On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:04:06 -0500, Karl L Wuensch wrote:
> I have a project that produced so much data that a complete
>presentation of the results would be very much longer than that
>which any journal would be willing to publish in a single article.
>What are my options other than dividing it into smaller portions
>to be published separately?
Clearly, there are ways of doing this that make clear that
a series of experiments are conceptually connected and represent
a research program instead of a group of papers that appear in
different journals and make minimal reference to each other.
For example, consider the classic papers by Schneider & Shiffrin:
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic
human information processing: I. detection, search, and attention.
Psychological Review, 84(1), 1-66.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic
human information processing: II. perceptual learning, automatic
attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127-190.
Each are long presentations of different experiments and they clearly
identify how they are different but focus on a common set of issues.
Other examples include:
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1995).
The structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R personality disorders
(SCID-II): I. description. Journal of Personality Disorders, 9(2), 83-91.
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1995).
The structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R personality disorders
(SCID-II): II. multi-site test-retest reliability study. Journal of
Personality
Disorders, 9(2), 92-104.
or
Natsoulas, T. (1996). A case for intrinsic theory: I. an introduction. Journal
of
Mind and Behavior, 17(3), 267-286.
Natsoulas, T. (1996). The case of intrinsic theory: II. an examination of a
conception of consciousness-sub-4 as intrinsic, necessary, and concomitant.
Journal of Mind and Behavior, 17(4), 369-389.
Natsoulas, T. (1998). The case for intrinsic theory: III. intrinsic inner
awareness
and the problem of straightforward objectification. Journal of Mind and
Behavior, 19(1), 1-20.
Natsoulas, T. (1999). The case of intrinsic theory: IV. an argument from
how conscious mental-occurrence instances seem. Journal of Mind and
Behavior, 20(3), 257-276.
Natsoulas, T. (2001). The case for intrinsic theory: V. some arguments from
james's varieties. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 22(1), 41-68.
Natsoulas, T. (2001). The case for intrinsic theory: VI. incompatibilities
within the stream of consciousness. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 22(2),
119-146.
Natsoulas, T. (2003). The case for intrinsic theory: VII. an equivocal
remembrance theory. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 24(1), 1-28.
Natsoulas, T. (2003). The case for intrinsic theory: VIII. the experiential in
acquiring knowledge firsthand of one's experiences. Journal of Mind and
Behavior, 24(3-4), 289-316.
Natsoulas, T. (2004). The case for intrinsic theory: IX. further discussion
of an equivocal remembrance account. Journal of Mind and Behavior,
25(1), 7-32.
Natsoulas, T. (2004). The case for intrinsic theory: X. A phenomenologist's
account of inner awareness. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 25(2), 97-121.
Natsoulas, T. (2004). The case for intrinsic theory: XI. A disagreement
regarding the kind of feature inner awareness is. Journal of Mind and
Behavior, 25(3), 187-212.
Natsoulas, T. (2006). The case for intrinsic theory: XII. inner awareness
conceived of as a modal character of conscious experiences. Journal of
Mind and Behavior, 27(3-4), 183-214.
Natsoulas, T. (2006). The case for intrinsic theory: XIII. the role of the
qualitative in a modal account of inner awareness. Journal of Mind and
Behavior, 27(3-4), 319-350.
And if I may be allowed an indulgence:
Liebowitz MR. Gorman JM. Fyer AJ. Levitt M. Dillon D. Levy G.
Appleby IL. Anderson S. Palij M. Davies SO. et al. Lactate provocation
of panic attacks. II. Biochemical and physiological findings. Archives of
General Psychiatry. 42(7):709-19, 1985 Jul.
Liebowitz MR. Fyer AJ. Gorman JM. Dillon D. Appleby IL. Levy G.
Anderson S. Levitt M. Palij M. Davies SO. et al. Lactate provocation
of panic attacks. I. Clinical and behavioral findings. Archives of General
Psychiatry. 41(8):764-70, 1984 Aug.
-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]
> Cheers,
> Karl W.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Claudia Stanny [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:08 PM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: RE: [tips] Can you plagiarize your own work?
>
> Publication rules about duplication generally apply to the data and
> findings reported (except for review and theoretical articles that don't
> present original data).
> In this case, each manuscript reported different data and different
> findings. In this sense, they are independent.
>
> Is the unique contribution of the article the findings or the literature
> review supporting the question posed?
>
> It seems a bit odd that the research questions posed in each article
> were supported by identical literature reviews, since the questions were
> different. I can understand some overlap, but not identical literature
> reviews. Perhaps the commonalities in the introductions were overstated?
>
> Another issue might be the chopping up of a study and piecemeal
> publication of the findings to get more publication count "bang" for the
> effort. Editors of journals discourage authors from chopping up work
> that might be better presented as a larger manuscript. But in some
> cases, questions related to different questions and audiences are
> deliberately interleaved. It might be a legitimate choice to present
> these finding separately. In either case, although we might object to
> the practice of piecemeal publication, I don't think it is plagiarism.
>
> Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D.
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
