In #6 Stuart says that perhaps the previous description should be cited. However, if both were under review there is nothing yet to cite. If both get published then there will technically be a 'previous' but that would require waiting until one was published to do the final edit on the other one if you expect one to cite the other.
Another way to look at this might be, if the same person wrote both passages no one was misappropriating someone's ideas. If we are asking the author to substantially change what was that person's best explanation of the literature, I would ask, "For what purpose?" The purpose of scientific writing is clear, concise communication. To substantially change your 'best effort' sounds like it would reduce the quality. Another practical issue is that the same people would likely read these highly related articles. Wouldn't it be more efficient to be able to skim the lit review of the second one that you came upon, having already (more or less) read it? Otherwise, you have to read the same information which has been rearranged and reduced in quality just to avoid some abstract definition of 'self-plagiarism'. So, I vote for the use of self-plagiarism. It's more efficient for the author, more efficient for the reader, and is not stealing the ideas of others. Rick Stevens On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Stuart McKelvie <[email protected]>wrote: > > Dear Tipsters, > > I read the postings by Karl, Rick and Mike and a personal note from Chris. > > 1. I should have said that I wrote to the editors (not to the referees). > > 2. Editors were indeed interested in my observations and the one that had > sent the anonymous manuscript asked if one of the authors was "X". It was. > > 3. I agree that a distinction should be drawn between oral presentation and > formal written accounts in peer-reviewed journals. > > 4. From further correspondence with the editors, it seems likely that the > two manuscripts were constructed from a single data collection project and > that different portions of the project were separated out for separate > reports. In fact, I suspect that participants completed a number of tests > at the same time,and an (overlapping) selection were taken for each report. > That practice may not be unusual. > > 5. Chris wrote to me that if one is using the same methodology then perhaps > providing one clear succinct description is sufficient and that we can > excuse, even allow, duplication. > > 6. There may be a case for that, but I would say the previous description > should be cited. However, I insist that it is inappropriate to copy large > chunks of a narrative review of the literature. I had never seen wholesale > transcription like this. I agree with Karl that there may be a bit of a > dilemma if one has already a masterful review, but I cannot get my head > around the fact that such large segments appeared word-for-word without any > acknowledgment. > > Sincerely, > > Stuart > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: (819)822-9600, Extension 2402 > Department of Psychology, Fax: (819)822-9661 > Bishop's University, > 2600 College Street, > Sherbrooke (Borough of Lennoxville), > Québec J1M 1Z7, > Canada. > > E-mail: [email protected] > or [email protected] > > Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: > http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy > ___________________________________________________________ > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) -- Rick Stevens Psychology Department University of Louisiana at Monroe [email protected] SL - Evert Snook --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
