Re:[tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
John Serafin wrote: Personal aside...ignore if not interested. My grandparents all emigrated from Poland to the US. They all ended up in an area just west of Detroit. My dad's parents lived on a street that happened to go by the name of Kopernik. As a kid, I had no idea the significance of that name, but I eventually figured it out. Another personal aside, to be completely ignored: In the dim and distant past when I was at school one of our teachers deliberately mispronounced the name as copper knickers, which of course we found hilarious. Allen E. From: Serafin, John john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu Subject:Re: Galileo Was Wrong? Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:24:45 -0400 Ha! One of the things I have to love about TIPS is that even when I post something completely tongue-in-cheek, I can count on interesting and informative replies. Thanks, John K! I'll just add that Brahe Kepler did their thing after Copernicus, so I'll still attribute the idea to Copernicus. Personal aside...ignore if not interested. My grandparents all emigrated from Poland to the US. They all ended up in an area just west of Detroit. My dad's parents lived on a street that happened to go by the name of Kopernik. As a kid, I had no idea the significance of that name, but I eventually figured it out. John -- John Serafin Psychology Department Saint Vincent College Latrobe, PA 15650 john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4823 or send a blank email to leave-4823-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Good points, John. It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits. Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than seven heavenly bodies in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter. He gets the blame because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail) is sent by Baker University (BU) and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4826 or send a blank email to leave-4826-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism
(I don’t mean that he is good at it, just that he knows a lot about it.) lol. That's funny. Especially since it kinda imply that he couldn't actually apply the knowledge. --Mike On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Rick Froman rfro...@jbu.edu wrote: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/ Interesting post on The Scientist.com with quotes from TIPSter (and plagiarism expert) Miguel Roig. (I don’t mean that he is good at it, just that he knows a lot about it.) Rick Rick Froman rfro...@jbu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: tipsl...@gmail.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f4720fbn=Tl=tipso=4833 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-4833-13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f472...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4834 or send a blank email to leave-4834-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE:[tips] Self-plagiarism
I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have spent the last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so until I retire probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the basics in the most clear way so that others can understand what I mean. I don't want to have to think of more alternative ways to say some things. I had to really craft the text of the basic ideas carefully because I'm trying to explain some relatively abstract concepts in the most effective way possible for the listener/reader. So to have to redo this in a potentially less effective way to avoid self-plagiarism seems down right silly. They are my words that I worked on, and if they form the foundation of parts of the introduction and methods section then I can't believe it's a problem to reuse them whenever I write about the same topic. In fact, I have tried to just free write the methods section in subsequent papers and found myself repeating myself verbatim without even trying. I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, once we have to worry about repeating parts of introductory explanations to set the stage for a new study, as being somehow dishonest or lacking integrity. Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think? Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 tay...@sandiego.edumailto:tay...@sandiego.edu From: Rick Froman [rfro...@jbu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:58 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Self-plagiarism http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/ Interesting post on The Scientist.com with quotes from TIPSter (and plagiarism expert) Miguel Roig. (I don’t mean that he is good at it, just that he knows a lot about it.) Rick Rick Froman rfro...@jbu.edumailto:rfro...@jbu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: tay...@sandiego.edumailto:tay...@sandiego.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0n=Tl=tipso=4833 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-4833-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:leave-4833-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4837 or send a blank email to leave-4837-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism
I agree with Annette. There are good and better ways to write a succinct explanation of the concept of contrast effects in sensory research. Once I had invested a great deal of time crafting what I thought was the best sentence, why would I change it just to avoid plagiarizing myself? I would argue that that would've created a lesser quality sentence. Are musicians plagiarizing themselves with each new performance of a song? Or when they make an acoustic version from an electric or orchestrated version? Steven M. Specht, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Department of Psychology Utica College Utica, NY 13502 (315) 792-3171 monkeybrain-collagist.blogspot.com The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. Martin Luther King Jr. On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Annette Taylor wrote: I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have spent the last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so until I retire probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the basics in the most clear way so that others can understand what I mean. I don't want to have to think of more alternative ways to say some things. I had to really craft the text of the basic ideas carefully because I'm trying to explain some relatively abstract concepts in the most effective way possible for the listener/reader. So to have to redo this in a potentially less effective way to avoid self-plagiarism seems down right silly. They are my words that I worked on, and if they form the foundation of parts of the introduction and methods section then I can't believe it's a problem to reuse them whenever I write about the same topic. In fact, I have tried to just free write the methods section in subsequent papers and found myself repeating myself verbatim without even trying. I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, once we have to worry about repeating parts of introductory explanations to set the stage for a new study, as being somehow dishonest or lacking integrity. Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think? Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 tay...@sandiego.edu From: Rick Froman [rfro...@jbu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:58 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Self-plagiarism http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/ Interesting post on The Scientist.com with quotes from TIPSter (and plagiarism expert) Miguel Roig. (I don’t mean that he is good at it, just that he knows a lot about it.) Rick Rick Froman rfro...@jbu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: tay...@sandiego.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0n=Tl=tipso=4833 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-4833-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: sspe...@utica.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13522.468cbac056133a996283cca7e2976336n=Tl=tipso=4837 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-4837-13522.468cbac056133a996283cca7e2976...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4840 or send a blank email to leave-4840-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] In the good old days
In the good old days: Students came to see profs during office hours Profs had only one test taking tip know everything Text books had a few black and white photos,the rest was left to the imagination which further enhanced cognitive skills A D was an honorable grade Profs were not dishing out A grade like hot cakes What else? Michael omnicentric Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4845 or send a blank email to leave-4845-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism
I am somewhere between the two, also. I have seen cases of self-plagiarism which I find objectionable. Typically, they have involved a cut-and-paste from one type of publication (e.g., a Psych Review article) to a completely different type of publication (e.g., a sophomore textbook). The author didn't take the time to restate the points in a manner suited to the audience. Ken --- Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. steel...@appstate.edu Professor and Assistant Chairperson Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA --- Paul C Bernhardt wrote: I'm somewhere between the two. I do think that occasionally we need to restate something and the way we've wordsmithed it over multiple edits really is the best way to say it. But, when you might see yourself duplicating a major subsection of an intro or method, it is probably better to summarize what you said in the other paper and cite so the interested reader who wants those details can go get it there. Paul C Bernhardt Frostburg State University Frostburg, MD, USA pcbernhardt[at]frostburg[d0t]edu On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Annette Taylor wrote: I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have spent the last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so until I retire probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the basics in the most clear way so that others can understand what I mean. I don't want to have to think of more alternative ways to say some things. I had to really craft the text of the basic ideas carefully because I'm trying to explain some relatively abstract concepts in the most effective way possible for the listener/reader. So to have to redo this in a potentially less effective way to avoid self-plagiarism seems down right silly. They are my words that I worked on, and if they form the foundation of parts of the introduction and methods section then I can't believe it's a problem to reuse them whenever I write about the same topic. In fact, I have tried to just free write the methods section in subsequent papers and found myself repeating myself verbatim without even trying. I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, once we have to worry about repeating parts of introductory explanations to set the stage for a new study, as being somehow dishonest or lacking integrity. Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think? Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 tay...@sandiego.edu mailto:tay...@sandiego.edu *From:* Rick Froman [rfro...@jbu.edu] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:58 AM *To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) *Subject:* [tips] Self-plagiarism _http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/_ Interesting post on The Scientist.com http://Scientist.com with quotes from TIPSter (and plagiarism expert) Miguel Roig. (I don’t mean that he is good at it, just that he knows a lot about it.) Rick Rick Froman _rfro...@jbu.edu_ mailto:rfro...@jbu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4846 or send a blank email to leave-4846-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] In the good old days
Women students were not taken seriously Women students were taken advantage of There were no black students Special needs students were ignored and went unaccommodated there were no or very few counseling services Profs could and were often abusive in class only 13% of those who graduated high school went on to college The good old days were good because you don't want to remember the bad ones: history lesson. Make it a good day -Louis- Louis Schmier http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org Department of Historyhttp://www.therandomthoughts.com Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ (O) 229-333-5947/^\\/ \/ \ /\/\__ / \ / \ (C) 229-630-0821 / \/ \_ \/ / \/ /\/ / \ /\ \ //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/ \_/__\ \ /\If you want to climb mountains,\ /\ _ / \don't practice on mole hills - / \_ On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:22 AM, michael sylvester wrote: In the good old days: Students came to see profs during office hours Profs had only one test taking tip know everything Text books had a few black and white photos,the rest was left to the imagination which further enhanced cognitive skills A D was an honorable grade Profs were not dishing out A grade like hot cakes What else? Michael omnicentric Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: lschm...@valdosta.edumailto:lschm...@valdosta.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42440n=Tl=tipso=4845 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-4845-13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42...@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:leave-4845-13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4848 or send a blank email to leave-4848-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Self-plagiarism
