A researcher’s ethical dilemma: Is self-plagiarism a condemnable practice or not?

Arumugam, Ashokan; Aldhafiri, Fahad K.

doi:10.1080/09593985.2016.1185894

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The segmented publication refers to an integral research paper that has been detached into several papers to publish in order for more publications, and it has been done by restructuring the topic, data, materials, and existing structures [35]. According to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), segmented publication occurs when researchers publish one experiment on two or more papers which prevents the readers from gaining more information on a single paper [36]. In fact, the segmented publication is a form of 'self-plagiarism', though writers prefer to call i 'text re-use' [37].…”

Section: Self-plagiarism a Debated 'Self-plagiarism' Technique To Produce Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

On classic and modern ethical issues in business and management academic research

Hong¹,

Yu²

2021

Front Manage Bus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethical issues are critical to researchers, and this has been a hot topic in decades. Many classic ethical issues, such as plagiarism and fabrication, are repetitively discussed, but some contemporary ethical issues are still problematic and overlooked for researchers, especially those young scholars. The purpose of this paper is to analyse and discuss ethical issues around contemporary business and management academic studies. This paper found that first, scholars are internally and externally pushed to produce rigorous theory development papers, neglecting the relevance of practice. Second, researchers devoted themselves in improving their academy degree or meeting requirements from their employers instead of dealing with practical problems and their interests in research. Third, some 'self-plagiarism' behaviours, such as segmented publication, are arguable in the academy study, which leads to a waste of publication, but it is hard to discern and needs to be tackled.

show abstract

Section: Self-plagiarism a Debated 'Self-plagiarism' Technique To Produce Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

On classic and modern ethical issues in business and management academic research

Hong¹,

Yu²

2021

Front Manage Bus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adhikari, 2010;Arumugam Aldhafiri, 2016;Baggs, 2008;Berquist 2013a, b;Bird & Sivilotti, 2008;Bonnell et al, 2012;Broome, 2004;Brown Syed, 2010;Callahan, 2014;Chrousos et al, 2012;Cowell, 2017;Cronin, 2013;Culley, 2014;Eva, 2017;Gennaro, 2017;Gottlieb, 2008;Jackson et al, 2014;Jennings & Froman, 2013;Karlsson & Beaufils, 2013;Kassirer & Angell, 1995;Kravitz & Feldman, 2011;Kulikova, 2016;Lancet, 2009;Langdon-Neuner, 2008;Lowe, 2003;Mehić, 2013;Marik, 2015;Merrill, 2015;Moskovitz, 2016;Nature Materials, 2005;Neill, 2008;Norman, 2014;O'Hair & Neff, 2013;O'Connor, 2010;Pierson, 2015;Reich, 2010;Rösing & Del Bel Cury, 2013;Saver, 2014;Schultz et al, 2015;Siebers, 2012;Siebers & Taylor, 2014;Smith, 2007;…”

Section: Analysis Of Typologies Of Evidenceunclassified

“…This would seem to indicate a growing interest among editors and others over the past decade in sharing thoughts with readers and possibly generating scholarly dialogue on the topic of selfplagiarism. Bird & Sivilotti, 2008;Broome, 2004;Gottlieb, 2008;Lancet, 2009;Lowe, 2003;Nature Materials, 2005;Neill, 2008;Smith, 2007;36 Adhikari, 2010Arumugam Aldhafiri, 2016;Berquist 2013a, b;Bonnell et al, 2012;Brown Syed, 2010;Callahan, 2014;Chrousos et al, 2012;Cowell, 2017;Cronin, 2013;Culley, 2014;Eva, 2017;Gennaro, 2017;Jackson et al, 2014;Jennings & Froman, 2013;Karlsson & Beaufils, 2013;Kravitz & Feldman, 2011;Kulikova, 2016;Mehić, 2013;Marik, 2015;Merrill, 2015;Moskovitz, 2016;Norman, 2014;O'Connor, 2010;Pierson, 2015;Reich, 2010;Rösing & Del Bel Cury, 2013;Saver, 2014;Schultz et al, 2015;Siebers, 2012;Siebers & Taylor, 2014;Stone & Conway, 2017;Talbott, 2016;Vitse & Poland, 2012;…”

Section: Editorial Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

Eaton

Crossman

2018

Interchange

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-plagiarism is a contentious issue in higher education, research and scholarly publishing contexts. The practice is problematic because it disrupts scientific publishing by overemphasizing results, increasing journal publication costs, and artificially inflating journal impact, among other consequences. We hypothesized that there was a dearth of empirical studies on the topic of self-plagiarism, with an over-abundance of editorial and commentary articles based on anecdotal evidence. The research question was: What typologies of evidence characterize the literature on self-plagiarism in scholarly and research journals? We conducted a scoping review, using the search terms "self-plagiarism" and "self-plagiarism" (hyphenated), consulting five social sciences research databases, supplemented by a manual search for articles, resulting in over 5900 results. After removing duplicates and excluding non-scholarly sources, we arrived at a data set of 133 sources, with publication dates ranging from 1968 to 2017. With an interrater reliability of over 93% between two researchers, our typological analysis revealed 47 sources (34.3%) were editorials; 41 (29.9%) were conceptual research (including teaching cases); 16 (11.7%) were editorial responses; 12 (8.6%) were secondary research; and only 8 sources (5.8%) were primary research. There is little guidance in the available literature to graduate students or their professors about how to disentangle the complexities of self-plagiarism. With primary and secondary research combined accounting for 14.4% of overall contributions to the data set, and primary research constituting only 6% of overall contributions, we conclude with a call for more empirical evidence on the topic to support contributions to the scholarly dialogue.

show abstract

“…Two particular types of work raise concern about self‐plagiarism: Salami slicing or segmented publication refers to the practice of slicing up or fragmenting research that would form one meaningful paper into multiple publications, perhaps compromising the reader's overall understanding (Kravitz & Feldman, ; Arumugam & Aldhafiri, ). “As a general rule, as long as the ‘slices’ of a broken up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods this is not acceptable practice.…”

Section: Management Of Plagiarismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial: Self‐plagiarism prevention and management at Nursing & Health Sciences

Stone

Conway

2017

Nursing & Health Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A researcher’s ethical dilemma: Is self-plagiarism a condemnable practice or not?

Cited by 9 publications

References 17 publications

On classic and modern ethical issues in business and management academic research

On classic and modern ethical issues in business and management academic research

Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

Editorial: Self‐plagiarism prevention and management at Nursing & Health Sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About