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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See, for instance, the muckraking work of the blog Economics Intelligence (http://economicsintelligence.com).
Defined in Green (2005) as reusing previously published text without being aware that it exists.
Also, when an article is reprinted in another publishing medium (an author reusing an article as a chapter in a book).
The name is also implicitly attributed to all of the text and ideas in the piece, except for what is explicitly quoted or referenced.
I owe this point to one of the reviewers. S/he pointed out the case of the Physical Review journals: the Physical Review Letters prints short contributions, a long version of which is expected to be published in another PR venue. Unlike in the hard sciences, social sciences journals printing concise papers are often branded as resources for graduate students and teachers. Economics Letters is introduced by its board as welcoming “[a]ll researchers… and especially young researchers and advanced graduate students”, although it has published many original, interesting papers (http://www.journals.elsevier.com/economics-letters/). The literary studies periodical The Explicator, which specializes in “explaining” aspects of literary texts within the space of a few (2–4) pages, is similarly advertised as “a must for college and university libraries and teachers” (http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/vexp20/current). Yet not only does The Explicator offer a much larger quantity of insights per page than major journals (and without the usual clutter), but it occasionally publishes quite novel, original explorations of apparently ancillary or minor but ultimately consequential issues.
This point was suggested to me by one of the reviewers of the original manuscript.
Although occasional mention is made of this as a cause for the proliferation of self-plagiarism, the wider import of the issue is frequently ignored. To give just one example, Yank and Barnes (2003) report that in their survey more than half of the responding editors and more than two-thirds of the responding authors believed that a cause for overlapping publication is researchers “want[ing] to disseminate their research as widely as possible”. Yet they do not include this reason in their more in-depth discussion of the findings.
In a survey of editors and authors in high-impact biomedical journals, Yank and Barnes (2003) found that both these categories tend to find the publication of two overlapping articles more acceptable when they have different conclusions than when they do not.
This argument holds for prior publication, not for co-submission. In the case of co-submission, the article may be novel simply because it was not yet published elsewhere. But when the article is published in the first venue, it may also become old news to the readers of the second journal. Had the latter’s editors assessed not a co-submitted article, but the already published article, they might have been aware of its contents and not judged it interesting or novel enough to merit republishing. I owe this point to C.A.
This assumes a consequentialist approach to self-plagiarism. On a deontologist approach, these conditions may not matter.
This was pointed out by one of the reviewers of the original manuscript. It is a well-known reality in countries with an underfunded public higher education and research sector.
References
Berlin, L. (2009). Plagiarism, salami slicing, and Lobachevsky. Skeletal Radiology, 38, 1–4.
Bird, S. J. (2002). Self-plagiarism and dual and redundant publications: What is the problem? Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 543–544.
Bouville, M. (2008). Plagiarism: Words and ideas. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 311–322.
Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2009). Self-plagiarism or appropriate textual re-use? Journal of Academic Ethics, 7, 193–205.
Brochard, L., & Brun-Buisson, C. (2007). Salami publication: A frequent practice affecting readers’ confidence. Intensive Care Medicine, 33, 212–213.
Broome, M. (2004). Self-plagiarism: Oxymoron, fair use, or scientific misconduct? Nursing Outlook, 52, 273–274.
David, D. (2008). Duplication spreads the word to a wider audience. Nature, 452, 29.
Errami, M., & Garner, H. (2008). A tale of two citations. Nature, 451, 397–399.
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.
Galley, H. F. (2007). Defining duplicate publication. Intensive Care Medicine, 33, 371–372.
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.
Habibzadeh, F., & Winker, M.A. (2009). Notfall + Rettungsmedizin, 12, 415–418.
Hexham, I. (1999). The plague of plagiarism. http://c.web.umkc.edu/cowande/plague.htm. Accessed 7 June 2012.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), 696–701.
Jefferson, T. (1998). Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 135–140.
Jha, A. (2012). Academic spring: How an angry maths blog sparked a scientific revolution. The Guardian, 9 April 2012.
Kravitz, R. L., & Feldman, M. D. (2010). Self-plagiarism and other editorial crimes and misdemeanors. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(1), 1.
Loui, M. C. (2002). Seven ways to plagiarize: Handling real allegations of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 529–539.
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.
RePEc. (2012). RePEc plagiarism offenders. http://plagiarism.repec.org/offenders.html. Accessed 7 Aug 2012.
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.
Rogers, L. F. (1999). Duplicate publications: It’s not so much the duplicity as it is the deceit. American Journal of Roentgenology, 172, 1.
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.
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.
Samuelson, P. (1994). Self-plagiarism or fair use. Communications of the ACM, 37(8), 21–25.
Scanlon, P. M. (2007). Song from myself: An anatomy of self-plagiarism. Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 2, 57–66.
Siebers, R. (2012). Self-plagiarism and the scientific literature. New Zealand Journal of Medical Laboratory Science, 66, 3–4.
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.
Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53–74.
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.
White, S. M. (2011). Correspondence: Self-plagiarism. Anaesthesia, 66, 220–222.
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.
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.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Vlad Vieru, Radu Gheorghiu, Cristina Andreescu and several anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Andreescu, L. Self-Plagiarism in Academic Publishing: The Anatomy of a Misnomer. Sci Eng Ethics 19, 775–797 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9416-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9416-1