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, some articles deserve to be published in more than one journal, but the stipulation should always be that the editors of both journals and the readers are informed about the duplication. I do hope that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that ‘covert’ duplication of data, that is presenting previously published data as if they were new data, constitutes research misconduct (though of course, each case tends to be unique and the devil is always in the details), but that was not the subject of the piece published in The Scientist.
What The Scientist’s blog addressed was the issue of recycling of text from an earlier publication to a newer one. As some of you have pointed out, it is probably unavoidable to sometimes reuse key phrases that describe complex methodologies. Also as some of you have pointed out, in some cases it may even be desirable to reuse entire segments of a previously published methods section, thought the fact that that few replications of earlier published experiments are ever 100% identical replications makes the reuse of entire methods section a questionable practice. Unfortunately, a significant number of authors seem to abuse the practice of copy-pasting portions of previously published papers in new publications and, as a result, some journals (at least in the biomedical sciences) state limits in the degree of overlap between publications (10%-15%), particularly if these publication involve different companies. For example, my recollection is that APA has a limit of 500 words that can be reused in other publications and that borrowing anything greater needs their permission. I am also aware of at least one biomedical journal which has published an editorial cautioning authors not to use earlier published methods sections as templates for the new method section. But, copyright issues aside, from the point of view of ‘best practices in scientific scholarship’ the question is whether there should be some limits placed in the amount of self-borrowing. Is it ok to reuse an entire literature review? How about portions of a method section and part of a discussion? How much is too much. These are some of the questions that editors wrestle with. I believe there should be some limits, but what those should be probably depend on so many factors (e.g., individual discipline, the author’s facility with the language) that any operationalization may be ultimately be impractical. I am of the view that just about any type of writing, whether of a method section or of a literature review, can always be improved. The material can always be elucidated further, made a little clearer and the latter is especially important in a method section. Perhaps there are, indeed, only a certain number of ways to accurately convey the same thought, procedure, or methodology in the concise manner demanded by the discipline. But to not attempt improving our work when we have the opportunity to do so represents a disservice to readers. My belief, and the advice that I give to others, is that if we are to hold scientific writing as the highest form of scholarship, then we should take advantage of those opportunities that allow us to improve the message that we have previously conveyed. I could go on, but …. Miguel PS: And, yes, self-plagiarism is a problematic term. ;-) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4863 or send a blank email to leave-4863-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
