Search

In the content of the article you will find a connection of contemporary plagiarism with plagiarism forms from ancient times, from the time of the Greek philosophers. You will also find several definitions of plagiarism and self-plagiarism, as well as the obligation to capitalise on the results obtained from scientific research, and opinion of the illustrious Romanian and international professors, in the field of copyright and intellectual property. Also in this essay I have investigated how the use of the Internet and modern systems of publishing articles, the use of AI has contributed to a greater extent to the creation of works through the use of plagiarism or the use of computer technology has contributed to a greater great measure in unmasking some works in which plagiarism was used.

Intellectual theft is a deeply rooted problem in contemporary society, affecting not only the process of creation and innovation, but also the moral and economic balance of the community as a whole. This paper aims to analyse, on a personal note, the forms of intellectual theft, both from a criminal, and deontological and moral perspective, focusing particularly on the complex manifestations of this phenomenon specific to the academic environment, paying particular attention to data fabrication, data falsification, plagiarism and self-plagiarism, but also on the methods of combating and preventing intellectual „thievery”. I wish to explore in depth the concept of intellectual theft, to analyse the complexity of this phenomenon as well as to eloquently convey the depth of its impact on our cultural and intellectual evolution. A deep commitment to respect for intellectual integrity is reflected in a community aware and responsible for excellence and innovation, shaping the direction in which society evolves in accordance with individual and collective needs and aspirations.

In April 2023, a Training Workshop on mixed methods in Health Education and Research was held at the University of Aveiro. In this training, a problem was posed about what plagiarism and/or self- plagiarism is, and we found very few correct answers regarding the definition of these concepts. This led us to question what is really known about this topic and where we can find concrete examples of plagiarism and self-plagiarism that have gone unnoticed in society. To carry out this study, a bibliometric and systematic review of the literature was carried out, between the years 2014 and 2022, in the International databases WOS and SCOPUS with the use of the keywords "Plagiarism", "Scientific" and "Education", using VOSViewer Software. As a result of this search, 40 documents with the greatest impact on education were selected, analyzing the content of their summaries and conclusions through CAQDAS NVivo. Among the conclusions obtained, we observe that there is a real need to make known: various recurrent instances of plagiarism and self-plagiarism that occur in academic environments of higher education and analytical models that shed light on the moments prone to these behaviours, offering concrete recommendations to prevent them. his persistence. As a limitation, since this is an exploratory study, the results obtained were not compared with other databases, such as ERIC. Finally, to obtain more significant data in the future, we intend to expand this research by conducting interviews and focus groups with different students and education professionals, to compare the information compiled with new, broader searches that include other databases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Intellectual Property Law / Revista Română de Dreptul Proprietăţii Intelectuale is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Plagiarism has always been a problem in the university environment as well. There is no legal definition of plagiary, plagiarism or self-plagiarism in the national, supranational (EU) law or international agreements. The definition of plagiarism and selfplagiarism should be clear for academic staff and university students as well. We can conclude that the whole academic society agrees that plagiarism is a serious problem. The paper identifies the legal framework of plagiarism in the Slovak and EU law, the forms of plagiarism behind the legal framework and the problems arising from the use of - artificial intelligence (AI) and proposes solutions for how to fight against plagiarism in the academic environment. The Slovak declaration confirms the fact that existing legal regulations do not reflect the whole gamut of possible instances and circumstances of unscientific, unethical, and dishonest conduct. It seems to be necessary to prepare a directive in the EU law as a repressive measure to define which research conducts is not acceptable, including the AI considered often as a new form of plagiarism. As well as the training courses for teachers and students focused on plagiarism, including the AI and the possibilities for using it in academic research would be a preventive measure for avoiding plagiarism and selfplagiarism.

No Abstract available.

