Mixing
Collaborator has shared a draft paper with a significant amount of self-plagiarism. Should I say something?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
I am a theoretical physics postdoc. A while ago I began collaborating with a certain group of experimentalists on a joint project. This group has a good reputation in the field and I regarded the collaboration as a good opportunity. They work at a different institution from me and I am the only person from my institution involved in the project. My boss knows about the project but was happy to let me pursue it without being involved.
I sent my collaborators some calculations a while ago, which I believed should more or less wrap up the project and bring us to a point where we could write it up. They were a long time getting back to me - so long in fact that I began to assume they had lost interest in the project - but then out of the blue they sent me a draft paper and asked for my comments.
On first reading the draft seemed good. It gives an accurate description of both the experimental and theoretical results from the project. But then I went back and read another recent paper from the same group (which I was not involved with). I then realised that several paragraphs from the draft paper were copied verbatim from this other recent paper.
The paragraphs in question are from the introduction and methods sections of the paper. The draft paper and the recently published one are closely related in subject matter and the experimental part of the work uses a lot of the same methods, so to some extent I can understand why they may have regarded it as efficient to simply copy certain parts of the text over. On the other hand, I feel uncomfortable about this degree of self-plagiarism.
Is it worth making a fuss about this? I am very much the junior partner in this collaboration and getting this paper in collaboration with this group would be helpful on my CV, at a time when I really need to find a job. So I have incentives not to rock the boat too much. On the other hand, I know some people regard self-plagiarism very badly and if my name is on the paper I will be as much to blame for it as anyone else.
collaboration self-plagiarism
asked yesterday
twestley
17727
add a comment |Â
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
I am a theoretical physics postdoc. A while ago I began collaborating with a certain group of experimentalists on a joint project. This group has a good reputation in the field and I regarded the collaboration as a good opportunity. They work at a different institution from me and I am the only person from my institution involved in the project. My boss knows about the project but was happy to let me pursue it without being involved.
I sent my collaborators some calculations a while ago, which I believed should more or less wrap up the project and bring us to a point where we could write it up. They were a long time getting back to me - so long in fact that I began to assume they had lost interest in the project - but then out of the blue they sent me a draft paper and asked for my comments.
On first reading the draft seemed good. It gives an accurate description of both the experimental and theoretical results from the project. But then I went back and read another recent paper from the same group (which I was not involved with). I then realised that several paragraphs from the draft paper were copied verbatim from this other recent paper.
The paragraphs in question are from the introduction and methods sections of the paper. The draft paper and the recently published one are closely related in subject matter and the experimental part of the work uses a lot of the same methods, so to some extent I can understand why they may have regarded it as efficient to simply copy certain parts of the text over. On the other hand, I feel uncomfortable about this degree of self-plagiarism.
Is it worth making a fuss about this? I am very much the junior partner in this collaboration and getting this paper in collaboration with this group would be helpful on my CV, at a time when I really need to find a job. So I have incentives not to rock the boat too much. On the other hand, I know some people regard self-plagiarism very badly and if my name is on the paper I will be as much to blame for it as anyone else.
collaboration self-plagiarism
asked yesterday
twestley
17727
7
Not everyone knows that self plagiarism is an issue, so for many it is very natural to just copy from previous work. However, you should certainly mention the issue to them and recommend that everything be properly cited. Publishing the paper as is could bring comments, even condemnation, from readers and reviewers.
– Buffy
yesterday
If the review is double blind (some are in my field) it might simply come across as straight plagiarism.
– Pam
15 hours ago
Journals nowadays run automated checking so they can be the ones to deal with it. Also, if it's an expanded version of a prior paper, and their subsequent paper will have a note of this, what they are doing is perfectly acceptable. So you don't know enough to decide yet.
– A Simple Algorithm
15 hours ago
@ASimpleAlgorithm Huh? What information do you imagine the asker here is missing, as a collaborator on the second paper who has access to its full (draft) text? I presume that if it were indeed an expanded version of the group's prior paper and explicitly framed itself in those terms, the OP wouldn't've asked this question in the first place, or at least would've mentioned those facts.
– Mark Amery
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
I am a theoretical physics postdoc. A while ago I began collaborating with a certain group of experimentalists on a joint project. This group has a good reputation in the field and I regarded the collaboration as a good opportunity. They work at a different institution from me and I am the only person from my institution involved in the project. My boss knows about the project but was happy to let me pursue it without being involved.
