Self-plagiarism

Abstract

I applaud Yentis’ recent editorial on publication ethics [1], particularly with reference to the grey area of self-plagiarism. I wish to relate my personal experience of scrutiny by Anaesthesia in this regard, which should act as both a cautionary tale for other researchers, and an illustration of the problems in defining this ‘misdemeanour’. In 2002, I completed an MA in medical law and ethics (the irony!). My thesis, ‘Consent for anaesthesia’, was written with two peer-reviewed publications in mind. Submitted as a pair and both entitled, rather unoriginally, ‘Consent for anaesthesia’, one dealt with ethical aspects and was submitted to the Journal of Medical Ethics [2], and the other mainly with legal aspects, submitted simultaneously to Anaesthesia [3]; both were published. In 2009, I submitted an article to Anaesthesia and Intensive Care [4], which referenced both article. The editor of this journal contacted me raising concerns about self-plagiarism regarding recycled text used in the introductions of both articles, when setting their context. Although phrased in the least accusatory of tones, his communication horrified me with the implication of potential scientific misdemeanour. I tended an immediate apology (which was accepted), and explained the circumstances surrounding the articles’ submission. I volunteered to contact the Journal of Medical Ethics and Anaesthesia and inform them of these concerns. No response was received from the former, but the latter accepted my apology with considerable equanimity, and agreed that I should consider publishing a (this) letter of apology in Anaesthesia. After further reflection on, and reading into the topic of self-plagiarism, and wishing to avoid the ritualistic apology that apparently characterises attempts to minimise culpability under these circumstances [5], my apology is qualified. I am obviously sorry for the extra time and effort spent by the editors involved in investigating this matter, for any embarrassment caused to those journals and to those (few) readers who have had to wade through slightly longer versions of the original articles than non-recycling would have rendered otherwise necessary. However, I wonder if further apology is merited, and suggest in the absence of a convincing published argument to the contrary (and when many might think that unreserved contrition is required) that self-plagiarism does not always constitute academic misdemeanour, particularly if there is no gain by the self-plagiarist and no harm done, for example by distortion of the scientific record; both instances which applied in my case. Furthermore, having formulated the recycled sentences over the 2-year genesis of my thesis, I feel that, contrary to the charge that self-plagiarism implies ‘intellectual laziness’ at best [6] much of the text could not have been phrased any better (‘intellectual arrogance’?). In addition, I support the argument that self-plagiarism is an oxymoronic inevitability the more an author in a niche research field submits certain types of publication [7]. However, the learning point for myself and other researchers is this: it is for editors to decide what is or isn’t self-plagiarism, and for authors, particularly those who regularly publish opinion articles, reviews, data-based research or research that involves similar methodologies, to draw editors’ attention to potential overlap or text recycling. I remain uncertain of my obligations concerning disclosure of this episode to future editors and potential co-authors; indeed I briefly considered giving up research despite the enormous enjoyment I derive from it, rather than inconveniencing or subjecting myself to further painful suggestions of misdemeanour. I have been unable to find any published guidance in this regard. Also, I remain uncertain about writing further reviews concerning consent for anaesthesia, despite being regularly asked to do so and being happy to oblige, because I would suggest that altering the structure and content of my original text, given the dearth of new law or academic discussion, results in what I consider to be a substandard text and moreover, feels more intellectually dishonest than overt self-plagiarism. I would be very interested to hear from other researchers who have had similar experiences, of which I suspect there are a considerable number given that Yentis quotes a 4% rejection rate of articles submitted to Anaesthesia for reasons of self-plagiarism, and hope that this letter encourages further debate in the pages of Anaesthesia and throughout the wider scientific community. Mea culpa. No external funding and no competing interests declared. Previously posted at the Anaesthesia Correspondence website: http://www.anaesthesiacorrespondence.com.