Plagiarism has always been a problem in the university environment as well. There is no legal definition of plagiary, plagiarism or self-plagiarism in the national, supranational (EU) law or international agreements. The definition of plagiarism and self-plagiarism should be clear for academic staff and university students as well. We can conclude that the whole academic society agrees that plagiarism is a serious problem. The paper identifies the legal framework of plagiarism in the Slovak and EU law, the forms of plagiarism behind the legal framework and the problems arising from the use of - artificial intelligence (AI) and proposes solutions for how to fight against plagiarism in the academic environment. The Slovak declaration confirms the fact that existing legal regulations do not reflect the whole gamut of possible instances and circumstances of unscientific, unethical, and dishonest conduct. It seems to be necessary to prepare a directive in the EU law as a repressive measure to define which research conducts is not acceptable, including the AI considered often as a new form of plagiarism. As well as the training courses for teachers and students focused on plagiarism, including the AI and the possibilities for using it in academic research would be a preventive measure for avoiding plagiarism and self-plagiarism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plagiarism is a common issue in academic and professional communities. This article discusses ways to avoid plagiarism by identifying valuable resources, such as appropriate paraphrasing, creative work organizing, and new technology. Understanding copyright law safeguards is critical to avoiding plagiarism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade is the property of University of Belgrade, Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In today's era of heightened sensitivity to plagiarism, self-plagiarism is gaining recognition as a distinct ethical concern within the global academic community. While plagiarism has undergone detailed conceptual analysis, the same cannot be said for self-plagiarism. This concise review seeks to address this gap by examining key aspects of this academic ethical issue, as outlined in Article 25 of the Code of Professional Ethics at the University of Belgrade. Through this conceptual analysis, it becomes apparent that the Code specifically condemns the narrower practice of "duplicate or dual publication" as ethically unacceptable. It is clear that self-plagiarism does not occur when an author transparently acknowledges their intention to republish or reuse their previously published or utilized work, including its constituent parts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As well as streamlining academic research activities, contemporary technologies provide opportunities to infringe on the intellectual property of others through plagiarism. However, plagiarism has yet to be adequately dealt with in national legislations, which either do not contain any provision in this connection or fail to adequately define the relevant terms. Moreover, there continues to be much discussion as to what plagiarism is, as well as how and in what cases it should be punishable. The situation is further complicated by the various approaches to plagiarism and the lack of consensus on whether so-called “self-plagiarism” should be treated separately from the intentional infringement of other people’s intellectual property or be deemed as a form of plagiarism. With the aim of clarifying these questions, the authors of the present paper compare different approaches taken to the problem of plagiarism and consider some contemporary approaches to plagiarism detection.

Because science advances incrementally, scientists often need to repeat material included in their prior work when composing new texts. Such “text recycling” is a common but complex writing practice, so authors and editors need clear and consistent guidance about what constitutes appropriate practice. Unfortunately, publishers’ policies on text recycling to date have been incomplete, unclear, and sometimes internally inconsistent. Building on 4 years of research on text recycling in scientific writing, the Text Recycling Research Project has developed a model text recycling policy that should be widely applicable for research publications in scientific fields. This article lays out the challenges text recycling poses for editors and authors, describes key factors that were addressed in developing the policy, and explains the policy’s main features.

The sphere of postgraduate studies is the most governance reform-sensitive element of high school educational system in Russia.The article focuses on the governmental decisions taken to address difficulties in high school modernization sphere. The article posits that the mainstream modernization vector of educational system connected with the upgraded scientific and pedagogical personnel education is performed in accordance with transformational process set forth in Bologna declaration signed by the Russian Federation. The Covid-19 pandemic challenged the postgraduate reform results in Russia. The article provides a thorough and discourse analysis of scientific publications, expert interviews and normative documents. The study concludes that the set of fundamental approaches to further Russian system of postgraduate studies is currently semi-functional.Current reforms seek to overcome a destructive impact of the current postgraduate studies system.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis dan memberi proyeksi dalam rangka menjawab permasalahan self-plagiarism kaitannya dengan peraturan hukum positif di Indonesia yang mengatur terkait hak cipta. Sebagai penelitian hukum normatif, penelitian ini menggunakan beberapa pendekatan diantaranya statute approach, conceptual approach, dan comparative approach. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa tindakan self-plagiarism saat ini sama sekali tidak dikenal dalam peraturan hukum positif di Indonesia khususnya dalam regulasi yang mengatur terkait hak cipta. Ketiadaan aturan tersebut berdampak pada ketiadaan sanksi atas tindakan self-plagiarism, baik sanksi etik maupun sanksi pidana. Sementara diketahui bahwa self-plagiarism memiliki dampak kerugian yang lebih besar apabila dibandingkan dengan plagiarisme yang pragmatig dan dikenal dalam peraturan perundang-undangan positif dengan sanksi etik dan pidana yang dapat diterapkan. Sehingga, dengan realitas empiris atas self-plagiarism tersebut diproyeksikan agar tindakan yang dimaksud diatur sebagai tindak pidana dalam regulasi hak cipta yang akan dibentuk di masa mendatang dengan memberikan dan mencantumkan ancaman pidana terhadap perbuatan self-plagiarism dalam bentuk reformulasi total atas peraturan yang berlaku saat ini.