I sent my collaborators some calculations a while ago, which I believed should more or less wrap up the project and bring us to a point where we could write it up. They were a long time getting back to me - so long in fact that I began to assume they had lost interest in the project - but then out of the blue they sent me a draft paper and asked for my comments.
On first reading the draft seemed good. It gives an accurate description of both the experimental and theoretical results from the project. But then I went back and read another recent paper from the same group (which I was not involved with). I then realised that several paragraphs from the draft paper were copied verbatim from this other recent paper.
The paragraphs in question are from the introduction and methods sections of the paper. The draft paper and the recently published one are closely related in subject matter and the experimental part of the work uses a lot of the same methods, so to some extent I can understand why they may have regarded it as efficient to simply copy certain parts of the text over. On the other hand, I feel uncomfortable about this degree of self-plagiarism.
Is it worth making a fuss about this? I am very much the junior partner in this collaboration and getting this paper in collaboration with this group would be helpful on my CV, at a time when I really need to find a job. So I have incentives not to rock the boat too much. On the other hand, I know some people regard self-plagiarism very badly and if my name is on the paper I will be as much to blame for it as anyone else.
collaboration self-plagiarism
asked yesterday
twestley
17727
I am a theoretical physics postdoc. A while ago I began collaborating with a certain group of experimentalists on a joint project. This group has a good reputation in the field and I regarded the collaboration as a good opportunity. They work at a different institution from me and I am the only person from my institution involved in the project. My boss knows about the project but was happy to let me pursue it without being involved.
I sent my collaborators some calculations a while ago, which I believed should more or less wrap up the project and bring us to a point where we could write it up. They were a long time getting back to me - so long in fact that I began to assume they had lost interest in the project - but then out of the blue they sent me a draft paper and asked for my comments.
On first reading the draft seemed good. It gives an accurate description of both the experimental and theoretical results from the project. But then I went back and read another recent paper from the same group (which I was not involved with). I then realised that several paragraphs from the draft paper were copied verbatim from this other recent paper.
The paragraphs in question are from the introduction and methods sections of the paper. The draft paper and the recently published one are closely related in subject matter and the experimental part of the work uses a lot of the same methods, so to some extent I can understand why they may have regarded it as efficient to simply copy certain parts of the text over. On the other hand, I feel uncomfortable about this degree of self-plagiarism.
Is it worth making a fuss about this? I am very much the junior partner in this collaboration and getting this paper in collaboration with this group would be helpful on my CV, at a time when I really need to find a job. So I have incentives not to rock the boat too much. On the other hand, I know some people regard self-plagiarism very badly and if my name is on the paper I will be as much to blame for it as anyone else.
collaboration self-plagiarism
collaboration self-plagiarism
asked yesterday
twestley
17727
asked yesterday
twestley
17727
asked yesterday
twestley
17727
asked yesterday
twestley
17727
asked yesterday
twestley
17727
17727
7
Not everyone knows that self plagiarism is an issue, so for many it is very natural to just copy from previous work. However, you should certainly mention the issue to them and recommend that everything be properly cited. Publishing the paper as is could bring comments, even condemnation, from readers and reviewers.
– Buffy
yesterday
If the review is double blind (some are in my field) it might simply come across as straight plagiarism.
– Pam
15 hours ago
Journals nowadays run automated checking so they can be the ones to deal with it. Also, if it's an expanded version of a prior paper, and their subsequent paper will have a note of this, what they are doing is perfectly acceptable. So you don't know enough to decide yet.
– A Simple Algorithm
15 hours ago
@ASimpleAlgorithm Huh? What information do you imagine the asker here is missing, as a collaborator on the second paper who has access to its full (draft) text? I presume that if it were indeed an expanded version of the group's prior paper and explicitly framed itself in those terms, the OP wouldn't've asked this question in the first place, or at least would've mentioned those facts.
– Mark Amery
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
7
Not everyone knows that self plagiarism is an issue, so for many it is very natural to just copy from previous work. However, you should certainly mention the issue to them and recommend that everything be properly cited. Publishing the paper as is could bring comments, even condemnation, from readers and reviewers.
– Buffy
yesterday
If the review is double blind (some are in my field) it might simply come across as straight plagiarism.
– Pam
15 hours ago
Journals nowadays run automated checking so they can be the ones to deal with it. Also, if it's an expanded version of a prior paper, and their subsequent paper will have a note of this, what they are doing is perfectly acceptable. So you don't know enough to decide yet.
– A Simple Algorithm
15 hours ago
@ASimpleAlgorithm Huh? What information do you imagine the asker here is missing, as a collaborator on the second paper who has access to its full (draft) text? I presume that if it were indeed an expanded version of the group's prior paper and explicitly framed itself in those terms, the OP wouldn't've asked this question in the first place, or at least would've mentioned those facts.
– Mark Amery
2 hours ago
7
7
Not everyone knows that self plagiarism is an issue, so for many it is very natural to just copy from previous work. However, you should certainly mention the issue to them and recommend that everything be properly cited. Publishing the paper as is could bring comments, even condemnation, from readers and reviewers.
– Buffy
yesterday
Not everyone knows that self plagiarism is an issue, so for many it is very natural to just copy from previous work. However, you should certainly mention the issue to them and recommend that everything be properly cited. Publishing the paper as is could bring comments, even condemnation, from readers and reviewers.
– Buffy
yesterday
If the review is double blind (some are in my field) it might simply come across as straight plagiarism.
– Pam
15 hours ago
If the review is double blind (some are in my field) it might simply come across as straight plagiarism.
– Pam
15 hours ago
Journals nowadays run automated checking so they can be the ones to deal with it. Also, if it's an expanded version of a prior paper, and their subsequent paper will have a note of this, what they are doing is perfectly acceptable. So you don't know enough to decide yet.
– A Simple Algorithm
15 hours ago
Journals nowadays run automated checking so they can be the ones to deal with it. Also, if it's an expanded version of a prior paper, and their subsequent paper will have a note of this, what they are doing is perfectly acceptable. So you don't know enough to decide yet.
– A Simple Algorithm
15 hours ago
@ASimpleAlgorithm Huh? What information do you imagine the asker here is missing, as a collaborator on the second paper who has access to its full (draft) text? I presume that if it were indeed an expanded version of the group's prior paper and explicitly framed itself in those terms, the OP wouldn't've asked this question in the first place, or at least would've mentioned those facts.
– Mark Amery
2 hours ago
@ASimpleAlgorithm Huh? What information do you imagine the asker here is missing, as a collaborator on the second paper who has access to its full (draft) text? I presume that if it were indeed an expanded version of the group's prior paper and explicitly framed itself in those terms, the OP wouldn't've asked this question in the first place, or at least would've mentioned those facts.
– Mark Amery
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
31
down vote
You do not need to make a fuss, or mention "plagiarism". All you need to do is to recommend adding a reference to the copied paper for each paragraph in question. That is a legitimate review comment, proposing an improvement in the draft paper.
answered yesterday
Patricia Shanahan
23.9k93970
9
Actually, not mentioning plagiarism is a failure to educate. People who haven't even heard of it (a lot, possibly, especially older researchers, as it is a fairly new concept of interest) need to know. If you give them a solution without the reason behind the solution they have no way to know what is expected these days. Make a bit of a fuss, at least.
– Buffy
23 hours ago
16
I don’t think this is sufficient. A copied paragraph should be enclosed in quotes, As a citation implies you used the ideas, not the exact words.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
6
@Dawn It depends at least somewhat on the sections in question. Especially methods paragraphs, there is little to no reason to change a perfectly cromulent statement just to be different from previous papers. There may only be one way to state what you did.
– Azor Ahai
19 hours ago
6
@AzorAhai In theoretical physics, there's always a bunch of non-novel information in terminology and definitions that needs to be (mathematically) precise and consistent. Modifying the text to gratify some aversion to "self-plagiarism" risks introducing errors for no real benefit. Omitting things with reference to a previous work is sometimes done but risks alienating readers; who wants to cross-reference definitions between papers? What if the reader doesn't even have access to that previous paper?
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
10
As far as I can see, you and your co-authors just need to make it clear that the material in question is copied from their earlier work. I think something along the lines of "The following description of our methodology is taken from [17]" or "Our methodology is the same as in [17], described there as follows" is adequate, without needing to also put quotation marks around the quoted description.
– Andreas Blass
11 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
20
down vote
I would say something like, “I’ve noticed some reviewers/journals reacting negatively to using text from previous work verbatim. Here, I have suggested a rewrite and citation to address that potential issue.†Then actually rewrite the paragraphs in question. If the original author was copying text, they were likely trying to write the paper quickly and would appreciate that you took the time.
answered 22 hours ago
Dawn
6,41111640
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
If the draft paper is addressing a new (though related to the previous work) research question, the background/introduction should be tailored to the new research question/objective, and as such needs to be original based on citation of a set of related previous works. However, the methodology may, for the most part, be the same as the methodology of the previously published work. In that case, it is worth stating that the details of the methodology have been published previously and to cite reference to the previous work and provide in the present paper a brief and pertinent summary of the methods. As per this editorial,
"simply referencing the earlier paper" regarding the methodology may suffice, yet providing the pertinent aspects of the methods with referencing to the earlier paper may be more useful.
By and large, as per this article, if a new academic work involves some form of "text recycling" from a previous work, there is a need to clearly acknowledge that through reference citation. Besides, "...being somewhat lazy not to have attempted to rephrase/rethink previously written passages," seems worth avoiding (ibid).
However, when communicating with your collaborators about the need to avoid "self-plagiarism", you need to be wary (as pointed out by @Patricia Shanahan) not to tend to tell them that they have committed plagiarism but provide your inputs and forward your suggestions on how you feel the draft work can be improved.
answered yesterday
Ayalew A.
27615
6
A suggestion is to simply comment on it as if you already assumed they would (of course!) be fixing up those sections because they were at present verbatim copied from a prior paper. Under assumption that for a draft, they had put them there as placeholders for what type of information needed to go in those sections.
– Carol
23 hours ago
1
Great advice, especially on how to deal with the methods piece.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It's common to reuse text in a draft, especially when after all it will likely be similar whether it is rewritten from scratch or copied. I don't think it's a good approach because it affects the flow of the text, but I wouldn't mention it to the collaborator, I would just try to edit it into the same style.
answered 1 hour ago
Caharpuka
162
New contributor
Caharpuka is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
31
down vote
You do not need to make a fuss, or mention "plagiarism". All you need to do is to recommend adding a reference to the copied paper for each paragraph in question. That is a legitimate review comment, proposing an improvement in the draft paper.
answered yesterday
Patricia Shanahan
23.9k93970
9
Actually, not mentioning plagiarism is a failure to educate. People who haven't even heard of it (a lot, possibly, especially older researchers, as it is a fairly new concept of interest) need to know. If you give them a solution without the reason behind the solution they have no way to know what is expected these days. Make a bit of a fuss, at least.
– Buffy
23 hours ago
16
I don’t think this is sufficient. A copied paragraph should be enclosed in quotes, As a citation implies you used the ideas, not the exact words.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
6
@Dawn It depends at least somewhat on the sections in question. Especially methods paragraphs, there is little to no reason to change a perfectly cromulent statement just to be different from previous papers. There may only be one way to state what you did.
– Azor Ahai
19 hours ago
6
@AzorAhai In theoretical physics, there's always a bunch of non-novel information in terminology and definitions that needs to be (mathematically) precise and consistent. Modifying the text to gratify some aversion to "self-plagiarism" risks introducing errors for no real benefit. Omitting things with reference to a previous work is sometimes done but risks alienating readers; who wants to cross-reference definitions between papers? What if the reader doesn't even have access to that previous paper?
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
10
As far as I can see, you and your co-authors just need to make it clear that the material in question is copied from their earlier work. I think something along the lines of "The following description of our methodology is taken from [17]" or "Our methodology is the same as in [17], described there as follows" is adequate, without needing to also put quotation marks around the quoted description.
– Andreas Blass
11 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
31
down vote
You do not need to make a fuss, or mention "plagiarism". All you need to do is to recommend adding a reference to the copied paper for each paragraph in question. That is a legitimate review comment, proposing an improvement in the draft paper.
answered yesterday
Patricia Shanahan
23.9k93970
9
Actually, not mentioning plagiarism is a failure to educate. People who haven't even heard of it (a lot, possibly, especially older researchers, as it is a fairly new concept of interest) need to know. If you give them a solution without the reason behind the solution they have no way to know what is expected these days. Make a bit of a fuss, at least.
– Buffy
23 hours ago
16
I don’t think this is sufficient. A copied paragraph should be enclosed in quotes, As a citation implies you used the ideas, not the exact words.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
6
@Dawn It depends at least somewhat on the sections in question. Especially methods paragraphs, there is little to no reason to change a perfectly cromulent statement just to be different from previous papers. There may only be one way to state what you did.
– Azor Ahai
19 hours ago
6
@AzorAhai In theoretical physics, there's always a bunch of non-novel information in terminology and definitions that needs to be (mathematically) precise and consistent. Modifying the text to gratify some aversion to "self-plagiarism" risks introducing errors for no real benefit. Omitting things with reference to a previous work is sometimes done but risks alienating readers; who wants to cross-reference definitions between papers? What if the reader doesn't even have access to that previous paper?
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
10
As far as I can see, you and your co-authors just need to make it clear that the material in question is copied from their earlier work. I think something along the lines of "The following description of our methodology is taken from [17]" or "Our methodology is the same as in [17], described there as follows" is adequate, without needing to also put quotation marks around the quoted description.
– Andreas Blass
11 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
31
down vote
up vote
31
down vote
You do not need to make a fuss, or mention "plagiarism". All you need to do is to recommend adding a reference to the copied paper for each paragraph in question. That is a legitimate review comment, proposing an improvement in the draft paper.
answered yesterday
Patricia Shanahan
23.9k93970
You do not need to make a fuss, or mention "plagiarism". All you need to do is to recommend adding a reference to the copied paper for each paragraph in question. That is a legitimate review comment, proposing an improvement in the draft paper.
answered yesterday
Patricia Shanahan
23.9k93970
answered yesterday
Patricia Shanahan
23.9k93970
answered yesterday
Patricia Shanahan
23.9k93970
answered yesterday
Patricia Shanahan
23.9k93970
23.9k93970
9
Actually, not mentioning plagiarism is a failure to educate. People who haven't even heard of it (a lot, possibly, especially older researchers, as it is a fairly new concept of interest) need to know. If you give them a solution without the reason behind the solution they have no way to know what is expected these days. Make a bit of a fuss, at least.
– Buffy
23 hours ago
16
I don’t think this is sufficient. A copied paragraph should be enclosed in quotes, As a citation implies you used the ideas, not the exact words.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
6
@Dawn It depends at least somewhat on the sections in question. Especially methods paragraphs, there is little to no reason to change a perfectly cromulent statement just to be different from previous papers. There may only be one way to state what you did.
– Azor Ahai
19 hours ago
6
@AzorAhai In theoretical physics, there's always a bunch of non-novel information in terminology and definitions that needs to be (mathematically) precise and consistent. Modifying the text to gratify some aversion to "self-plagiarism" risks introducing errors for no real benefit. Omitting things with reference to a previous work is sometimes done but risks alienating readers; who wants to cross-reference definitions between papers? What if the reader doesn't even have access to that previous paper?
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
10
As far as I can see, you and your co-authors just need to make it clear that the material in question is copied from their earlier work. I think something along the lines of "The following description of our methodology is taken from [17]" or "Our methodology is the same as in [17], described there as follows" is adequate, without needing to also put quotation marks around the quoted description.
– Andreas Blass
11 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
9
Actually, not mentioning plagiarism is a failure to educate. People who haven't even heard of it (a lot, possibly, especially older researchers, as it is a fairly new concept of interest) need to know. If you give them a solution without the reason behind the solution they have no way to know what is expected these days. Make a bit of a fuss, at least.
– Buffy
23 hours ago
16
I don’t think this is sufficient. A copied paragraph should be enclosed in quotes, As a citation implies you used the ideas, not the exact words.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
6
@Dawn It depends at least somewhat on the sections in question. Especially methods paragraphs, there is little to no reason to change a perfectly cromulent statement just to be different from previous papers. There may only be one way to state what you did.
– Azor Ahai
19 hours ago
6
@AzorAhai In theoretical physics, there's always a bunch of non-novel information in terminology and definitions that needs to be (mathematically) precise and consistent. Modifying the text to gratify some aversion to "self-plagiarism" risks introducing errors for no real benefit. Omitting things with reference to a previous work is sometimes done but risks alienating readers; who wants to cross-reference definitions between papers? What if the reader doesn't even have access to that previous paper?
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
10
As far as I can see, you and your co-authors just need to make it clear that the material in question is copied from their earlier work. I think something along the lines of "The following description of our methodology is taken from [17]" or "Our methodology is the same as in [17], described there as follows" is adequate, without needing to also put quotation marks around the quoted description.
