6 ms·
While commonly taught in academic settings, I disagree with the notion that it's possible to self plagiarize. It's your own words and not stealing from somebody
by Ovah 3mo ago
While commonly taught in academic settings, I disagree with the notion that it's possible to self plagiarize. It's your own words and not stealing from somebody else.
- CrazyStat 3mo agoAgreed. The concept of “don’t reuse your old work when you’re supposed to be creating new work” may be valid, especially in training environments, but it shouldn’t be called self-plagiarism or treated like plagiarism.
- ghaff 3mo agoIt's not really a great term but, at the same time, calling it fraud--which it sort of is in some contexts--feels kinda strong.
- dpark 3mo agoThe problem is that journals become a way to fill a CV and justify tenure and grants rather than a way to disseminate information. If your goal is to share information, you want quality articles in multiple places so that people can get to them. If your goal is to use journal publishing count as a professional metric, then double publishing becomes unethical. The modern equivalent would be to declare it unethical to share an article on both Reddit and HN.
- ghaff 3mo agoI sorta agree to a point. It did used to be the case that cross-posting was generally a bad idea from an SEO perspective. Where I'm working now the theory seems to be, by all means, publish on your own site and we'll republish what makes sense to do so.
- rayiner 3mo agoIt seems like a rule designed by journal editors to protect their turf, or PhD committees to make it easier to count original works towards degree requirements. What could possibly be the justification?
- nbernard 3mo agoIndeed. When publishing in a scientific journal, you usually (have to) give them an exclusive licence on your article.
- bluGill 3mo agoIt also protects readers who may encounter the second years latter and not realize it is the same data and thus they think it is a second study reenforcing something. If they are experts in the field they likely know, but if this is a case where a different field overlaps they will want to have citations without as much knowledge of what is important.
- fabian2k 3mo agoit's really a bit of a different concept in scientific publishing, not actually plagiarism. The problematic part is publishing the same results twice, because it increases the burden on reviewers and inflates your publication count. It's also just messier if the results are in multiple places since it makes it harder to follow where those results were used and cited.
- ghaff 3mo agoIt's not just academic. If I've been paid for writing something original for a magazine or newspaper and I give them a piece that wholly or largely is just a copy of something I've written in the past (and has been published elsewhere), that's actually not kosher and they'll call you on it if they find out. Personally, I will reuse sentences and paragraphs from time to time but not entire pieces without an explanatory note.
- brookst 3mo agoWork for hire seems like a different ballgame than original work in an interative discipline
- catoc 3mo agoAgreed. And even etymology agrees: Plagiarize comes from plagiarius, latin for ‘kidnapper’. You cannot kidnap yourself