The retrospective (im)moralization of self-plagiarism: Power interests in the social construction of new norms for publishing

Abstract

The 'scourge of self-plagiarism' has begun to find a place in the discourse of organization and management scholarship. Whether a real issue of concern or a moral panic, self-plagiarism has captured the attention of authors, editors, publishers, and plagiarism-detection software companies. The types of behaviors castigated as self-plagiarism and the severity of approach toward those behaviors vary, as power brokers in the publishing process argue they hold an ethical high ground. Yet, little has been done to problematize self-plagiarism as a concept and how, and why, it came to occupy such a central role in the academic discourse. In this article, I explore these issues and argue that self-plagiarism is a misnomer that has been retrospectively (im)moralized through regimes of power. I review the spectrum of behaviors that now fall under the self-plagiarism umbrella and problematize issues associated with self-plagiarism. I identify and challenge the power interests that are negotiating the spaces in which self-plagiarism has risen to the forefront and present a call to action to more transparently, and ethically, deal with issues that are currently labeled as 'selfplagiarism'. Furthermore, in presenting this article, I engage in a form of 'guerrilla plagiarism' to resist the appropriation of my authorial voice by power elites in the institutional field of publishing.

Key issues on Partial Least Squares (PLS) in operations management research: A guide to submissions

“…The original article was published in Spanish with further information to that mentioned herein. We republished this work with adaptations for JIEM and translated it into English for more widely disseminate it to a different group of researchers whose access to the original article would not be easy (Callahan, 2018), (similar examples are (González De Dios, 2011;Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman & The, 2009;Urrútia & Bonfill, 2010, or (Welch, Petticrew, Petkovic, Moher, Waters, White et al, 2015Welch, Petticrew, Tugwell, Moher, O'Neill, Waters et al, 2012, or (Moher, Shamseer, Clarke, Ghersi, Liberati, Petticrew et al, 2015. As some sections in both articles overlap and complement one another, we recommend citing both articles to refer to their contributions.…”

Plagiarism in Project Studies

“…However, plagiarism comes in many formats and therefore requires different preventive and reactive responses. We combined different forms of plagiarism described in several publications and methodology books (Booth et al, 2008; Bryman & Bell, 2015; Huff, 1999), guidelines offered by ORI (Roig, 2015) and the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE; Wagner, 2011), and papers concerned with plagiarism of both academics and students (Callahan, 2018; Chalmers, 2009; Ercegovac & Richardson, 2004; Martin, 2013; Park, 2003). Our aim was to develop a common platform to discuss different forms of plagiarism in project studies.…”

“…” (Roig, 2015, p. 31). Even high-profile scholars, such as sociologist Zygmunt Bauman and organizational scholar Karl Weick, have been implicated in plagiarism claims (Basbøll & Graham, 2006; Callahan, 2018).…”

“…In this editorial, we follow suit and clarify PMJ ’s view and practices to curb plagiarism. Following current debates (e.g., Callahan, 2018; Horbach et al, 2019), we opted to treat self-plagiarism or manuscript recycling separately in a different editorial (Geraldi, 2021), as they are distinct practices with distinct challenges.…”

The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications

“…Misconduct and scientific error are not just pre-existing, objectively defined phenomena, but may be re-categorised as such by punitive social reaction (Martin 1992 ). This is an inherently social process in which power structures play a major role (Martin 1992 ; Callahan 2017 ). For example, plagiarism scanners have made it possible to systematically trace text recycling, which has raised awareness and also spurred codification of which forms of text recycling are and are not to be considered acceptable (KNAW 2014 ).…”