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 avoid repeating the same methods section in
different papers is to save journal space, a desirable objective.
Instead of the repetition, it's usual to refer the reader to the first
publication in the series ("see Black (2009) for more than one
way to skin a cat"), adding only new aspects of the procedure
("However, skinning was accomplished without a knife").
While it's more convenient to have the methods immediately
available for inspection, with on-line access to journals these
days, it's no longer a big deal.
"Self-plagiarism" is also used as a term to describe the student
transgression of handing in a paper for credit which fully or
partially repeats material used for credit in another course.
Students are not always aware that this is frowned on, so it's a
good idea to make the prohibition explicit. I once wrote a set of
plagiarism regulations for our university calendar which included
a rule against such self-plagiarism. I was ridiculed (I tend to
remember such things) for the use of the term which was
considered, as Scott notes, oxymoronic. Be that as it may, it's a
a handy mnemonic for what they shouldn't be doing.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
Bishop's University
e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca
2600 College St.
Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7
Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
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=4864
or send a blank email to
leave-4864-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
