<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16722"></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Segoe UI">
<DIV>Dear Colleagues, in some previous posts, 'copyright' was mentioned along with plagiarism/ 'self-plagiarism'. Are these not two different issues?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> In my view misrepresenting / appropriating others' work - whether copyright protected or not, is not acceptable as it is unethical with respect to academic ethical standards. I would think that any academic body dealing with plagiarism issues would focus on the ethical side and leave copyright violation and legal proceedings to the affected party (the copyright holder). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Second, when it comes to 'self-plagiarism': what is the proposed punishment for (when repeating a portion of previously published one's own material , in a copyright protected journal) - for using too big a portion (and thus reducing the contribution of the new paper), or for violating the copyright ? In my view the focus should be on the first ; if the 'inclusion' adds to the value of the new paper, then the editor and the author need to find ways to deal with the copyright issue. The idea of developing academically accepted practices in that respect is very timely and would be useful both to authors and editors. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Krassie Petrova</DIV>
<DIV>Senior Research Lecturer, Information Systems and Technology</DIV>
<DIV>Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand<BR>>>> </DIV>
<TABLE style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 15px; FONT-SIZE: 1em" border=0 bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV style="BORDER-LEFT: #050505 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 7px">
<TABLE style="FONT: 9pt Segoe UI" bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>From: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>Göran Goldkuhl<goran.goldkuhl@liu.se></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>To:</STRONG></TD>
<TD>"aisworld@lists.aisnet.org" <aisworld@lists.aisnet.org></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Date: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>12/12/11 4:54 AM</TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Subject: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>Re: [AISWorld] Plagiarism and "Self-Plagiarism"</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>I fully agree to this: We should not use the term ”self-plagiarism”. It is a contradiction in terms. I quote from Online Etymology Online: <BR><BR>“Plagiarism: 1620s, from L. plagiarius "kidnapper, seducer, plunderer," used in the sense of "literary thief" by Martial, from plagium "kidnapping," from plaga "snare, net,"<BR><BR>Self-plagiarism would mean stealing from yourself. <BR><BR>Submitting the same paper to several targets is of course deceitful behaviour. However, the problem of re-using your own earlier material should be given more thoughtful considerations. We honour cumulative research building on earlier works, which of course should comprise your own work. Do we not think it is desirable to develop earlier ideas and as a consequence to include in this development own intellectual material that already have been exposed? <BR><BR>To threat scholars with possible allegations of self-plagiarism could have consequences that scholars start with new things all over the time and not work with continual development and improvement of intellectual contents. <BR><BR>Göran Goldkuhl<BR>Professor information systems development<BR>Linköping University<BR>Sweden<BR><BR>________________________________________<BR>Från: aisworld-bounces@lists.aisnet.org [aisworld-bounces@lists.aisnet.org] för Key Pousttchi [key.pousttchi@wiwi.uni-augsburg.de]<BR>Skickat: den 11 december 2011 13:09<BR>Till: aisworld@lists.aisnet.org<BR>Ämne: [AISWorld] Plagiarism and "Self-Plagiarism"<BR><BR>I would like to draw the attention on a side aspect connected to Claudia's<BR>posting and much more relevant with Ned's points in mind: The wording issue<BR>with "self-plagiarism".<BR><BR>The term "plagiarism" is a very sharp sword in public discussions (we just<BR>had a couple of cases in Germany, including a minister who had to resign).<BR>With calling two entirely different issues by similar names, we mix up<BR>relevance. It's just like insulting your spouse having stolen the dinner<BR>items in the supermarket versus just cooking the same thing as yesterday.<BR><BR>The first one is unethical, the second one just needs clear rules (as<BR>Claudia pointed out). Thus, I would urge that we think about a different<BR>term for the second, e.g., something like "double-selling".<BR><BR>Key<BR><BR><BR>___________________________________________________________<BR><BR>Dr. Key Pousttchi<BR>Associate professor<BR>University of Augsburg<BR>86135 Augsburg, Germany<BR><BR>tel +49 (821) 598-4434<BR>fax +49 (821) 598-4432<BR>GSM +49 (177) 6319508<BR><BR><A href="http://www.wi-mobile.org">http://www.wi-mobile.org</A><BR>mailto:key.pousttchi@wi-mobile.de<BR>___________________________________________________________<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>AISWorld mailing list<BR>AISWorld@lists.aisnet.org<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>AISWorld mailing list<BR>AISWorld@lists.aisnet.org<BR></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BODY></HTML>