Problematic nature of self-plagiarism: An ethical grey area
By Wanting Ma
When it comes to avoiding plagiarism, the idea is fairly simple: if you cite the work or ideas of another scholar in your work, you will be fine. However, what happens when reusing your own work from a previous publication? If you don’t citeyour work, this is self-plagiarism. It isa controversial practice and remains an ethical grey area in academic scholarship as there is little consensus on what constitutes self-plagiarism.
Much of the debate has centered around whether the terminology can represent the practice of reusing one’s own work accurately. On one hand, some scholars see “self-plagiarism” as an incorrect term because it forms a contradiction. The word “plagiarism” comes from the Latin for “to kidnap”. It literally means that you are stealing your work from another source. If applying this definition to the term “self-plagiarism”, it is extremely confusing as an author cannot steal his own work. On the other hand, some scholars believe that the terminology of “self-plagiarism” is correct and applicable. This side of the debate believes that an author misleads his/her readers by letting them believe self-plagiarized material forms a new publication. In this way, it’s much like selling a second-hand car while claiming it is brand new (Hexham, 2005).
Text recycling is the most controversial form of self-plagiarism, as there are few relevant guidelines for authors and the reuse of text is only partial. Scholars have different points of view about the amount of allowable textual recycling. Samuelson (1994) suggested that authors can reuse as much as 30% of his/her previous work in a new publication, while Bretag and Carapiet (2007) limit the percentage to 10%. In addition, there are also different opinions about the originality of some sections of the research in an article – arguing that some sections are less important than others. For example, some believe that textual recycling in the methodology section should be permitted due to the difficulties of rewriting highly technical passages without changing its meaning (Bruton, 2014). However, others argue that there are many ways to say the same thing, even when it comes to very technical language (Bruton, 2014). Much of this discussion surrounds the need to establish specific text recycling rules for each academic discipline. Some suggest that textual recycling has more serious consequences in arts and social sciences than in science, while others believe that the rule should be the same across all academic disciplines.
Another form of self-plagiarism that generates much ethical discussion is salami slicing, which refers to the practice of cutting up the results of a study and publishing them in multiple articles. If each publication addresses a different angle of an issue, why might some scholars consider salami slicing an unethical practice? Most importantly, those against this practice argue that readers may assume each article comes from a distinct research study, thus failing to understand the comprehensive nature of the larger study (Roig, 2008). Salami slicing has also been criticized for taking space that could be reserved for other articles, as publication space is a precious resource (Norman & Griffiths, 2008). In contrast to those who view salami slicing as an unethical practice, some other people believe it is acceptable in some degree. For them, salami slicing can ensure the results from interdisciplinary research are disseminated to readers in each specific subfield (Bird, 2012). This can be an effective way to reach a broader readership.
What can be done to get out of this ethical grey area? Well, it’s the time for the publishing industry to set up a sequence of clearer rules to regulate writing practices surrounding self-plagiarism. Until a set of guiding principles or rules have been established, self-plagiarism will remain an ethical grey area in academic publishing.
References
Bird, S. J. (2002). Self-plagiarism and dual and redundant publications: What is the problem? Commentary on ‘seven ways to plagiarize: Handling real allegations of research misconduct’. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(4), 543-544.
Bretag, T., & Carapiet, S. (2007). A preliminary study to determine the extent of self-plagiarism in Australian academic research. Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication and Falsification, 2(5), 1–15.
Bruton, S. V. (2014). Self-plagiarism and textual recycling: Legitimate forms of research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 21(3), 176-197.
Hexham, I. (2005). The plague of plagiarism: Academic plagiarism defined.
Norman, I., & Griffiths, P. (2008). Duplicate publication and ‘salami slicing’: Ethical issues and practical solutions. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(9), 1257-1260.
Roig, M. (2008). The debate on self-plagiarism: Inquisitional science or high standards of scholarship. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies,8(2), 245–258.
Samuelson, P. (1994). Self-plagiarism or fair use. Communications of the ACM,37(8), 21–25.