At the very least, I think, we need a different term, as "self-plagiarism"
strikes me as an oxymoron. Plagiarism by definition (at least all definitions
I've ever seen and can locate) means appropriating others' work without
attribution.
The discussion does raise some interesting and important issues, especially
those pertaining to how best to inform journal editors and readers. To me, the
biggest problem with "self-plagiarism" (again, I really think we need a
different word) is that some editors may be accepting what they believe to be
an original piece of work than in fact has been largely published elsewhere.
In the 1980s, Irv Biederman published an article in Psychological Review that,
it later turned out, had already been published largely in a chapter (and
Psychological Review issued an apology to readers). So to me, much of the
debate boils down to how best to inform editors and readers (and, I suppose,
promotion and tenure reviewers who are counting beans) about what parts of
one's work are, and are not, original.
I'm in agreement with Annette, Jim, and others that forcing authors to
reword standard descriptions of their Method section just for the sake of it is
not especially worthwhile. In contrast, I think we'd all agree that sending an
original article to Psychological Bulletin that contained a huge section (say,
consuming 50% or more of the article) that in fact had been published in a
different journal - and without informing the editor - is ethically
questionable at best. In between these two extremes, I suspect, there are
legitimate differences of opinion. Personally, I don't see a major problem with
mild forms of the practice just so long as editors and readers are fully
informed about how much of what they're reading is genuinely new. I've never
seen a good discussion of how best to inform readers of this practice (e.g.,
"see Smith & Jones, 1998, for the same verbatim description of this
technique"), although I would think that such a discussion would be worthwhile.
....Scott
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Professor
Editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice
Department of Psychology, Room 473 Psychology and Interdisciplinary Sciences
(PAIS)
Emory University
36 Eagle Row
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
slil...@emory.edu
(404) 727-1125
Psychology Today Blog:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist
50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140513111X.html
Scientific American Mind: Facts and Fictions in Mental Health Column:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/
The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and
his play,
his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his
recreation,
his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which is which.
He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does,
leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing.
To him - he is always doing both.
- Zen Buddhist text
(slightly modified)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Clark [mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 1:31 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Self-plagiarism
Hi
If you read the comments on the original posting, you will see that one
respondent actually mentioned the example of Nobel prize winners who published
much the same research in several different journals, without people objecting.
The rational was that different people read different journals and that
multiple publications was appropriate to reach the entire relevant audience.
Most of the comments are quite negative about the idea of self-plagiarism. I
just see having to rewrite something, just for the sake of being different (not
to make it clearer), as another distraction from doing science.
Take care
Jim
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca
>>> Rick Froman <rfro...@jbu.edu> 15-Sep-10 11:30 AM >>>
I agree that it is fine to reproduce certain sections of a paper intact in a
subsequent paper and most people cited in the article didn't seem to have a
problem with that (especially in the Method section). The main concern is with
how much of that can be done while still being considered a new publication. I
think most would agree, the more significant violation would be presenting the
exact same findings under an entirely different title, changing only the
specific wording to avoid plagiarism detection. So it is not really the wording
that is at issue but the originality of the findings. The same findings
shouldn't be produced in different publications just to pad a CV.
I think the musician analogy breaks down pretty quickly. A musician might play
the same piece to different audiences (some who might want to relive the
experience a number of times) hundreds or even thousands of times. Is it really
then OK for a researcher to publish the same work with a few ad libs here and
there hundreds or thousands of times to the same scholarly readership? I think
scholarly publication and live musical performances differ in many respects. I
do think a musician would lose fans pretty quickly (and many have) by just
re-packaging old stuff reworked into a new album. As far as publication
(recording) goes, listeners will feel cheated when buying an album that is
nothing but previously released songs masquerading as a new album.
Rick
Dr. Rick Froman, Chair
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences
Professor of Psychology
Box 3055
John Brown University
2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761
rfro...@jbu.edu
(479)524-7295
http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman
From: Steven Specht [mailto:sspe...@utica.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:20 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism
I agree with Annette. There are good and better ways to write a succinct
explanation of the concept of contrast effects in sensory research. Once I had
invested a great deal of time crafting what I thought was "the" best sentence,
why would I change it just to avoid plagiarizing myself? I would argue that
that would've created a lesser quality sentence. Are musicians plagiarizing
themselves with each new performance of a song? Or when they make an acoustic
version from an "electric" or orchestrated version?
========================================================
Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
Utica College
Utica, NY 13502
(315) 792-3171
monkeybrain-collagist.blogspot.com<http://monkeybrain-collagist.blogspot.com>
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and
convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
Martin Luther King Jr.
On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Annette Taylor wrote:
I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have spent the
last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so until I retire
probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the basics in the most clear
way so that others can understand what I mean. I don't want to have to think of
more alternative ways to say some things. I had to really craft the text of the
basic ideas carefully because I'm trying to explain some relatively abstract
concepts in the most effective way possible for the listener/reader. So to have
to redo this in a potentially less effective way to avoid self-plagiarism seems
down right silly. They are my words that I worked on, and if they form the
foundation of parts of the introduction and methods section then I can't
believe it's a problem to reuse them whenever I write about the same topic. In
fact, I have tried to just free write the methods section in subsequent papers
and found myself repeating myself verbatim without even trying.
I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, once we
have to worry about repeating parts of introductory explanations to set the
stage for a new study, as being somehow "dishonest" or lacking "integrity."
Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think?
Annette
Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Professor, Psychological Sciences
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
tay...@sandiego.edu<mailto:tay...@sandiego.edu>
________________________________
From: Rick Froman [rfro...@jbu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:58 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Self-plagiarism
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/
Interesting post on The Scientist.com<http://Scientist.com> with quotes from
TIPSter (and plagiarism expert) Miguel Roig. (I don't mean that he is good at
it, just that he knows a lot about it.)
Rick
Rick Froman
rfro...@jbu.edu<mailto:rfro...@jbu.edu>
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as:
tay...@sandiego.edu<mailto:tay...@sandiego.edu>.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0&n=T&l=tips&o=4833
(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
or send a blank email to
leave-4833-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-4833-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu>
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as:
sspe...@utica.edu<mailto:sspe...@utica.edu>.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13522.468cbac056133a996283cca7e2976336&n=T&l=tips&o=4837
(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
or send a blank email to
leave-4837-13522.468cbac056133a996283cca7e2976...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-4837-13522.468cbac056133a996283cca7e2976...@fsulist.frostburg.edu>
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as:
rfro...@jbu.edu<mailto:rfro...@jbu.edu>.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=4840
(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
or send a blank email to
leave-4840-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-4840-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu>
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=4841
or send a blank email to
leave-4841-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: slil...@emory.edu.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9b2f&n=T&l=tips&o=4850
or send a blank email to
leave-4850-13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4853
or send a blank email to
leave-4853-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
