Self-Plagiarism and Textual Recycling: Legitimate Forms of Research Misconduct
- 10 December 2013
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Taylor & Francis Ltd in Accountability in Research
- Vol. 21 (3), 176-197
- https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.848071
Abstract
The concept of self-plagiarism frequently elicits skepticism and generates confusion in the research ethics literature, and the ethical status of what is often called "textual recycling" is particularly controversial. I argue that, in general, self-plagiarism is unethical because it is deceptive and dishonest. I then distinguish several forms of it and argue against various common rationalizations for textual recycling. I conclude with a discussion of two instances of textual recycling, distinguishing them in terms of their ethical seriousness but concluding that both are ethically problematic.Keywords
This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- From the Board of Editors: on PlagiarismBiomedical Optics Express, 2013
- Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, scientific misconduct, and VACCINE: Protecting the science and the publicVaccine, 2012
- Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publicationsProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2012
- Plagiarism in Scientific PublishingActa Informatica Medica, 2012
- Self-PlagiarismThe Oncologist, 2011
- Spatially Selective Photochemical Reduction of Silver on Nanoembossed Ferroelectric PZT NanowiresLangmuir, 2011
- From the Editors’ Desk: Self-Plagiarism and Other Editorial Crimes and MisdemeanorsJournal of General Internal Medicine, 2010
- What's so precious about originalityBMJ, 2007
- Consent for anaesthesiaJournal of Medical Ethics, 2004
- Academic attribution: citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledgeApplied Linguistics, 1999