Hi
One issue I would have with the article is the mention of 79,000 PAIRS of
articles with duplicate text, which gives an impression that appears to be
wildly out of line with the demonstrated instances of duplicate publication. I
think the large number is a product of at least two factors: (1
Don't miss the link to the apparent self-plagiarism database drawn from Medline
http://spore.vbi.vt.edu/dejavu/
It is astonishing the amount of this that appears to have been happening over
the years.
A student of mine came across a case essentially similar to those in that
database when he wa
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 la
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 av
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, so
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
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
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: Teachin
t;
>
> 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
> expla
loam 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 goo
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
Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--
From: Paul C Bernhardt [mailto:pcbernha...@frostburg.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:37 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism
I'm
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 summar
eaching 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
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
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 hav
> (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 wrote:
>
>
> http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/
>
> Inte
17 matches
Mail list logo