Hi If you read the comments on the original posting, you will see that one respondent actually mentioned the example of Nobel prize winners who published much the same research in several different journals, without people objecting. The rational was that different people read different journals and that multiple publications was appropriate to reach the entire relevant audience. Most of the comments are quite negative about the idea of self-plagiarism. I just see having to rewrite something, just for the sake of being different (not to make it clearer), as another distraction from doing science. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca Rick Froman rfro...@jbu.edu 15-Sep-10 11:30 AM I agree that it is fine to reproduce certain sections of a paper intact in a subsequent paper and most people cited in the article didn't seem to have a problem with that (especially in the Method section). The main concern is with how much of that can be done while still being considered a new publication. I think most would agree, the more significant violation would be presenting the exact same findings under an entirely different title, changing only the specific wording to avoid plagiarism detection. So it is not really the wording that is at issue but the originality of the findings. The same findings shouldn't be produced in different publications just to pad a CV. I think the musician analogy breaks down pretty quickly. A musician might play the same piece to different audiences (some who might want to relive the experience a number of times) hundreds or even thousands of times. Is it really then OK for a researcher to publish the same work with a few ad libs here and there hundreds or thousands of times to the same scholarly readership? I think scholarly publication and live musical performances differ in many respects. I do think a musician would lose fans pretty quickly (and many have) by just re-packaging old stuff reworked into a new album. As far as publication (recording) goes, listeners will feel cheated when buying an album that is nothing but previously released songs masquerading as a new album. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Professor of Psychology Box 3055 John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu (479)524-7295 http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman From: Steven Specht [mailto:sspe...@utica.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:20 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism I agree with Annette. There are good and better ways to write a succinct explanation of the concept of contrast effects in sensory research. Once I had invested a great deal of time crafting what I thought was the best sentence, why would I change it just to avoid plagiarizing myself? I would argue that that would've created a lesser quality sentence. Are musicians plagiarizing themselves with each new performance of a song? Or when they make an acoustic version from an electric or orchestrated version? Steven M. Specht, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Department of Psychology Utica College Utica, NY 13502 (315) 792-3171 monkeybrain-collagist.blogspot.comhttp://monkeybrain-collagist.blogspot.com The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. Martin Luther King Jr. On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Annette Taylor wrote: I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have spent the last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so until I retire probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the basics in the most clear way so that others can understand what I mean. I don't want to have to think of more alternative ways to say some things. I had to really craft the text of the basic ideas carefully because I'm trying to explain some relatively abstract concepts in the most effective way possible for the listener/reader. So to have to redo this in a potentially less effective way to avoid self-plagiarism seems down right silly. They are my words that I worked on, and if they form the foundation of parts of the introduction and methods section then I can't believe it's a problem to reuse them whenever I write about the same topic. In fact, I have tried to just free write the methods section in subsequent papers and found myself repeating myself verbatim without even trying. I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, once we have to worry about repeating parts of introductory explanations to set the stage for a new study, as being somehow dishonest or lacking integrity. Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think? Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism
I knew the musician analogy was weak... but it's interesting in some ways. I am in a continuous conversation with a musician friend of mine about the similarities and differences between the visual and auditory arts in terms of replication. The analogies seem to work better and are more interesting in that regard. Steven M. Specht, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Department of Psychology Utica College Utica, NY 13502 (315) 792-3171 monkeybrain-collagist.blogspot.com The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. Martin Luther King Jr. On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Rick Froman wrote: I agree that it is fine to reproduce certain sections of a paper intact in a subsequent paper and most people cited in the article didn’t seem to have a problem with that (especially in the Method section). The main concern is with how much of that can be done while still being considered a new publication. I think most would agree, the more significant violation would be presenting the exact same findings under an entirely different title, changing only the specific wording to avoid plagiarism detection. So it is not really the wording that is at issue but the originality of the findings. The same findings shouldn’t be produced in different publications just to pad a CV. I think the musician analogy breaks down pretty quickly. A musician might play the same piece to different audiences (some who might want to relive the experience a number of times) hundreds or even thousands of times. Is it really then OK for a researcher to publish the same work with a few ad libs here and there hundreds or thousands of times to the same scholarly readership? I think scholarly publication and live musical performances differ in many respects. I do think a musician would lose fans pretty quickly (and many have) by just re-packaging old stuff reworked into a new album. As far as publication (recording) goes, listeners will feel cheated when buying an album that is nothing but previously released songs masquerading as a new album. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Professor of Psychology Box 3055 John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu (479)524-7295 http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman From: Steven Specht [mailto:sspe...@utica.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:20 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism I agree with Annette. There are good and better ways to write a succinct explanation of the concept of contrast effects in sensory research. Once I had invested a great deal of time crafting what I thought was the best sentence, why would I change it just to avoid plagiarizing myself? I would argue that that would've created a lesser quality sentence. Are musicians plagiarizing themselves with each new performance of a song? Or when they make an acoustic version from an electric or orchestrated version? Steven M. Specht, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Department of Psychology Utica College Utica, NY 13502 (315) 792-3171 monkeybrain-collagist.blogspot.com The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. Martin Luther King Jr. On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Annette Taylor wrote: I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have spent the last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so until I retire probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the basics in the most clear way so that others can understand what I mean. I don't want to have to think of more alternative ways to say some things. I had to really craft the text of the basic ideas carefully because I'm trying to explain some relatively abstract concepts in the most effective way possible for the listener/reader. So to have to redo this in a potentially less effective way to avoid self-plagiarism seems down right silly. They are my words that I worked on, and if they form the foundation of parts of the introduction and methods section then I can't believe it's a problem to reuse them whenever I write about the same topic. In fact, I have tried to just free write the methods section in subsequent papers and found myself repeating myself verbatim without even trying. I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, once we have to worry about repeating parts of introductory explanations to set the stage for a new study, as being somehow dishonest or lacking integrity. Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think?
RE: [tips] Self-plagiarism
At the very least, I think, we need a different term, as self-plagiarism strikes me as an oxymoron. Plagiarism by definition (at least all definitions I've ever seen and can locate) means appropriating others' work without attribution. The discussion does raise some interesting and important issues, especially those pertaining to how best to inform journal editors and readers. To me, the biggest problem with self-plagiarism (again, I really think we need a different word) is that some editors may be accepting what they believe to be an original piece of work than in fact has been largely published elsewhere. In the 1980s, Irv Biederman published an article in Psychological Review that, it later turned out, had already been published largely in a chapter (and Psychological Review issued an apology to readers). So to me, much of the debate boils down to how best to inform editors and readers (and, I suppose, promotion and tenure reviewers who are counting beans) about what parts of one's work are, and are not, original. I'm in agreement with Annette, Jim, and others that forcing authors to reword standard descriptions of their Method section just for the sake of it is not especially worthwhile. In contrast, I think we'd all agree that sending an original article to Psychological Bulletin that contained a huge section (say, consuming 50% or more of the article) that in fact had been published in a different journal - and without informing the editor - is ethically questionable at best. In between these two extremes, I suspect, there are legitimate differences of opinion. Personally, I don't see a major problem with mild forms of the practice just so long as editors and readers are fully informed about how much of what they're reading is genuinely new. I've never seen a good discussion of how best to inform readers of this practice (e.g., see Smith Jones, 1998, for the same verbatim description of this technique), although I would think that such a discussion would be worthwhile. Scott Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. Professor Editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice Department of Psychology, Room 473 Psychology and Interdisciplinary Sciences (PAIS) Emory University 36 Eagle Row Atlanta, Georgia 30322 slil...@emory.edu (404) 727-1125 Psychology Today Blog: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140513111X.html Scientific American Mind: Facts and Fictions in Mental Health Column: http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/ The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him - he is always doing both. - Zen Buddhist text (slightly modified) -Original Message- From: Jim Clark [mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 1:31 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE: [tips] Self-plagiarism Hi If you read the comments on the original posting, you will see that one respondent actually mentioned the example of Nobel prize winners who published much the same research in several different journals, without people objecting. The rational was that different people read different journals and that multiple publications was appropriate to reach the entire relevant audience. Most of the comments are quite negative about the idea of self-plagiarism. I just see having to rewrite something, just for the sake of being different (not to make it clearer), as another distraction from doing science. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca Rick Froman rfro...@jbu.edu 15-Sep-10 11:30 AM I agree that it is fine to reproduce certain sections of a paper intact in a subsequent paper and most people cited in the article didn't seem to have a problem with that (especially in the Method section). The main concern is with how much of that can be done while still being considered a new publication. I think most would agree, the more significant violation would be presenting the exact same findings under an entirely different title, changing only the specific wording to avoid plagiarism detection. So it is not really the wording that is at issue but the originality of the findings. The same findings shouldn't be produced in different publications just to pad a CV. I think the musician analogy breaks down pretty quickly. A musician might play the same piece to different audiences (some who might want to relive the experience a number of times) hundreds or even thousands of times. Is it really then OK for
