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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4846
or send a blank email to
leave-4846-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
