![]() ![]() Plagiarism, salami slicing, and Lobachevsky. Issues and rules for authors concerning authorship versus acknowledgements, dual publication, self plagiarism, and salami publishing. A researcher’s ethical dilemma: Is self-plagiarism a condemnable practice or not? Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 32(6), 427–429.īaggs, J. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19.Īrumugam, A., & Aldhafiri, F. ![]() ![]() Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Bergamo, Italy: University of Bergamo.Īrksey, H., & O’Malley, L. Sala (Eds.), Corpora in specialized communication (pp. Avoiding plagiarism and self-plagiarism through the use of corpora. Self-plagiarism in academic publishing: The anatomy of a misnomer. Health Research Policy and Systems, 6(7), 1–12.Īndreescu, L. Asking the right questions: Scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 102, 87.Īnderson, S., Allen, P., Peckham, S., & Goodwin, N. The ethics of scholarly publishing: Exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.Īmos, K. Publication manual of the american psychological association (6th ed.). Journal of Nepal Paediatric Society, 30(2), 77–78.Īmerican Psychological Association. With primary and secondary research combined accounting for 14.4% of overall contributions to the data set, and primary research constituting only 6% of overall contributions, we conclude with a call for more empirical evidence on the topic to support contributions to the scholarly dialogue.Īdhikari, N. There is little guidance in the available literature to graduate students or their professors about how to disentangle the complexities of self-plagiarism. With an interrater reliability of over 93% between two researchers, our typological analysis revealed 47 sources (34.3%) were editorials 41 (29.9%) were conceptual research (including teaching cases) 16 (11.7%) were editorial responses 12 (8.6%) were secondary research and only 8 sources (5.8%) were primary research. ![]() After removing duplicates and excluding non-scholarly sources, we arrived at a data set of 133 sources, with publication dates ranging from 1968 to 2017. The research question was: What typologies of evidence characterize the literature on self-plagiarism in scholarly and research journals? We conducted a scoping review, using the search terms “self-plagiarism” and “self-plagiarism” (hyphenated), consulting five social sciences research databases, supplemented by a manual search for articles, resulting in over 5900 results. We hypothesized that there was a dearth of empirical studies on the topic of self-plagiarism, with an over-abundance of editorial and commentary articles based on anecdotal evidence. The practice is problematic because it disrupts scientific publishing by over-emphasizing results, increasing journal publication costs, and artificially inflating journal impact, among other consequences. Self-plagiarism is a contentious issue in higher education, research and scholarly publishing contexts. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |