Hello!
Quick question!
I am currently working on a book chapter that I am co-authoring that I have to submit by the end of the month. It is on my doctoral research theme/topic, so I'm very excited to be part of this.
It's no surprise: I am using a lot of the same themes and concepts that I have used in my coursework papers last term. Is it self-plagiarism if I copy-paste some sections of my coursework paper (in which I got A+ as final grade) in the book chapter? I have written those coursework papers myself, and as a sole author. I find it difficult to re-phrase everything when I have already well-explained and defined the concepts in a paper that has never been published before and that has only been read and graded by my professor.
Short answer: No
Longer answer: Many (most) of us don't really think "self-plagiarism" is a term that makes sense. There can be problems with publishing the same content in more than one place (copyright issues, and just doesn't add much of value), but the problem there is really duplicate publication, not plagiarism. There can also be problems with submitting the same work for more than one class as a student, but there the problem is again not plagiarism but the fact that you are defeating the purpose of learning something new (and probably violating university policies).
In this case, you are simply using text you wrote earlier for a class (so not published) for the chapter (so not another class), so zero problem with either.
We do this all the time as academics-- dissertations turn into papers (or books in book fields), text from papers gets ported into grants and vice versa, etc. So long as you're not violating anyone else's copyright and adding something new of value, you're good to go.
I concur with Puget.
Great! Phew! Thank you! Less complicated for me to copy-paste certain sections instead of completely re-invent the wheel.
But keep track.
I work for a guy who likes to recycle his words a lot.
One has to remind him he's already used those three paragraphs on the group's website, and in his annual report, and that a third unchanged usage in the grant proposal is going to sound weird to the folks who read the proposal and then go to the site to see what it looks like.
If I see whole chunks of text or particularly pithy phrases repeated exactly between a published article and a book, it should be because the article has become a chapter in the book.
It's also possible to get certain phrases in your head more generally, and re-re-re-use them mercilessly without being aware of it.
So....keep track and don't over-do it.
Not to be dire, but because readers do remember such things and may become irritated by them.
M.
Certainly you can use the text you already wrote, but I agree with the commenter above. Why do you need to virtually cut and paste without any further revisions and improvements? Have you already peaked as a writer and no improvements are possible? But you have identified one of the benefits of writing class papers on a topic you intend to spend more time on. Very efficient.
Quote from: mamselle on January 13, 2020, 05:52:26 PM
But keep track.
I work for a guy who likes to recycle his words a lot.
One has to remind him he's already used those three paragraphs on the group's website, and in his annual report, and that a third unchanged usage in the grant proposal is going to sound weird to the folks who read the proposal and then go to the site to see what it looks like.
If I see whole chunks of text or particularly pithy phrases repeated exactly between a published article and a book, it should be because the article has become a chapter in the book.
It's also possible to get certain phrases in your head more generally, and re-re-re-use them mercilessly without being aware of it.
So....keep track and don't over-do it.
Not to be dire, but because readers do remember such things and may become irritated by them.
M.
Makes sense. I have to keep track, and I will. And yes, you are totally right. I can think of a few writers that recycle over and over again the same things and it is irritating to people.
Quote from: Dismal on January 13, 2020, 06:22:24 PM
Certainly you can use the text you already wrote, but I agree with the commenter above. Why do you need to virtually cut and paste without any further revisions and improvements? Have you already peaked as a writer and no improvements are possible? But you have identified one of the benefits of writing class papers on a topic you intend to spend more time on. Very efficient.
I have made minor changes. It's just a few paragraphs of definitions of concepts with examples so I did copy-paste those. It's a small portion of the chapter.
I was invited to contribue to this book because of my doctoral work, so I did not do this intentionally but my paper will be useful in parts for this which is great.
Quote from: Dismal on January 13, 2020, 06:22:24 PM
Certainly you can use the text you already wrote, but I agree with the commenter above. Why do you need to virtually cut and paste without any further revisions and improvements? Have you already peaked as a writer and no improvements are possible? But you have identified one of the benefits of writing class papers on a topic you intend to spend more time on. Very efficient.
If you have gone through and revised this to the best of your ability and like how it reads why wouldn't you cut and paste? There is no reason to think that doing it again will result in any thing better, so it is just a waste of time. This dosn't mean that you have peaked as a writer, just that you are happy with this specific piece of text and it was done to the best of your ability.
In my world, one of the keys to success is to know when something is good enough for the purpose at hand and to move on to the next thing. Writing is definitely an excercize in diminishing returns and many people fall into the trap of looking for perfection, spending far too much time as a result. I could spend way more time on each grant/paper/whatever and they would likely turn out a little better, but it is more beneficial for me to finish things up and maintain productivity. Of course, I am in a STEM field and this could be different for others.
It probably would be appropriate to disclose to your editor what you are doing so they don't get a surprise nastygram at some distant point in the future.
Quote from: toothpaste on January 14, 2020, 11:37:56 AM
It probably would be appropriate to disclose to your editor what you are doing so they don't get a surprise nastygram at some distant point in the future.
Disclose to the editor that they're using material they originally wrote for an unpublished class paper? Under what circumstance would anyone ever send a nastygram about that?
It was my understanding that it is a good thing to use the material from your doctoral coursework for your doctoral dissertation, and use materials from you doctoral dissertation for articles, and then use the material from articles for a book. At least in history that is often how it is done. In fact, if you don't do this, some people would say you are wasting your time.
As an undergrad, I wrote a paper on a topic. I then expanded the paper into my senior thesis. Then I expanded it some more into my doctoral dissertation. Then I published some articles. Then I published a book.
I think the key is: try to add something to each iteration. I do not mean specific language--if you have found the perfect way to describe something, I don't see why you would need to come up with another way to say it. I mean add research and thought, so that if somebody writes a biography of you someday, they can read all of these and see how you have progressed as a scholar and a thinker.
The other thing is that, from the master's thesis on up, you should somewhere indicate that you are using material original published/submitted somewhere else. But a class paper is, well, who cares. I am still pondering taking a research seminar paper I wrote as an undergrad and pursuing the same topic as an article. I doubt you would be able to recognize much of the prose after I finish, but it would have been inspired by that earlier research.
"Self plagiarism" and plagiarism are really two different beasts. The problem with plagiarism is that you are stealing somebody else's work/research/ideas and pretending they are your own.
No such danger exists if I publish the same article 5 times with different titles. The main problem with "self-plagiarism" is that it inflates one's research productivity (which is used to get jobs/tenure/promotion), and it wastes the time of readers, reviewers, publishers, etc. It is based on the cynical (although perhaps accurate) view that nobody will actually read what is published and hence won't notice it has been published before.
Currently I am working on a book chapter that draws on four different articles I wrote. (Say, basket weaving in post-war Europe, and I've published articles on basket weaving in France, in Spain, in Germany, and Finland.) To a large degree the chapter is synthetic--tying together the research I have already done, but drawing out comparative angles that were not developed in the originals. And of course I will update the historiography. I am going to indicate this in the notes (and the editors know what I am doing). Although if you ran the final article through Turnitin it would probably be flagged for plagiarism, I don't think it actually is.
It is fine.
And as Puget mentioned, there is no such thing as self-plagiarism.
Quote from: larryc on February 05, 2020, 12:09:00 AM
It is fine.
And as Puget mentioned, there is no such thing as self-plagiarism.
thanks!
OP, the answer is "no", because a coursework paper paper does not constitute a publication.
That said, I disagree with whoever says "self-plagiarism" doesn't make sense. If your question had been "can I copy/paste large sections from another book chapter?", as opposed to an unpublished class paper, I imagine the tenor of the replies would have been quite different.
Quote from: youllneverwalkalone on February 10, 2020, 06:50:46 AM
OP, the answer is "no", because a coursework paper paper does not constitute a publication.
That said, I disagree with whoever says "self-plagiarism" doesn't make sense. If your question had been "can I copy/paste large sections from another book chapter?", as opposed to an unpublished class paper, I imagine the tenor of the replies would have been quite different.
Yes, but that is related to copyright laws rather than plagiarism IMO.
The common definition of plagiarism reads something like "taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own." Those arguing that "self-plagiarism" is a nonsensical term have this definition in mind. By adding "self-," the definition would transform into "taking your own work and passing it off as your own." It is wrong to pass off one's prior work as new work, but "self-plagiarism" would be a misnomer for this action. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the term "self-plagiarism" might be appropriate if one is stealing souls or assuming someone else's identity.1
1Some thread on the old CHE fora. Just remember, claims of plagiarism can be avoided by citing one's sources, and reuse of previously published material should be documented as well. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Quote from: Kron3007 on February 11, 2020, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: youllneverwalkalone on February 10, 2020, 06:50:46 AM
OP, the answer is "no", because a coursework paper paper does not constitute a publication.
That said, I disagree with whoever says "self-plagiarism" doesn't make sense. If your question had been "can I copy/paste large sections from another book chapter?", as opposed to an unpublished class paper, I imagine the tenor of the replies would have been quite different.
Yes, but that is related to copyright laws rather than plagiarism IMO.
It's potentially related to both, they are not mutually exclusive.
Quote from: aside on February 11, 2020, 01:24:23 PM
The common definition of plagiarism reads something like "taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own." Those arguing that "self-plagiarism" is a nonsensical term have this definition in mind. By adding "self-," the definition would transform into "taking your own work and passing it off as your own." It is wrong to pass off one's prior work as new work, but "self-plagiarism" would be a misnomer for this action. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the term "self-plagiarism" might be appropriate if one is stealing souls or assuming someone else's identity.1
1Some thread on the old CHE fora. Just remember, claims of plagiarism can be avoided by citing one's sources, and reuse of previously published material should be documented as well. Quod erat demonstrandum.
In academic publishing plagiarism can also be understood as "taking
previously published work and passing it off as
new", with self-plagiarism applying to case where you were the original author.
You can argue that "self-plagiarism" is a misnomer, but that is a moot point. The concept of self plagiarism is relevant, no matter how you call it.
Quote from: youllneverwalkalone on February 12, 2020, 07:04:01 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on February 11, 2020, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: youllneverwalkalone on February 10, 2020, 06:50:46 AM
OP, the answer is "no", because a coursework paper paper does not constitute a publication.
That said, I disagree with whoever says "self-plagiarism" doesn't make sense. If your question had been "can I copy/paste large sections from another book chapter?", as opposed to an unpublished class paper, I imagine the tenor of the replies would have been quite different.
Yes, but that is related to copyright laws rather than plagiarism IMO.
It's potentially related to both, they are not mutually exclusive.
Quote from: aside on February 11, 2020, 01:24:23 PM
The common definition of plagiarism reads something like "taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own." Those arguing that "self-plagiarism" is a nonsensical term have this definition in mind. By adding "self-," the definition would transform into "taking your own work and passing it off as your own." It is wrong to pass off one's prior work as new work, but "self-plagiarism" would be a misnomer for this action. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the term "self-plagiarism" might be appropriate if one is stealing souls or assuming someone else's identity.1
1Some thread on the old CHE fora. Just remember, claims of plagiarism can be avoided by citing one's sources, and reuse of previously published material should be documented as well. Quod erat demonstrandum.
In academic publishing plagiarism can also be understood as "taking previously published work and passing it off as new", with self-plagiarism applying to case where you were the original author.
You can argue that "self-plagiarism" is a misnomer, but that is a moot point. The concept of self plagiarism is relevant, no matter how you call it.
I think this really comes down to semantics at this point. I agree with those who say self-plagiarism is a misnomer and you cannot plagiarize yourself as I define plagiarism as not attributing a thought or concept to the original author. Not citing when you first published the thought may be a faux pas, but it is not plagiarism IMO. That being said, what we call it does matter as there are degrees of sin, and calling it plagiarism makes it sound much more severe than it really is.
Quote from: Kron3007 on February 12, 2020, 08:04:12 AM
Quote from: youllneverwalkalone on February 12, 2020, 07:04:01 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on February 11, 2020, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: youllneverwalkalone on February 10, 2020, 06:50:46 AM
OP, the answer is "no", because a coursework paper paper does not constitute a publication.
That said, I disagree with whoever says "self-plagiarism" doesn't make sense. If your question had been "can I copy/paste large sections from another book chapter?", as opposed to an unpublished class paper, I imagine the tenor of the replies would have been quite different.
Yes, but that is related to copyright laws rather than plagiarism IMO.
It's potentially related to both, they are not mutually exclusive.
Quote from: aside on February 11, 2020, 01:24:23 PM
The common definition of plagiarism reads something like "taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own." Those arguing that "self-plagiarism" is a nonsensical term have this definition in mind. By adding "self-," the definition would transform into "taking your own work and passing it off as your own." It is wrong to pass off one's prior work as new work, but "self-plagiarism" would be a misnomer for this action. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the term "self-plagiarism" might be appropriate if one is stealing souls or assuming someone else's identity.1
1Some thread on the old CHE fora. Just remember, claims of plagiarism can be avoided by citing one's sources, and reuse of previously published material should be documented as well. Quod erat demonstrandum.
In academic publishing plagiarism can also be understood as "taking previously published work and passing it off as new", with self-plagiarism applying to case where you were the original author.
You can argue that "self-plagiarism" is a misnomer, but that is a moot point. The concept of self plagiarism is relevant, no matter how you call it.
I think this really comes down to semantics at this point. I agree with those who say self-plagiarism is a misnomer and you cannot plagiarize yourself as I define plagiarism as not attributing a thought or concept to the original author. Not citing when you first published the thought may be a faux pas, but it is not plagiarism IMO. That being said, what we call it does matter as there are degrees of sin, and calling it plagiarism makes it sound much more severe than it really is.
There are loads of expressions that do not make sense (George Carlin made a career out of it), still the concepts the concept associated with them do. I don't find that it is particularly enlightening or helpful to the OP to always dismiss the topic on the basis that you don't like the term "self-plagiarism" (this is not directed to you specifically, but it is what nearly always happen with similar threads pop up both here and on the old CHE).
Whether self-plagiarism is less of a sin than straight-out plagiarism is a different discussion, and one that is basically just moving the goalposts.
As a journal editor, I have had at least 3-4 cases where an author submitted a paper which was was basically a new version of a previous paper (like >80% overlap) with only cosmetic changes and obviously without acknowledging the original publication. Such egregious cases exist, albeit rarer these days due to anti-plagiarism software.
If we are talking "degrees of sin", I can agree that had they used someone else's paper it would have been "worse", but so what? I am still going to reject you and blacklist you, I am not gonna waste the reviewers' time because self-plagiarism is a bad term.
Likewise, as a teacher, I would not be pleased to find out a student has submitted a paper in my course which was previously submitted to another course, or a course at another institution, although this has not happened to me IRL (yet?). Had paper been written by another student, would it make more of a sin? Probably, but I am still not going to let it slide.
Quote from: Kron3007 on February 11, 2020, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: youllneverwalkalone on February 10, 2020, 06:50:46 AM
OP, the answer is "no", because a coursework paper paper does not constitute a publication.
That said, I disagree with whoever says "self-plagiarism" doesn't make sense. If your question had been "can I copy/paste large sections from another book chapter?", as opposed to an unpublished class paper, I imagine the tenor of the replies would have been quite different.
Yes, but that is related to copyright laws rather than plagiarism IMO.
The larger copyright issue is still important, so I would fold that in to any answer to this question. Distinctions about the use of a particular term are important, but the broader intent of the question (basically, "Is it OK to do this?") deserves a clear answer ("No," or "Only carefully, and under certain circumstances, which are....")
M.
Quote from: mamselle on February 13, 2020, 07:36:25 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on February 11, 2020, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: youllneverwalkalone on February 10, 2020, 06:50:46 AM
OP, the answer is "no", because a coursework paper paper does not constitute a publication.
That said, I disagree with whoever says "self-plagiarism" doesn't make sense. If your question had been "can I copy/paste large sections from another book chapter?", as opposed to an unpublished class paper, I imagine the tenor of the replies would have been quite different.
Yes, but that is related to copyright laws rather than plagiarism IMO.
The larger copyright issue is still important, so I would fold that in to any answer to this question. Distinctions about the use of a particular term are important, but the broader intent of the question (basically, "Is it OK to do this?") deserves a clear answer ("No," or "Only carefully, and under certain circumstances, which are....")
M.
True, but I think the OP got their answer fairly early on in the post and there was not much disagreement about it. The discussion has moved a little beyond the OP.
My (admittedly pedantic) point is that self-plagiarism is the wrong term and it can matter what we call it. In Youllneverwalkalone's example, they are right to reject those papers but that is the extreme case of what we are discussing and still not plagiarism. I publish in a lot of open access journals where I retain the ownership and copyright to the material. If I publish another paper that uses a few sentences verbatum, a diagram that I created and own, or a picture that I took and belongs to me, that is much less problematic and should not be referred to as plagiarism at all. Perhaps as a reviewer or editor you would state that I should cite where they originally came from (which I would regardless) but it would not be reasonable cause to reject the paper outright IMO. In contrast, if I had lifted the same text or diagrams from someone else's published material it would be a much more serious issue and you would be justified in rejecting the paper outright because that is plagiarism. Plagiarism is a major sin in the academic world and should be reserved for these cases..