– Andreas Blass
11 hours ago
9
9
Actually, not mentioning plagiarism is a failure to educate. People who haven't even heard of it (a lot, possibly, especially older researchers, as it is a fairly new concept of interest) need to know. If you give them a solution without the reason behind the solution they have no way to know what is expected these days. Make a bit of a fuss, at least.
– Buffy
23 hours ago
Actually, not mentioning plagiarism is a failure to educate. People who haven't even heard of it (a lot, possibly, especially older researchers, as it is a fairly new concept of interest) need to know. If you give them a solution without the reason behind the solution they have no way to know what is expected these days. Make a bit of a fuss, at least.
– Buffy
23 hours ago
16
16
I don’t think this is sufficient. A copied paragraph should be enclosed in quotes, As a citation implies you used the ideas, not the exact words.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
I don’t think this is sufficient. A copied paragraph should be enclosed in quotes, As a citation implies you used the ideas, not the exact words.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
6
6
@Dawn It depends at least somewhat on the sections in question. Especially methods paragraphs, there is little to no reason to change a perfectly cromulent statement just to be different from previous papers. There may only be one way to state what you did.
– Azor Ahai
19 hours ago
@Dawn It depends at least somewhat on the sections in question. Especially methods paragraphs, there is little to no reason to change a perfectly cromulent statement just to be different from previous papers. There may only be one way to state what you did.
– Azor Ahai
19 hours ago
6
6
@AzorAhai In theoretical physics, there's always a bunch of non-novel information in terminology and definitions that needs to be (mathematically) precise and consistent. Modifying the text to gratify some aversion to "self-plagiarism" risks introducing errors for no real benefit. Omitting things with reference to a previous work is sometimes done but risks alienating readers; who wants to cross-reference definitions between papers? What if the reader doesn't even have access to that previous paper?
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
@AzorAhai In theoretical physics, there's always a bunch of non-novel information in terminology and definitions that needs to be (mathematically) precise and consistent. Modifying the text to gratify some aversion to "self-plagiarism" risks introducing errors for no real benefit. Omitting things with reference to a previous work is sometimes done but risks alienating readers; who wants to cross-reference definitions between papers? What if the reader doesn't even have access to that previous paper?
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
10
10
As far as I can see, you and your co-authors just need to make it clear that the material in question is copied from their earlier work. I think something along the lines of "The following description of our methodology is taken from [17]" or "Our methodology is the same as in [17], described there as follows" is adequate, without needing to also put quotation marks around the quoted description.
– Andreas Blass
11 hours ago
As far as I can see, you and your co-authors just need to make it clear that the material in question is copied from their earlier work. I think something along the lines of "The following description of our methodology is taken from [17]" or "Our methodology is the same as in [17], described there as follows" is adequate, without needing to also put quotation marks around the quoted description.
– Andreas Blass
11 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
20
down vote
I would say something like, “I’ve noticed some reviewers/journals reacting negatively to using text from previous work verbatim. Here, I have suggested a rewrite and citation to address that potential issue.†Then actually rewrite the paragraphs in question. If the original author was copying text, they were likely trying to write the paper quickly and would appreciate that you took the time.
answered 22 hours ago
Dawn
6,41111640
add a comment |Â
up vote
20
down vote
I would say something like, “I’ve noticed some reviewers/journals reacting negatively to using text from previous work verbatim. Here, I have suggested a rewrite and citation to address that potential issue.†Then actually rewrite the paragraphs in question. If the original author was copying text, they were likely trying to write the paper quickly and would appreciate that you took the time.
answered 22 hours ago
Dawn
6,41111640
add a comment |Â
up vote
20
down vote
up vote
20
down vote
I would say something like, “I’ve noticed some reviewers/journals reacting negatively to using text from previous work verbatim. Here, I have suggested a rewrite and citation to address that potential issue.†Then actually rewrite the paragraphs in question. If the original author was copying text, they were likely trying to write the paper quickly and would appreciate that you took the time.
answered 22 hours ago
Dawn
6,41111640
I would say something like, “I’ve noticed some reviewers/journals reacting negatively to using text from previous work verbatim. Here, I have suggested a rewrite and citation to address that potential issue.†Then actually rewrite the paragraphs in question. If the original author was copying text, they were likely trying to write the paper quickly and would appreciate that you took the time.
