Difference between revisions of "Resource:3264c547-bf25-48c5-bc4f-367adde2752b"
From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarize: Handling Real Allegations of Research Misconduct; Case #3: The Duplicate Publication |Is About=This is the fac...") |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Related To | {{Related To | ||
| − | |Related To Theme=Theme:Ed7ce22e-667a-44a8-a3d0-2abdd0d37b1a | + | |Related To Theme=Theme:Ed7ce22e-667a-44a8-a3d0-2abdd0d37b1a;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0 |
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{Tags | ||
| + | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Self-plagiarism | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | |||
Revision as of 17:18, 26 February 2021
ResourcesCases
Seven Ways to Plagiarize: Handling Real Allegations of Research Misconduct; Case #3: The Duplicate Publication
What is this about?
This is the factual case of an author whose long excerpts of research output appear in two different articles in two separate journals.
Why is this important?
This case is another reminder of the many different formats plagiarism can take. It also demonstrates that not every single case that appears to be plagiarism is actually a research misconduct practice.
The case explores the fine lines among practices such as ‘quoting oneself’, ‘duplicate submission/publication’, ‘plagiarism’, ‘deviation from accepted practices’, ‘reprints’, and when such practices are acceptable or not.
