[AISWorld] Plagiarism and "Self-Plagiarism"

[Roger Clarke]

>2011/12/14 Pekkola Samuli <samuli.pekkola at tut.fi>:
>>  The evaluation of an article, whether it is (self-)plagiarism (agree the
>>  problems with the term), should be based on the contributions of the paper.
>>  As long as the contributions in two papers are _significantly_ 
>>different, ...

At 11:32 +0100 14/12/11, Lars Taxén wrote:
>A similar situation is when you have elaborated a theory that can be
>applied to various problems in different contexts.  ...

In agreeing, I'll add two more examples of totally justifiable re-use:
(a) the description of a research technique, and
(b) the description of the particular research method used in a project
     that has given rise to more than one paper.

I argued the case in CAIS in 2009, at:
http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/SCSP-09.html#RTFToC10

*But* one key factor has to be added.

By whatever name we agree on, this 'bad thing' currently called 
self-plagiarism occurs because of "the re-presentation of the 
documented words or ideas of oneself, **without appropriate 
attribution**" (emphasis added).

Nomatter how sensible it is to re-use a segment of text, the fact 
that it is a re-use must be declared to the editor, the reviewers and 
the readers.

There are ways to do this that are entirely acceptable to editors.

But failure to do it can very quickly give rise to distrust, and 
(worse) misleading comments from reviewers and editors that seem and 
are a bit beside the point, and (worst) rejection on a pretext.


-- 
Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University