Is this self-plagiarism?

[Kron3007]

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 If your question had been "can I copy/paste large sections from another book chapter?", as opposed to an unpublished class paper, I imagine the tenor of the replies would have been quite different.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.

[aside]

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.<sup>1

1</sup>Some 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.

[youllneverwalkalone]

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 If your question had been "can I copy/paste large sections from another book chapter?", as opposed to an unpublished class paper, I imagine the tenor of the replies would have been quite different.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.

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.<sup>1

1</sup>Some 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.   

[Kron3007]

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.

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.<sup>1

1</sup>Some 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.

 

   

[youllneverwalkalone]

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.

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.<sup>1

1</sup>Some 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.

[mamselle]

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.

[Kron3007]

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.     

[Caracal]

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.

[youllneverwalkalone]

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.

They 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.

[Puget]

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.

They 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.

[youllneverwalkalone]

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.

They 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.