ArticleScience and engineering ethics2013
Self-plagiarism in academic publishing: the anatomy of a misnomer.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retractions in Psychology and Psychiatry in Web of Science : A Bioethical Perspective.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Review
- Is the Invisibility of Dementia a Super-Power or a Curse? A Reflection on the SUNshiners' Questionnaire into the Public Understanding of Dementia as an Invisible Disability: A User-Led Research Project.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- When it is and isn't OK to recycle text in scientific papers.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Text Recycling in Scientific Writing.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Highlighting common pitfalls to avoid when writing the medical education manuscript.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2017Article
- Evaluation by Citation: Trends in Publication Behavior, Evaluation Criteria, and the Strive for High Impact Publications.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Article
- Prior Publication and Redundancy in Contemporary Science: Are Authors and Editors at the Crossroads?Science and engineering ethics · 2015Article
- Critical issues in the teaching of responsible writing.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2014Article
- Attack of the clones.Nature chemistry · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The paper discusses self-plagiarism and associated practices in scholarly publishing. It approaches at some length the conceptual issues raised by the notion of self-plagiarism. It distinguishes among and then examines the main families of arguments against self-plagiarism, as well as the question of possibly legitimate reasons to engage in this practice. It concludes that some of the animus frequently reserved for self-plagiarism may be the result of, among others, poor choice of a label, unwarranted generalizations as to its ill effects based on the specific experience (and goals) of particular disciplines, and widespread but not necessarily beneficial publishing practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23179068What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.