August 30, 2009

Self-plagiarism: unintentional, harmless, or fraud?

THE LANCET
Volume 374, Issue 9691, 29 August 2009-4 September 2009, Page 664
Editorial

The intense pressure to publish to advance careers and attract grant money, together with decreasing time available for busy researchers and clinicians, can create a temptation to cut corners and maximise scientific output. Journals are increasingly seeing submissions in which large parts of text have been copied from previously published papers by the same author.
Whereas plagiarism—copying from others—is widely condemned and regarded as intellectual theft, the concept of self-plagiarism is less well defined. Some have argued that it is impossible to steal one's own words. The excuse editors hear when confronting authors about self-plagiarism is that the same thing can only be said in so many words. This might sometimes be legitimate, perhaps for specific parts of a research paper, such as a methods section. However, when large parts of a paper are a word-for-word copy of previously published text, authors' claims that they have inadvertently used exactly the same wording stretch credibility.
There is a clear distinction between self-plagiarism of original research and review material. Republishing large parts of an original research paper is redundant or duplicate publication. Publishing separate parts of the same study with near identical introduction and methods sections in different journals is so-called salami publication. Both practices are unacceptable and will distort the research record. Self-plagiarism in review or opinion papers, one could argue, is less of a crime with no real harm done. It is still an attempt to deceive editors and readers, however, and constitutes intellectual laziness at best.
Deception is the key issue in all forms of self-plagiarism, including in reviews. Few editors will knowingly republish a paper that contains large parts of previously published material. Few readers will happily read the same material several times in different journals. An attempt to deceive amounts to fraud and should not be tolerated by the academic community.

No comments:

Random Posts


  • Plagiarism: Words and ideas

    Mathieu Bouville Science and Engineering Ethics — doi: 10.1007/s11948-008-9057-6 Plagiarism is a crime against academy. It deceives readers, hurts plagiarized authors, and gets the plagiarist undeserved benefits. However, even though these arguments do show that copying other people’s intellectua... READ MORE>>

  • Plagiarism Accusation About Turkish Physicists

    Dr. Murat CivanerTurkiye Klinikleri J Med Ethics Year: 2008 Volume: 16 Issue:1  LETTER TO THE EDITOR In an article published in Nature dated Sept 6, 2007, it was stated that nearly 70 articles of 15 scientists from 18 Mart, Dicle and Mersin universities have been removed from a popular prepri... READ MORE>>

  • On plagiarism

    Physics in Medicine & Biology Editorial Simon Harris et al 2008 Phys. Med. Biol. 53 doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/5/E01>>> It is possible to plagiarize not only the work of others, but also one's own work through re-use of identical or nearly identical portions of manuscripts without ac... READ MORE>>

  • India to propose regulatory body to curb misconduct

    Nature news India is to consider creating a national body to investigate plagiarism and misconduct in science after a string of high-profile frauds. C. N. R. Rao, who heads the national science advisory committee, told Nature that he will discuss the proposal at his next meeting with Prime Minis... READ MORE>>

  • Author guidance on plagiarism and duplicate publication

    Maxine Clarke The Commentary in the current issue of Nature by Mounir Errami and Harold Garner, A tale of two citations (Nature 451, 397-399;2008), has predictably received a lot of attention. In a nutshell, the authors ask whether scientists are publishing more duplicate papers, and by their newl... READ MORE>>

  • Plagiarism and preprints

    Hilary Spencer In the Publishing in the New Millenium forum, Corie Lok asks about a recent paper in Nature by Mounir Errami and Harold Garner. The paper, A tale of two citations, suggests that there is a high level of duplicate papers being published. These papers may illustrate co-submission, pla... READ MORE>>

  • Something rotten in the state of scientific publishing

    By Jonathan M. Gitlin There is an interesting commentary in this week's Nature1 that takes a look at the subject of plagiarism within the scientific literature. It's certainly a contentious subject; from day one as an undergraduate it was drilled into us that there could be no greater sin than pla... READ MORE>>

.

.
.

Popular Posts