In the case of school work, it is also true that you are right to reject double submission but this is also not because it is plagiarism but it is against university policy and clearly stated in most university regulations that students don't read. Again, calling this plagiarism would lump it together with a different issue.
This reminds me of the shift in terminology around sexual assault. Where rape and sexual assault used to be referred to separately they are now lumped together. As with this issue, I feel there is a major difference between a bum grabber and a rapist, and lumping them together can make lesser offenses appear more severe and those that committed the more sever offense are not identified as such. I'm sure there are valid reasons for this change, but now if you hear that someone was convicted of sexual assault you have no clue if they made an inapropriate comment at work or if they are a rapist. Neither are ok, but they are not the same.
Whether self-plagiarism is less of a sin than straight-out plagiarism is a different discussion, and one that is basically just moving the goalposts.
[/quote]
They are totally different issues and should be thought of very differently. Taking the words and work of others without attribution is always wrong. The only mitigating circumstances most of us would be willing to consider would be questions of intent.
Reusing your own work can be wrong under certain circumstances, and is completely normal and acceptable under other circumstances. For the most part, these circumstances have to do with if something is published, what kind of publication it was, and how that relates to what someone is publishing now. If you've written something unpublished as a class paper, conference presentation, or dissertation you can almost always reuse it without any concern. Even citation isn't necessary, and when its done it is usually just to give thanks to the people who read it and helped you with it. Articles in many fields routinely become parts of books in modified form. You need to get permission, but it isn't ever withheld.
None of this matters with plagiarism. It doesn't matter if I plagiarize something published, in fact, plagiarizing unpublished work would often be considered a worse sin, because I'm preying on people lower down the totem pole and potentially endangering their careers. I think the point that we're making is that it isn't even helpful to think of reusing your own words as a form of plagiarism.
Quote from: Kron3007 on February 13, 2020, 11:28:42 AM
Neither are ok, but they are not the same.
Indeed, that is precisely the point and a perfect conclusion to this discussion, I am gonna leave it at that.
Quote from: Caracal on February 15, 2020, 08:16:28 AMThey are totally different issues and should be thought of very differently.
I have already conceded that self-plagiarism is a sub-par term, and that it is a different issue than ordinary plagiarism. Look, if you or anybody else here wants make a petition to introduce a new term to describe such situation hit me up and I'll gladly be your first signatory. Meanwhile, we are stuck with the term everybody else is using.
Quote from: youllneverwalkalone on February 16, 2020, 12:41:49 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on February 13, 2020, 11:28:42 AM
Neither are ok, but they are not the same.
Indeed, that is precisely the point and a perfect conclusion to this discussion, I am gonna leave it at that.
Quote from: Caracal on February 15, 2020, 08:16:28 AMThey are totally different issues and should be thought of very differently.
I have already conceded that self-plagiarism is a sub-par term, and that it is a different issue than ordinary plagiarism. Look, if you or anybody else here wants make a petition to introduce a new term to describe such situation hit me up and I'll gladly be your first signatory. Meanwhile, we are stuck with the term everybody else is using.
There already is a perfectly good term in use-- duplicate publication.
Quote from: Puget on February 16, 2020, 06:39:08 AM
Quote from: youllneverwalkalone on February 16, 2020, 12:41:49 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on February 13, 2020, 11:28:42 AM
Neither are ok, but they are not the same.
Indeed, that is precisely the point and a perfect conclusion to this discussion, I am gonna leave it at that.
Quote from: Caracal on February 15, 2020, 08:16:28 AMThey are totally different issues and should be thought of very differently.
I have already conceded that self-plagiarism is a sub-par term, and that it is a different issue than ordinary plagiarism. Look, if you or anybody else here wants make a petition to introduce a new term to describe such situation hit me up and I'll gladly be your first signatory. Meanwhile, we are stuck with the term everybody else is using.
There already is a perfectly good term in use-- duplicate publication.
Duplicate publication sounds somewhat broader to me. Or at least in my experience self-plagiarism is the more popular term when it comes to instances of academic misconduct.
Good point though.