Recycling Research Without (Self-)Plagiarism: The Importance of Context and the Case of Conference Contributions

IF 2.4 3区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Learned Publishing Pub Date : 2024-12-31 DOI:10.1002/leap.1653
Gert Helgesson, Jonas Åkerman, Sara Belfrage
{"title":"Recycling Research Without (Self-)Plagiarism: The Importance of Context and the Case of Conference Contributions","authors":"Gert Helgesson,&nbsp;Jonas Åkerman,&nbsp;Sara Belfrage","doi":"10.1002/leap.1653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this paper, we clarify the notions of plagiarism and self-plagiarism and show that a rather straightforward observation about these notions has important implications for the admissibility of recycling research outputs. The key point is that contextual variation must be taken into account in normative assessments of recycling research outputs, and we illustrate this with some examples. In particular, we apply the analysis in order to dissolve a disagreement about the proper handling of submissions to conferences. Some researchers are comfortable with sending the same contribution to several conferences, while others find that unacceptable and a clear deviation from good research practise. We take a closer look at the arguments regarding whether it is acceptable or not to make the same conference contribution more than once, including the argument that submitting the same contribution more than once would amount to self-plagiarism. We argue that contextual variation must be taken into account, in accordance with our previous analysis, and conclude that whether or not a duplication of a conference contribution deviates from good research practise depends on what significance is ascribed to it in the specific case. We conclude with some practical recommendations, emphasising for example, the importance of being explicit and clear on this point, and encourage conference organisers to provide opportunities to specify relevant facts in the submission.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.1653","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learned Publishing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1653","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, we clarify the notions of plagiarism and self-plagiarism and show that a rather straightforward observation about these notions has important implications for the admissibility of recycling research outputs. The key point is that contextual variation must be taken into account in normative assessments of recycling research outputs, and we illustrate this with some examples. In particular, we apply the analysis in order to dissolve a disagreement about the proper handling of submissions to conferences. Some researchers are comfortable with sending the same contribution to several conferences, while others find that unacceptable and a clear deviation from good research practise. We take a closer look at the arguments regarding whether it is acceptable or not to make the same conference contribution more than once, including the argument that submitting the same contribution more than once would amount to self-plagiarism. We argue that contextual variation must be taken into account, in accordance with our previous analysis, and conclude that whether or not a duplication of a conference contribution deviates from good research practise depends on what significance is ascribed to it in the specific case. We conclude with some practical recommendations, emphasising for example, the importance of being explicit and clear on this point, and encourage conference organisers to provide opportunities to specify relevant facts in the submission.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
没有(自我)抄袭的再循环研究:语境的重要性和会议贡献的案例
在本文中,我们澄清了抄袭和自我抄袭的概念,并表明对这些概念的相当直接的观察对回收研究成果的可接受性具有重要意义。关键的一点是,在回收研究成果的规范性评估中,必须考虑到环境变化,我们用一些例子来说明这一点。具体地说,我们应用这种分析是为了消除关于如何正确处理提交给会议的文件的分歧。一些研究人员对在几个会议上发表相同的论文感到满意,而另一些人则认为这是不可接受的,而且明显偏离了良好的研究实践。我们仔细研究了关于是否可以多次发表同一篇会议论文的争论,包括多次提交同一篇论文相当于自我抄袭的争论。我们认为,根据我们之前的分析,必须考虑上下文差异,并得出结论,会议贡献的重复是否偏离良好的研究实践取决于在具体情况下赋予它的意义。最后,我们提出了一些实用的建议,例如,强调在这一点上明确和明确的重要性,并鼓励会议组织者提供机会在提交中说明相关事实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Learned Publishing
Learned Publishing INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
17.90%
发文量
72
期刊最新文献
From Findings to Meaning: A Strategic Framework for the Discussion Section Scholarly Communications in 2025: An Aerial Evaluation of a System Challenged by AI and Much More Enhancing, Understanding and Adoption of the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) Enhancing, Understanding and Adoption of the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) Sharpening the Pencil, Not Replacing the Hand: De-Stigmatising AI Use in Research Writing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1