plagiarism in Academic Publishing: The Anatomy of a Misnomer

Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Self-plagiarism Duplicate publication Salami publication Informational noise Academic publishing Academic ethics Copyright infringement 

References

  1. Berlin, L. (2009). Plagiarism, salami slicing, and Lobachevsky. Skeletal Radiology, 38, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bird, S. J. (2002). Self-plagiarism and dual and redundant publications: What is the problem? Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 543–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouville, M. (2008). Plagiarism: Words and ideas. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2009). Self-plagiarism or appropriate textual re-use? Journal of Academic Ethics, 7, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brochard, L., & Brun-Buisson, C. (2007). Salami publication: A frequent practice affecting readers’ confidence. Intensive Care Medicine, 33, 212–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broome, M. (2004). Self-plagiarism: Oxymoron, fair use, or scientific misconduct? Nursing Outlook, 52, 273–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. David, D. (2008). Duplication spreads the word to a wider audience. Nature, 452, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Errami, M., & Garner, H. (2008). A tale of two citations. Nature, 451, 397–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fish, S. (1989). No bias, no merit: The case against blind submission. In S. Fish (Ed.), Doing what comes naturally: Change, rhetoric, and the practice of theory in literary and legal studies (pp. 163–179). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Galley, H. F. (2007). Defining duplicate publication. Intensive Care Medicine, 33, 371–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Green, L. (2005). Reviewing the scourge of self-plagiarism. M/C Journal, 8 (5). http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0510/07-green.php. Accessed 20 June 2012.
  12. Habibzadeh, F., & Winker, M.A. (2009). Notfall + Rettungsmedizin, 12, 415–418.Google Scholar
  13. Hexham, I. (1999). The plague of plagiarism. http://c.web.umkc.edu/cowande/plague.htm. Accessed 7 June 2012.
  14. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), 696–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jefferson, T. (1998). Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jha, A. (2012). Academic spring: How an angry maths blog sparked a scientific revolution. The Guardian, 9 April 2012.Google Scholar
  17. Kravitz, R. L., & Feldman, M. D. (2010). Self-plagiarism and other editorial crimes and misdemeanors. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loui, M. C. (2002). Seven ways to plagiarize: Handling real allegations of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 529–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olesen Larsen, P., & von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by science citation index. Scientometrics, 84, 575–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. RePEc. (2012). RePEc plagiarism offenders. http://plagiarism.repec.org/offenders.html. Accessed 7 Aug 2012.
  21. Rice, J., Augustyn, N., French, C. T., & Irwin, R. S. (2012). Plagiarism and self-plagiarism in scientific writing: An all-too-easy way to lose stature. Office of Research Integrity Newsletter, 20(2), 3–8.Google Scholar
  22. Rogers, L. F. (1999). Duplicate publications: It’s not so much the duplicity as it is the deceit. American Journal of Roentgenology, 172, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roig, M. (2006). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/Index.html. Accessed 22 June 2012.
  24. Roig, M. (2008). The debate on self-plagiarism: Inquisitional science or high standards of scholarship. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 8(2), 245–258.Google Scholar
  25. Samuelson, P. (1994). Self-plagiarism or fair use. Communications of the ACM, 37(8), 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scanlon, P. M. (2007). Song from myself: An anatomy of self-plagiarism. Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 2, 57–66.Google Scholar
  27. Siebers, R. (2012). Self-plagiarism and the scientific literature. New Zealand Journal of Medical Laboratory Science, 66, 3–4.Google Scholar
  28. Stahel, P. F., Clavien, P.-A., Smith, W. R., & Moore, E. E. (2012). Redundant publications in surgery: A threat to patient safety? Patient Safety in Surgery, 2(6), 1–4.Google Scholar
  29. Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53–74.Google Scholar
  30. Storbeck, O. (2012). Eigenplagiate: Züricher Ökonom in Zwangsrente geschickt. Handelsblatt. http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/oekonomie/nachrichten/bruno-frey-eigenplagiate-zuericher-oekonom-in-zwangsrente-geschickt/6544186.html. Accessed 7 Aug 2012.
  31. White, S. M. (2011). Correspondence: Self-plagiarism. Anaesthesia, 66, 220–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yank, V., & Barnes, D. (2003). Consensus and contention regarding redundant publications in clinical research: Cross-sectional survey of editors and authors. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ziliak, S., & McCloskey, D. (2007). The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Spriu Haret University, BucharestDistrict 3, BucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations