Self-plagiarism: a misnomer

Abstract

The opprobrium of self-plagiarism makes one a scientific pariah. This paper provides a critical evaluation of the discourse of “self-plagiarism” in scientific publications. We first show that “self-plagiarism” is a misnomer and should be replaced with “unacceptable duplication.” We distinguish acceptable from unacceptable duplication in scientific communications, providing a typology of both. We then review issues of copyright infringement and propose a preventive ethics approach to unacceptable duplication. Scientific misconduct and self-plagiarismAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & GynecologyVol. 214Issue 4PreviewThe recent report on self-plagiarism is very interesting.1 Mandal et al2 recently reported an Indian perspective, mentioned several problems referring to scientific misconduct, and noted that self-plagiarism was a very common problem. In fact, the problem can be seen worldwide. Here, we would like to share our experience. First, in the context of non-English speaking countries, such as Thailand, scientific misconduct might be observable in the form of “translational plagiarism.”3 This can be seen in several publications, including reports by eminent researchers from local universities. Full-Text PDF ReplyAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & GynecologyVol. 214Issue 4PreviewWe appreciate the comments of Drs Joob and Wiwanitkit with regard to our recent article.1 Most of their comments (eg, “translational plagiarism”) are on plagiarism and not self- plagiarism, but some are relevant to both. The authors of this letter are correct that the response to plagiarism or unacceptable duplication is quite variable and at times minimal. The medical and scientific community may need to address this issue and possibly create a set of rules for detection and response to these issues. Full-Text PDF

Ähnliche Arbeiten