On 15 Sep 2010 at 13:30, Jim Clark wrote: > 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.
Another reason to avoid repeating the same methods section in different papers is to save journal space, a desirable objective. Instead of the repetition, it's usual to refer the reader to the first publication in the series ("see Black (2009) for more than one way to skin a cat"), adding only new aspects of the procedure ("However, skinning was accomplished without a knife"). While it's more convenient to have the methods immediately available for inspection, with on-line access to journals these days, it's no longer a big deal. "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: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4864 or send a blank email to leave-4864-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu