• Users Online: 150
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
EDITORIAL
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 51  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 145-146

Self-plagiarism-Self Goal


Prof. and HOD, Department of Orthodontics, SRMC, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Web Publication17-Jul-2017

Correspondence Address:
Sridevi Padmanabhan
Department of Orthodontics, SRMC, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-5742.210917

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Padmanabhan S. Self-plagiarism-Self Goal. J Indian Orthod Soc 2017;51:145-6

How to cite this URL:
Padmanabhan S. Self-plagiarism-Self Goal. J Indian Orthod Soc [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 Dec 14];51:145-6. Available from: http://www.jios.in/text.asp?2017/51/3/145/210917





With the “publish and perish” pressure mounting on students and faculty in academic circles, hitherto unfamiliar terms such as plagiarism and scientific misconduct have become commonplace with individuals, institutions, and journals increasingly forced to grapple with such situations. Plagiarism as a term and entity is quite well recognized, explained by the definition itself as “the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.”[1]

In contrast to this, self-plagiarism could be a confusing and not so well-recognized entity. The term itself appears to be an oxymoron and most authors would say “How is it wrong if I take from myself or my own work?” Despite this, self-plagiarism also comes under the realm of scientific misconduct and could involve situations where authors draw on ideas, samples, text, and figures from their own works without disclosing that they are already published.[2]

Various forms of self-plagiarism have been recognized and even classified.[3]

Duplicate publication is where authors publish almost entirely their original work in a second journal with minor changes such as title and authors. Amore duplicitous form of self-plagiarism might involve situations where authors try to mask the publication by altering or adding to original data to make it meatier to create what is called an augmented publication.

Segmented or salami publication is a distinct publication practice that is discouraged even in the absence of any data reuse. It involves segmenting, a study into several smaller parts and publishing it as several articles possibly in different journals. Usually, it involves multiple measures from the same sample without disclosing that its data are derived from the same experiment.[3]

Another form of self-plagiarism which is not as censured but nevertheless frowned upon is text recyling. It occurs when authors reuse large portions of text already published. It is often attributed to intellectual laziness and sloppiness rather than an intention to decieve.[3]

Self-plagiarism may involve some gray areas and opinions on the degree of scientific misconduct that it consitutes might vary.[4] However, there is no doubt that it raises ethical issues since it creates a situation where the work involved is being misrepresented as original.

Moreover, it also raises legal issues, that of copyright infringement. Since authors hand over intellectual rights to the journal or publisher, self-plagiarism also raises questions of legal propriety, and might create tricky problems also involving the economics of publishing. However, it has been widely accepted that a distinction has to be made between “fair use” and scientific misconduct and this needs to be determined based on various factors such as the purpose or reuse, quantum of overlap, nature of work, and the impact on potential markets and might be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.[4],[5]

For example, Anesthesia and Analgesia explicitly accepts self-plagiarism in the methods section of a manuscript but discourages it elsewhere.[6]

We live in a digital age where the internet has created for us a huge online library. Potential sources of overlap can be freely found on online search engines and databases making it possible for editors using plagiarism software to detect similarity. This can also be used by authors to avoid accidental self-plagiarism. As in the performing arts, the evolved author needs to constantly reinvent himself and keep repititons to an acceptable minimum. Full disclosure and citing previously published work would eliminate the risk of self-plagiarism.

”I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation.”

- George Bernard Shaw



 
  References Top

1.
Oxford Living Dictionaries. Available form: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/plagiarism.[Downloaded on 2017Jul07].  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
RoigM. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism: What every author should know. Biochem Med 2010;20:295-300.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Scanlon PM. Song From Myself: An Anatomy of Self-Plagiarism. Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification 2007:57-66.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
BroomeME. Self-plagiarism: Oxymoron, fair use, or scientific misconduct? Nurs Outlook 2004;52:273-4.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
SamuelsonP. Self-plagiarism or fair use? Assoc Comput Mach 1994;37:21-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
SchaferS. You will be caught. Anesth Analg 2011;112:491-3.  Back to cited text no. 6
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed300    
    Printed7    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded2    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]