How do we handle self-plagiarism in submitted manuscripts?

Vesna Supak Smolcic,Lidija Bilic-Zulle

doi:10.11613/bm.2013.019

Abstract

Self-plagiarism is a controversial issue in scientific writing and presentation of research data. Unlike plagiarism, self-plagiarism is difficult to interpret as intellectual theft under the justification that one cannot steal from oneself. However, academics are concerned, as self-plagiarized papers mislead readers, do not contribute to science, and bring undeserved credit to authors. As such, it should be considered a form of scientific misconduct. In this paper, we explain different forms of self-plagiarism in scientific writing and then present good editorial policy toward questionable material. The importance of dealing with self-plagiarism is emphasized by the recently published proposal of Text Recycling Guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Highlights

In terms of research integrity, journal editors very often find themselves in the gray zone of publication ethics
If plagiarism means stealing other people’s ideas or words and presenting them as one’s own, does self-plagiarism mean stealing one’s own words? If the words were a researcher’s in the first place, how can the use of one’s own prior published words be defined as intellectual theft? Generally, self-plagiarism is a form of plagiarism, and it should be treated as one
Miguel Roig published a paper in Biochemia Medica with an emphasis on self-plagiarism; he distinguished four types of self-plagiarism: duplicate publication, augmented publication, segmented publication, and text recycling [2]

Summary

Introduction

In terms of research integrity, journal editors very often find themselves in the gray zone of publication ethics. Self-plagiarism is one of those kinds of issues that can vary from being a clear algorithm-based situation to a complex and undefined case. Self-plagiarism is a form of plagiarism, and it should be treated as one. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recently proposed new guidelines for dealing with the delicate issue of self-plagiarism [1]. To clarify the ethical complexities of self-plagiarism and explain the ways to avoid it, scientists have been trying to define self-plagiarism and to describe its possible forms [2,3]. Miguel Roig published a paper in Biochemia Medica with an emphasis on self-plagiarism; he distinguished four types of self-plagiarism: duplicate (redundant) publication, augmented publication, segmented publication, and text recycling [2]. Editors treat each case individually, but proposed guidelines, such as those in COPE flowcharts, offer great help. This paper intends to describe possible journal policies for each of those four potential groups, anchored on the new COPE guidelines

Duplicate publication

Augmented publication

Segmented publication

Text recycling