[AISWorld] Plagiarism and "Self-Plagiarism"

[Geoffrey Hubona]

Technology itself could be used smartly to address, or at least, to detect,
some of these issues during the initial submission screening process.
There are already effective applications to 'flag' plagarism in student
submissions. As our universe becomes more and more electronic and
increasingly digital, it should become easier and easier to deploy
electronic screening mechanisms, perhaps built into the ais
manuscriptcentral system itself.

geoff hubona
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Andrew Urbaczewski <aurbacze at umd.umich.edu
> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> If anything, I think all the debate around this issue by scholars around
> the world shows that, at least at this time, having a group of journal
> editors or a small group within AIS act as judge, jury, and executioner on
> the issue of self-plagiarism is a bit premature.
>
> I think? we can all agree that submitting someone else's previously
> published paper to a journal is wrong.
> I think? we can all agree that submitting an exact copy of a paper
> published by one journal in the past to another journal is wrong.
> I think? we can all agree that taking a student's or colleague's
> unpublished paper and submitting it as your own without appropriation is
> wrong.
>
> If we want to go down the road of setting standards and penalties for
> plagiarism (which I'm not sure we do, but for sake of argument let's say we
> do), maybe we should start with these baby steps?
>
> Andrew
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Andrew Urbaczewski, Ph.D.
> Chair, Department of Management Studies
> Associate Professor of MIS
> College of Business
> University of Michigan - Dearborn
> 19000 Hubbard Drive, FCS 127
> Dearborn, MI 48126
> +1 313 583.6302
>
> SKYPE me at aurbaczewski
>
> "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
> liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." — Thomas
> Jefferson
>
>
>
>
>
> On 14 Dec, 2011, at 05:32 , Lars Taxén wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just a small addition to Pekkola's post.
> >
> > A similar situation is when you have elaborated a theory that can be
> > applied to various problems in different contexts. A certain
> > contribution would then consist of a common "module" describing the
> > theory, and a specific contribution for each context in which the
> > theory is applied. Each paper is a significant contribution, although
> > it contains a part that is the same in several contributions.
> >
> > It would be nice if you could  "reuse" the theory-module by just
> > copying the text and write only the specific part. However, this is
> > not possible today unless you have the consent of the publisher of a
> > previous contribution. To me, it does not make much sense to make
> > cosmetic changes in the theory-module just to escape the copy-right
> > rules.  A "modular" kind of publishing system would be much
> > appreciated, I believe.
> >
> > Lars
> >
> >
> > 2011/12/14 Pekkola Samuli <samuli.pekkola at tut.fi>:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> just a little comment.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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,
> >> there should be no issue of recycling chapters/paragraphs or fear being
> >> accused for plagiarism. This means that conf/workshop papers can be
> updated
> >> to journals providing they make significant additions to our knowledge
> base.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Particularly this is an issue when constructing the systems/models/etc.
> For
> >> example, long time ago I designed, build and evaluated systems.
> Publishing
> >> the results of each of those phases meant that I had to recycle the
> ideas
> >> and even text from the earlier papers. Let say the first paper(s) was
> about
> >> design principles and features of the to-be system. The second (set of)
> >> papers were more technical. To understand them and the design rationale
> >> behind, I had to describe the design principles from the first (set of)
> >> papers. And with the third set of papers, i.e. evaluating the technical
> >> construct, I had to describe both the design principles (i.e. the
> criteria
> >> for evaluation) and technical construct (that provided a basis to argue
> why
> >> certain criteria were confirmed/disconfirmed). In other words, a large
> >> portion of content of the third set of papers were adapted from the
> earlier
> >> two sets. However, each and every paper still makes different
> contribution.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From this perspective, to make strict rules that x% of the text needs
> to be
> >> new is bit strange, as a lot of content might be the same (even though
> >> rewritten). My two cents is to focus on contributions and their
> uniqueness
> >> and significance.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> samuli
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Samuli Pekkola
> >>
> >> Professor, Adjunct Professor, PhD
> >> Head of Department
> >>
> >> Department of Business Information Management and Logistics
> >> Tampere University of Technology
> >> PO Box 541, 33101 Tampere, Finland
> >> t: +358 (0)40 586 0791
> >> e: samuli.pekkola at tut.fi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lars Taxén, Associate Professor
> > Department of Science and Technology
> > Campus Norrköping, Linköpings Universitet
> > Rundan 91
> > SE 14645 Tullinge, Sweden
> > mobile: +46 (0)73 0977864
> > lars.taxen at telia.com
> > www.neana.se
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AISWorld mailing list
> > AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aisnet.org/pipermail/aisworld_lists.aisnet.org/attachments/20111214/bf13c357/attachment.html>