Introduction: Despite the importance of quotes in reporting qualitative research, to our knowledge, there is no consensus regarding whether using the same quotes in multiple manuscripts is self-plagiarism or is an acceptable practice. It is important to explore this phenomenon to ensure the quality and integrity of published qualitative health research. Objective: To explore current practices around self-plagiarism within health systems research. Methods: We sought the opinions of experts in publishing qualitative health research (i.e.: journal editors and reviewers). Twenty-one journals were emailed to explore the re-use of quotations derived from qualitative data collection. Thematic analysis was conducted, exploring both common and opposing viewpoints. Results: Eleven journals provided information. Two journals responded with refusal to answer. Eight did not respond. Responses were categorized into three groups: YES – plagiarism (n ​= ​0), NO – not plagiarism (n ​= ​4), and no definite opinion (n ​= ​7). Discussion: In this paper, we summarize the perspectives of key informants on the use of the same quotes that are derived from qualitative data collection, in multiple manuscripts. It is the responsibility of all parties – journal editors, reviewers, and authors – to maintain the quality and integrity of qualitative research. Recommendations for best practices in reporting will lead to a higher quality of published research.

Copyright of Journal of Education Research (1680-6360) is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Text recycling—commonly referred to as self-plagiarism—is an issue that is currently garnering considerable attention with regard to its acceptability as a practice and questions of when, where, and how much of it can be permissible. Although the problem of self-plagiarism or excessive text recycling can, in the opinion of some, be circumvented by paraphrasing and the reordering of text, the practice does not constitute a legitimate means to generate new and original text. A possible means to moderate the problem of text recycling that is strongly recommended is a declaration statement explicitly stating and identifying the use of recycled text. Further problems with text recycling relate to questions as to who is the progenitor of any recycled text in question and therefore who is the owner, in a moral sense, of the text under scrutiny in cases of changing sets of authors. This leads to concerns over insufficient author attribution. On the other hand, excessive attribution can result if a too conservative mindset is adopted. Due care and cognizance of excessive/insufficient attribution are necessary to avoid such problems as well as a recognition of the concept of text ownership as described herein. Such concerns are not limited to text recycling but are present also for other types of contributions to a publication covering both mundane physical contributions (e.g., supply of materials, organisms, or apparatuses) and the continuing deployment of previously espoused or established metaphysical contributions (e.g., ideas, hypotheses, strategies, or concepts or the instigation of projects). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This study analyzes the possible occurrence of plagiarism and self-plagiarism in a sample of articles published in the Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library (SPELL), an open database that indexes business journals in Brazil. The author compared one sample obtained in 2013 (n = 47 articles) and another selected from 2018 (n = 118 articles). In both samples, we verified the guidelines that each of the journals provided to authors regarding plagiarism and the adoption of software to detect textual similarities. In the analysis conducted in 2013, it was found that only one journal (2%) mentioned the word “plagiarism” in its policies, although the majority of the directives required guarantees that no type of violation of authors’ rights was contained in the manuscript. In the analysis conducted in 2013, it was determined that there were literal reproductions in 31 published articles (65.9%), and no relevant similarities with other publications were encountered in 16 articles (34.1%). In the 2018 analysis, 69 of the publications (58%) included observations and guidelines related to plagiarism and self-plagiarism. In the analysis conducted in 2018, it was found that similarities (plagiarism and self-plagiarism) occurred in 52 articles (44%), and no relevant evidence of plagiarism or self-plagiarism was found in 66 (56%) manuscripts. Although a reduction in the index of the occurrence of plagiarism was observed, as was an increase in the instructions on the prevention of plagiarism by authors, practices directed at guiding authors by means of directives concerning the importance of preventing plagiarism in manuscripts submitted for publication can be recommended.

