<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19170"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>I for one do not believe it is possible to self plagiarize, as the author
and the previous author, logically how can you do this? Unless the real
issue is recognizing the copyright. This is a different issue and I'd like
to see us agree that we can't plagiarize ourselves (the idea of this actually
makes my head hurt) by copying or reusing our previous work, but we can fail to
recognize a copyright.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This leads to an issue I believe we discussed a year or two ago,
self-citation. As I remember from that discussion we agreed that excessive
self citation is not good either.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't see how we can this both ways, limited self citation with no self
plagiarism. As an editor in chief I really don't have a problem with
authors reusing conference papers in a journal submission, in fact I encourage
it. I also don't have a problem with self citation when it is appropriate
as it shows a body of work that builds on itself. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I guess my bottom line comment is that we seem to spend a lot of time and
energy discussing things of relatively little value (like self citation and self
plagiarism) when we could be spending this time and energy writing good journal
articles. Of course, I do understand that we are discussing this because
there is a proposal to punish self plagiarism. I have two proposals:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. drop any proposed punishments for self plagiarism</DIV>
<DIV>2. drop copyrighting conference papers</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm probably over simplifying the issue an apologize for that, but it
really does seem weird to have a discussion on self plagiarism.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks...murray jennex</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 12/11/2011 10:49:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
krassie.petrova@aut.ac.nz writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face="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
title=http://www.wi-mobile.org/
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><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>AISWorld
mailing
list<BR>AISWorld@lists.aisnet.org</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>