Re: [tips] In the good old days
Profs had one or two paperbacks to complement the texts,I was introduced to Rachel Carlson's Silent Spring in Bio 101. Gilbert Rye The nature of Mind (by a British prof) in History of Psych. Michael omnicentric Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4856 or send a blank email to leave-4856-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism
Scott O. Lilienfeld notes: *At the very least, I think, we need a different term, as self-plagiarism strikes me as an oxymoron. Plagiarism by definition (at least all definitions I've ever seen and can locate) means appropriating others' work without attribution.* The APA code of ethics refers to the ethical problems of duplicate publication, piecemeal publication, and self-plagiarism (pages 13-16 in the 6th edition of the publication manual; pages 351-354 in the 5th edition, for those who are still mad about the 6th edition). Claudia Stanny --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4858 or send a blank email to leave-4858-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a heliocentric model of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == = Marc Carter wrote: Good points, John. It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits. Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than seven heavenly bodies in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter. He gets the blame because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail) is sent by Baker University (BU) and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0dan=Tl=tipso=4826 or send a blank email to leave-4826-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4860 or send a blank email to leave-4860-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism
I agree with Annette here. Plagiarism has slightly different meanings in different disciplinary contexts (because we chiefly concerned with the originality of different aspects of the writing in different disciplines). In the context of a primary report of a new scientific study, plagiarism has primarily to do with whether the data reported is new or not (because, what we don't want is for the same data to be presented twice without clear notification, in order to prevent the false appearance of replication). The author who is concerned about running into problems with repeating parts of the setup should simply footnote the section and note that it was first developed for such-and-such an article, and it remains relevant to the new article because it is a continuation of the same research program. Any journal editor who actually rejected such a paper because the setup (background, procedure) was similarly worded to those of a previous paper by the same author on the same topic (though of a different experiment) would get exactly what s/he deserves -- the paper published by another journal. It is easy to be too punctilious about these kinds of things by applying the letter of descriptions (of plagiarism, in this case) that were only ever meant to be general descriptions of prototypical instances (e.g., copy words from a previous paper nearly exactly without citation). If one were in a different disciplinary context (e.g., literature) then lifting large chunks of any part of a document (e.g., a story) and plunking them down in a new document would constitute plagiarism. IMHO. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == Annette Taylor wrote: I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have spent the last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so until I retire probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the basics in the most clear way so that others can understand what I mean. I don't want to have to think of more alternative ways to say some things. I had to really craft the text of the basic ideas carefully because I'm trying to explain some relatively abstract concepts in the most effective way possible for the listener/reader. So to have to redo this in a potentially less effective way to avoid self-plagiarism seems down right silly. They are my words that I worked on, and if they form the foundation of parts of the introduction and methods section then I can't believe it's a problem to reuse them whenever I write about the same topic. In fact, I have tried to just free write the methods section in subsequent papers and found myself repeating myself verbatim without even trying. I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, once we have to worry about repeating parts of introductory explanations to set the stage for a new study, as being somehow dishonest or lacking integrity. Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think? Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 tay...@sandiego.edu mailto:tay...@sandiego.edu *From:* Rick Froman [rfro...@jbu.edu] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:58 AM *To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) *Subject:* [tips] Self-plagiarism _http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/_ Interesting post on The Scientist.com with quotes from TIPSter (and plagiarism expert) Miguel Roig. (I don’t mean that he is good at it, just that he knows a lot about it.) Rick Rick Froman _rfro...@jbu.edu_ mailto:rfro...@jbu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: tay...@sandiego.edu mailto:tay...@sandiego.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0n=Tl=tipso=4833 http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0n=Tl=tipso=4833 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-4833-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu mailto:leave-4833-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca mailto:chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0dan=Tl=tipso=4837 http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0dan=Tl=tipso=4837 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-4837-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism
The question of the appropriateness of publishing an article in part or in whole that is identical to a previously published one boils down to whether the reader and, therefore, the editor is clearly informed about the nature of the duplication, particularly duplication involving data. Yes, some articles deserve to be published in more than one journal, but the stipulation should always be that the editors of both journals and the readers are informed about the duplication. I do hope that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that ‘covert’ duplication of data, that is presenting previously published data as if they were new data, constitutes research misconduct (though of course, each case tends to be unique and the devil is always in the details), but that was not the subject of the piece published in The Scientist. What The Scientist’s blog addressed was the issue of recycling of text from an earlier publication to a newer one. As some of you have pointed out, it is probably unavoidable to sometimes reuse key phrases that describe complex methodologies. Also as some of you have pointed out, in some cases it may even be desirable to reuse entire segments of a previously published methods section, thought the fact that that few replications of earlier published experiments are ever 100% identical replications makes the reuse of entire methods section a questionable practice. Unfortunately, a significant number of authors seem to abuse the practice of copy-pasting portions of previously published papers in new publications and, as a result, some journals (at least in the biomedical sciences) state limits in the degree of overlap between publications (10%-15%), particularly if these publication involve different companies. For example, my recollection is that APA has a limit of 500 words that can be reused in other publications and that borrowing anything greater needs their permission. I am also aware of at least one biomedical journal which has published an editorial cautioning authors not to use earlier published methods sections as templates for the new method section. But, copyright issues aside, from the point of view of ‘best practices in scientific scholarship’ the question is whether there should be some limits placed in the amount of self-borrowing. Is it ok to reuse an entire literature review? How about portions of a method section and part of a discussion? How much is too much. These are some of the questions that editors wrestle with. I believe there should be some limits, but what those should be probably depend on so many factors (e.g., individual discipline, the author’s facility with the language) that any operationalization may be ultimately be impractical. I am of the view that just about any type of writing, whether of a method section or of a literature review, can always be improved. The material can always be elucidated further, made a little clearer and the latter is especially important in a method section. Perhaps there are, indeed, only a certain number of ways to accurately convey the same thought, procedure, or methodology in the concise manner demanded by the discipline. But to not attempt improving our work when we have the opportunity to do so represents a disservice to readers. My belief, and the advice that I give to others, is that if we are to hold scientific writing as the highest form of scholarship, then we should take advantage of those opportunities that allow us to improve the message that we have previously conveyed. I could go on, but …. Miguel PS: And, yes, self-plagiarism is a problematic term. ;-) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4863 or send a blank email to leave-4863-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Marc Carter wrote: Those old guys were *smart*... If ever you hear of a concentration of philosophical, scientific, and artistic talent like there was in Athens between, say, 450 and 350 bc (a city of about 100,000 back then) move there and start drinking the water, breathing the air, and eating food grown from the surrounding ground. Something pretty astonishing was happening back then. (And when you consider that geniuses like Aristarchus and Archimedes came a century later during the Hellenistic decline... ) Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == -Original Message- From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:49 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a heliocentric model of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == = Marc Carter wrote: Good points, John. It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits. Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than seven heavenly bodies in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter. He gets the blame because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail) is sent by Baker University (BU) and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0 dan=Tl=tipso=4826 or send a blank email to leave-4826-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.ed u --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: marc.car...@bakeru.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72 a2d17c90e1n=Tl=tipso=4860 or send a
Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism
I'm pleased to have a term for the occasional (well, we hope it's occasional) practice of handing in the same paper for another course. My favorite example of this is when a student handed in a paper with plagiarism from some website sources. He was irate at the F I gave him, and told me, The last time I handed this paper in, I got an A! I tried not to laugh when I told him, Well, now we have *another *problem! He failed the course, of course. I could have told him he was *also* guilty of self-plagiarism. Believe me, I'm tucking that one away for the future. I think I'll even mention that in class tomorrow. Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire Stephen Black wrote: Self-plagiarism is also used as a term to describe the student transgression of handing in a paper for credit which fully or partially repeats material used for credit in another course. Students are not always aware that this is frowned on, so it's a good idea to make the prohibition explicit. I once wrote a set of plagiarism regulations for our university calendar which included a rule against such self-plagiarism. I was ridiculed (I tend to remember such things) for the use of the term which was considered, as Scott notes, oxymoronic. Be that as it may, it's a a handy mnemonic for what they shouldn't be doing. Stephen Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: beth.ben...@gmail.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13105.b9b37cdd198e940b73969ea6ba7aaf72n=Tl=tipso=4864 or send a blank email to leave-4864-13105.b9b37cdd198e940b73969ea6ba7aa...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4867 or send a blank email to leave-4867-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] TIPSTER OF THE WEEK
CLAUDIA STANNY Michael omnicentric Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4874 or send a blank email to leave-4874-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