The problems of estimating the similarity index of mathematical and other scientific publications containing equations and formulas are discussed for the first time. The presence of equations and formulas significantly complicates the study of such texts. The possibilities of the most popular anti-plagiarism software, the iThenticate system, currently used in scientific journals, are investigated for detecting plagiarism and self-plagiarism. The results of processing by this system of specific test problems containing many equations and formulas are presented. It was found that the iThenticate system often significantly overestimates the similarity index and therefore cannot distinguish between self-plagiarism and pseudo-self-plagiarism (false self-plagiarism). This article will be valuable to researchers and university teachers in mathematics, physics, and engineering sciences, software programmers, as well as a wide range of readers interested in issues of plagiarism and self-plagiarism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plagiarism lacks graduation and is not acceptable in any situation, but there are undoubtedly variations in severity. In contrast, so-called self-plagiarism, which really should be called text recycling, can be both ethically and legally acceptable in some situations. It is important to distinguish between these precisely to fight more effectively against plagiarism, on the one hand, and to avoid unfair situations with the use of tools such as originality analysis software on the other. Proposals regarding organizations that deal with the ethics of publications are presented, and a research project focusing on text recycling is also briefly described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, academic ethics has garnered increased attention in Taiwan. However, due to limited understanding and discussion of self-plagiarism, no clear consensus exists on principles and standards for recognizing and handling the issue. The purpose of this study is to clarify key concepts, regulations, and best practices regarding self-plagiarism so that local scholars can approach this new ethical issue from an informed perspective. Using the method of document analysis, published articles are analyzed to illustrate current norms related to self-plagiarism. This article examines the concept of self-plagiarism in terms of the emergence of concern for this ethical issue, relevant definitions, methods for recognizing its occurrence, common types and exclusions, and the importance of avoiding the pitfalls of self-plagiarism. The analysis also cites an actual case of self-plagiarism that took place in the Netherlands to illustrate the controversies surrounding self-plagiarism. In addition, the article summarizes the historical evolution of relevant norms of self-plagiarism in Taiwan and proposes methods to guide best practices regarding ethical scholarly writing and publishing. (Article content in Chinese with English extended abstract)

All researchers involved in scientific inquiries have an obligation to follow the norms regarding academic ethics to ensure the quality of their research and to gain trust from the public. As the primary funding agency in the Taiwanese government, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (MOST) has published various academic ethics-related regulations and policies. The MOST also irregularly releases case summaries of academic ethics violations. However, whether Taiwanese researchers fully understand the academic ethics related rules and policies of the MOST remains debatable. In this vein, the present study adopts a survey method, inviting five experts of academic ethics and 232 local researchers (i.e., principal investigators [PIs] of MOST-funded research projects) to explore their (mis)understanding regarding the topics of plagiarism, improper citations, and self-plagiarism through case scenarios. The current results suggest that the participants (both the experts and PIs) do not seem to understand the definitions of the three topics above fully; they also hold different opinions on the credit attributions between advisors’ funded research and students’ dissertations. In conclusion, the results of this study are expected to be used as references for the amendment of current academic ethics-related regulations and policies of the MOST as well as local universities and colleges and research institutions.

This article is devoted to close such gap in law. The consequences of violation of paragraph 14 of the Regulations on awarding scientific degrees and (or) submission of false information about publications is deprivation of right to defend a dissertation repeatedly (also if such dissertation has been changed). However, we have no differentiation criteria (is this a new dissertation or the same dissertation, which cannot be defended repeatedly). For finding such criteria the author analyzes criteria used (or proposed to be used) by scientific journals to find duplicate-publication (including analysis of manuscript conditions on scientific journals, websites, practice of retraction of scientific articles, expertise presented by Dissernet). The author proposes to use such differentiation criteria: 1) proportion of reproduction of previous dissertation; 2) proportion of original text in the part of dissertation, which is not same as previous dissertation; 3) which parts are the same in previous dissertation, if some elements are the same, specifically in: conclusion; defended positions; description of scientific novelty; abstract of dissertation; articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals where main scientific results of dissertation are published; 4) comparison of the structure of dissertations; 5) new empirical basis; 6) scientific novelty of dissertation in comparison with previous dissertation. The author notes that is possible to use other criteria. It is proposed to utilize different criteria depending on the stage of process of defense of dissertation, and the competence of a person who is authorized to decide if it is a new dissertation. Also, as a result of the analysis of possible variant of criteria normative regulation, the author proposes variant of amendments of legal acts, which regulate dissertation requirements and process of defense of dissertation.

Plagiarism is not an issue observed only among students; rather, it also occurs in the publications of researchers in academic journals. The current study explored how Nobel laureates, with the highest possible academic status in the world, engage in text borrowing. A list of 91 laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine, and economics from 2006 to 2015 were identified and their publications were collected and analysed using Turnitin software. The findings of the current study revealed that Nobel laureates' journal publications outperform those of their counterparts in terms of text borrowing, even though there are still incidences of extensive text borrowing and the lack of appropriate citations observed in their publications. Most of the text borrowing in question consists of self-plagiarism and methods section text, in agreement of earlier research findings. In addition, papers by authors whose affiliated institutions are located in English-speaking countries exhibit fewer incidences of text borrowing than papers by authors whose affiliated institutions are located in non-English-speaking countries, whereas the number of authors does not play a significant role in text borrowing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Text recycling, sometimes called "self-plagiarism," is the reuse of material from one's own existing documents in a newly created work. Over the past decade, text recycling has become an increasingly debated practice in research ethics, especially in science and technology fields. Little is known, however, about researchers' actual text recycling practices. We report here on a computational analysis of text recycling in published research articles in STEM disciplines. Using a tool we created in R, we analyze a corpus of 400 published articles from 80 federally funded research projects across eight disciplinary clusters. According to our analysis, STEM research groups frequently recycle some material from their previously published articles. On average, papers in our corpus contained about three recycled sentences per article, though a minority of research teams (around 15%) recycled substantially more content. These findings were generally consistent across STEM disciplines. We also find evidence that researchers superficially alter recycled prose much more often than recycling it verbatim. Based on our findings, which suggest that recycling some amount of material is normative in STEM research writing, researchers and editors would benefit from more appropriate and explicit guidance about what constitutes legitimate practice and how authors should report the presence of recycled material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When writing journal articles, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) researchers produce a number of other genres such as grant proposals and conference posters, and their new articles routinely build directly on their own prior work. As a result, STEM authors often reuse material from their completed documents in producing new documents. While this practice, known as text recycling (or self-plagiarism), is a debated issue in publishing and research ethics, little is known about researchers' beliefs about what constitutes appropriate practice. This article presents results of from an exploratory, survey-based study on beliefs and attitudes toward text recycling among STEM "experts" (faculty researchers) and "novices" (graduate students and post docs). While expert and novice researchers are fairly consistent in distinguishing between text recycling and plagiarism, there is considerable disagreement about appropriate text recycling practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a response to two letters published recently in the Profesional de la información journal on the need for changes in the evaluation of science. Two elements are proposed that should be part of any future evaluation model, namely the obligation for accountability through external evaluations, and the central role of science communication. Likewise, examples of in-depth changes that can be undertaken and that respect these two essential principles are presented. Additionally, a review of sometimes misinterpreted concepts is proposed, such as the expression "publish or perish," because it masks the real problem instead of denouncing it, or that of self-plagiarism because not only is it an oxymoron but it also places plagiarism in a field of acceptable practices, which is meaningless. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Campus Virtuales is the property of Campus Virtuales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Cases of academic misconduct have not only drawn significant attention in the scholarly community but also surfaced as a discussion subject for the general public in recent years. This kind of ethic issue awareness makes huge splash to a degree that never being seen before. Within these related academic ethic contentions, self-plagiarism is one of the subject that has received significant amount of concern but is still with great controversial point of view. Under the academic ethic guidelines announced by Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, self-plagiarism and dual publication are listed out as two particular violations to emphasize their importance but with room for judgment within different academic research fields. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to explore the behavior of cognition, norm, and remedy on the self-plagiarism issue among journal editors within social science fields of Taiwan. Content analysis of notes for contributors in 105 journals, and in-depth interviews to the editors of 13 journals indexed by TSSCI were conducted to reveal how they identify and type out self-plagiarism, followed by how they regulate self-plagiarism and remedy it once related cases surfaced. This is a unique research of exploratory research on this hot issue that has not been performed in Taiwan. Data revealed by this study provide insight information to the self-plagiarism behavior and could be used to strength the current related academic ethic regulations. (Article content in Chinese with English extended abstract)

Plagiarism is a misconduct act and a scourge for science. Plagiarism perpetrators steal other author's work without citing the original references. Psychology is one of the most vulnerable sciences with plagiarism and must give more attention to this issue. Several types of plagiarism can be distinguished to the plagiarism motivation (intentional, unintentional, and inadvertent), how to do plagiarism (patchwriting, inappropriate paraphrasing, and summaries) and self-plagiarism (text recycling, redundant or duplicate publication, salami-slicing or data fragmentation). There are several reasons to do plagiarism, such as ease to get information via the internet, pressure on academic tasks, bad writing skill, hurry to write under pressure, lack of understanding how to rewrite the original reference, a misconception to understanding self-plagiarism, and habitual plagiarists. This article also presents steps to avoid plagiarism, such as avoiding "intellectual theft", doing good writing (citation and paraphrasing), and testing the similarity test (plagiarism detection service).

Considering the magnitude of the phenomenon in general and the public debate on plagiarism, in the present study I proposed to analyze the plagiarism situation, with particular reference to doctoral theses. Thus, I will present the regulation in the Romanian legal framework of the notion of plagiarism and the content of the obligation regarding the violation of good conduct in research and development through plagiarism and self- plagiarism. At the same time, will be analyzed the possible consequences of the plagiarism ascertained both before and after the granting of the doctor's degree, with the presentation of the situation of notifications through the CNATDCU, the way of sanctioning the plagiarism deeds, as well as the participation of the general public in the reporting of breaches of the norms of academics conduct on publicly presented doctoral theses.

The main principles of the publishing policy of the journal "Technical Electrodynamics" are considered, namely the observance of the principles of academic integrity. The concept of academic integrity, types of its violation - plagiarism, self-plagiarism, falsification, fabrication are explained. There are some legal documents developed in Ukraine on this issue, which must be followed by every scientist and scientific publications. References 10. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study analyzes the possible occurrence of plagiarism and self-plagiarism in a sample of articles published in the Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library (SPELL), an open database that indexes business journals in Brazil. The author compared one sample obtained in 2013 (n = 47 articles) and another selected from 2018 (n = 118 articles). In both samples, we verified the guidelines that each of the journals provided to authors regarding plagiarism and the adoption of software to detect textual similarities. In the analysis conducted in 2013, it was found that only one journal (2%) mentioned the word "plagiarism" in its policies, although the majority of the directives required guarantees that no type of violation of authors' rights was contained in the manuscript. In the analysis conducted in 2013, it was determined that there were literal reproductions in 31 published articles (65.9%), and no relevant similarities with other publications were encountered in 16 articles (34.1%). In the 2018 analysis, 69 of the publications (58%) included observations and guidelines related to plagiarism and self-plagiarism. In the analysis conducted in 2018, it was found that similarities (plagiarism and self-plagiarism) occurred in 52 articles (44%), and no relevant evidence of plagiarism or self-plagiarism was found in 66 (56%) manuscripts. Although a reduction in the index of the occurrence of plagiarism was observed, as was an increase in the instructions on the prevention of plagiarism by authors, practices directed at guiding authors by means of directives concerning the importance of preventing plagiarism in manuscripts submitted for publication can be recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics’ research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained (37.1% of the total sample), with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy (30.5%) and in ethics (52.8%); 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), use of personal influence (57.5%) and citation manipulation (44.0%), in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication (10.0%). The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decades, many researchers argued different aspects of ethical considerations regarding scientific research. There is substantial body of literature arguing about self-plagiarism phenomenon. It is a problematic issue which raised controversy among researchers. While proponents consider ethical and legal issues, opponents argue about misnomer and the contradictory of plagiarizing researcher’s own work. This paper aims to explore this phenomenon. Furthermore, scientific research practices that may lead to this phenomenon were reviewed. Drawing upon this review, we conclude some guidelines for researchers to avoid self-plagiarism.

Plagiarism is one of the most common research misconducts and has many negative consequences. It can potentially destroy the reputation of an institution. Only a few studies have explored plagiarism in Saudi Arabia, and these have focused on academic institutions. Therefore, in this study, we investigated the attitudes of researchers towards plagiarism at a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, using the established Attitudes Towards Plagiarism questionnaire. The questionnaire contains demographic data along with 29 statements divided into three sections: positive attitude towards plagiarism, which reflects the approval and acceptance of plagiarism (12 items); negative attitude towards plagiarism, which reflects deprecation and condemnation of plagiarism (7 items); and subjective norms towards plagiarism, which reflects personal perception of the extent and acceptance of plagiarism in society (10 items). Responses were collected from 237 participants. The overall attitudes of researchers showed a disapproval for plagiarism in medical research but also revealed some ambiguity about self‐plagiarism and a belief that others were more likely to plagiarize than the respondent. Our findings suggest that awareness about different forms of plagiarism among researchers should be increased. We recommend that researchers' attitudes towards plagiarism should be investigated further in a rigorous association study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholarly misconduct causes significant impact on the academic community. To the extremes, results of scholarly misconduct could endanger public welfare as well as national security. Although self-plagiarism has drawn considerable amount of attention, it is still a controversial issue among different aspect of academic ethic related discussions. The main purpose of this study is to identify two concerns including what is self-plagiarism in academic journals, conceivable point of contention, based on journal editors' viewpoint. Between 1990 and 2015, content of 57 editorials indexed in Scopus and WoS and 75 cases of self-plagiarism raised by international editors in COPE were analyzed to explore how journal editors identify these problems. The results show that self-plagiarism can be categorized to four facets, including its identification, types, norm, and remedy. And the editors are concerned about the issues about the detection software, salami-slicing and overlapping publication, the harm of copyright, and the retractions of published articles. Results from this study not only could obtain in-depth understandings on self-plagiarism among academic journal articles but also being applied on establishing academic guidelines in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Generating multiple publications from one research study is an occurrence often encountered in academic writing, especially in research areas which conduct field studies. Grey areas between producing more than one publication from a single piece of research and salami-slicing, which is considered as an ethical problem, may sometimes cause researchers to be exposed to ethical violation accusations or even to undergo administrative investigations. There is very little detailed information about salami-slicing even though it is considered as an act contrary to research and publication ethics. The same is true for generating more than one publication from a single piece of research. This article examines the nature, scope and limits of salami-slicing, and aims to contribute to the understanding of salami-slicing by criticizing various approaches and arguments. In this context, the article seeks answers to the following questions: Is salami-slicing a kind of duplication or a type of self-plagiarism / auto-plagiarism? Is it necessary to publish the results of a research study as a single article? What does research integrity mean, and what are the things that disrupt the integrity? What are the appropriate and inappropriate forms of dividing a single research result into pieces or of generating more from one publication? The article first creates a conceptual framework for what salami-slicing is and is not after reviewing the definitions in the official legislation and relevant literature, and then, examines the reasons that make salami-slicing unethical, and finally, expresses opinions on what the scholarly journal editors and research institutions should do to avoid the problem of salami-slicing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright, plagiarism and co-authorship are themes that arouse controversy in the academic world, especially under ethical and legal parameters. The general objective of this research is to understand, from the perspective of copyright, non-plagiarism and co-authorship, how the use of information and its belonging to others can be made without having an unethical or anti-legal attitude, as well as demystifying self plagiarism. To that end, the research question was: "From the perspective of copyright, non-plagiarism and co-authorship, how can the use of information of his or her own and of others be used without having an unethical or anti-legal attitude?" The methodology used basically is theoretical bibliographical research and reflection, referencing, mainly, national and some international authors and using qualitative arguments. This article will discuss the unfolding of issues of copyright, plagiarism and co-authorship, instigating the academy itself to reflect not only on the students' attitudes, but also on teachers and researchers. We conclude that not everything that seems to be a crime is so and it is necessary to review practices and requirements that try to make the researcher a producer in series of publications without relativizing the condemnation of the unethical practice of false authorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Text recycling (hereafter TR), sometimes problematically called "self-plagiarism," involves the verbatim reuse of text from one's own existing documents in a newly created text – such as the duplication of a paragraph or section from a published article in a new article. Although plagiarism is widely eschewed across academia and the publishing industry, the ethics of TR are not agreed upon and are currently being vigorously debated. As part of a federally funded (US) National Science Foundation grant, we have been studying TR patterns using several methodologies, including interviews with editors about TR values and practices (Pemberton, Hall, Moskovitz, & Anson, 2019) and digitally mediated text-analytic processes to determine the extent of TR in academic publications in the biological sciences, engineering, mathematical and physical sciences, and social, behavioral, and economic sciences (Anson, Moskovitz, & Anson, 2019). In this article, we first describe and illustrate TR in the context of academic writing. We then explain and document several themes that emerged from interviews with publishers of peer-reviewed academic journals. These themes demonstrate the vexed and unsettled nature of TR as a discursive phenomenon in academic writing and publishing. In doing so, we focus on the complex relationships between personal (role-based) and social (norm-based) aspects of scientific publication, complicating conventional models of the writing process that have inadequately accounted for authorial decisions about accuracy, efficiency, self-representation, adherence to existing or imagined rules and norms, perceptions of ownership and copyright, and fears of impropriety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]