Yes. To be precise, we need to separate out five different actions: self-plagiarism, copyright violation, academic misconduct, lazy paper writing, failure to cite yourself.
Self-plagiarism: I agree with the others, this is an oxymoron. Copyright violation: As we often do not own the copyright of our own papers, we can do this. Is anyone really going to care if we exactly replicate a couple of paragraphs in our methods section or the lit review in the introduction? No, if the replication is necessary for the particular paper to be read efficiently (i.e., not having to run to another journal to see some important information), and we have already worked hard to write the paragraphs well. Academic misconduct: If one is trying to publish the same results twice, that is academic misconduct. Here the key is the same _results_. (And to make clearer what I meant in an earlier post, I mean the _same_ data, not a replication of an earlier experiment.) So, duplicating other parts of a paper for efficiencies sake would not count. This category also includes mis-appropriation of ideas of others, even when it does not meet the plagiarism definition (exact use of someone else's words). Lazy paper writing: This covers so many sins that I will not even start, except to say that it is very easy to alter text sufficiently that you can replicate it without violating copyright. Failure to cite yourself: Unless you are hiding something, this just ranks as stupidity. I hope that this helps clarify the discussion. Sam Scheiner "Paul Bernhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > dennis roberts said on 12/5/02 11:04 AM: > > >i think the term ... self plagiarism ... is an oxymoron > > I'm willing to admit that maybe I don't fully understand the subtlties of > plagiarism, but it seems to me that plagiarism is the use of other's work > without attribution *or their permission*. Seems to me that you can > always give yourself permission to re-use your earlier writing > (excepting, of course, academic work which is supposed to represent new > work for a course). Therefore, I agree with Dennis, that self plagiarism > is an oxymoron. > > Paul > . > . > ================================================================= > Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the > problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: > . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . > ================================================================= . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