answered 22 hours ago
Dawn
6,41111640
answered 22 hours ago
Dawn
6,41111640
answered 22 hours ago
Dawn
6,41111640
answered 22 hours ago
Dawn
6,41111640
6,41111640
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
If the draft paper is addressing a new (though related to the previous work) research question, the background/introduction should be tailored to the new research question/objective, and as such needs to be original based on citation of a set of related previous works. However, the methodology may, for the most part, be the same as the methodology of the previously published work. In that case, it is worth stating that the details of the methodology have been published previously and to cite reference to the previous work and provide in the present paper a brief and pertinent summary of the methods. As per this editorial,
"simply referencing the earlier paper" regarding the methodology may suffice, yet providing the pertinent aspects of the methods with referencing to the earlier paper may be more useful.
By and large, as per this article, if a new academic work involves some form of "text recycling" from a previous work, there is a need to clearly acknowledge that through reference citation. Besides, "...being somewhat lazy not to have attempted to rephrase/rethink previously written passages," seems worth avoiding (ibid).
However, when communicating with your collaborators about the need to avoid "self-plagiarism", you need to be wary (as pointed out by @Patricia Shanahan) not to tend to tell them that they have committed plagiarism but provide your inputs and forward your suggestions on how you feel the draft work can be improved.
answered yesterday
Ayalew A.
27615
6
A suggestion is to simply comment on it as if you already assumed they would (of course!) be fixing up those sections because they were at present verbatim copied from a prior paper. Under assumption that for a draft, they had put them there as placeholders for what type of information needed to go in those sections.
– Carol
23 hours ago
1
Great advice, especially on how to deal with the methods piece.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
If the draft paper is addressing a new (though related to the previous work) research question, the background/introduction should be tailored to the new research question/objective, and as such needs to be original based on citation of a set of related previous works. However, the methodology may, for the most part, be the same as the methodology of the previously published work. In that case, it is worth stating that the details of the methodology have been published previously and to cite reference to the previous work and provide in the present paper a brief and pertinent summary of the methods. As per this editorial,
"simply referencing the earlier paper" regarding the methodology may suffice, yet providing the pertinent aspects of the methods with referencing to the earlier paper may be more useful.
By and large, as per this article, if a new academic work involves some form of "text recycling" from a previous work, there is a need to clearly acknowledge that through reference citation. Besides, "...being somewhat lazy not to have attempted to rephrase/rethink previously written passages," seems worth avoiding (ibid).
However, when communicating with your collaborators about the need to avoid "self-plagiarism", you need to be wary (as pointed out by @Patricia Shanahan) not to tend to tell them that they have committed plagiarism but provide your inputs and forward your suggestions on how you feel the draft work can be improved.
answered yesterday
Ayalew A.
27615
6
A suggestion is to simply comment on it as if you already assumed they would (of course!) be fixing up those sections because they were at present verbatim copied from a prior paper. Under assumption that for a draft, they had put them there as placeholders for what type of information needed to go in those sections.
– Carol
23 hours ago
1
Great advice, especially on how to deal with the methods piece.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
If the draft paper is addressing a new (though related to the previous work) research question, the background/introduction should be tailored to the new research question/objective, and as such needs to be original based on citation of a set of related previous works. However, the methodology may, for the most part, be the same as the methodology of the previously published work. In that case, it is worth stating that the details of the methodology have been published previously and to cite reference to the previous work and provide in the present paper a brief and pertinent summary of the methods. As per this editorial,
"simply referencing the earlier paper" regarding the methodology may suffice, yet providing the pertinent aspects of the methods with referencing to the earlier paper may be more useful.
By and large, as per this article, if a new academic work involves some form of "text recycling" from a previous work, there is a need to clearly acknowledge that through reference citation. Besides, "...being somewhat lazy not to have attempted to rephrase/rethink previously written passages," seems worth avoiding (ibid).
However, when communicating with your collaborators about the need to avoid "self-plagiarism", you need to be wary (as pointed out by @Patricia Shanahan) not to tend to tell them that they have committed plagiarism but provide your inputs and forward your suggestions on how you feel the draft work can be improved.
answered yesterday
Ayalew A.
27615
If the draft paper is addressing a new (though related to the previous work) research question, the background/introduction should be tailored to the new research question/objective, and as such needs to be original based on citation of a set of related previous works. However, the methodology may, for the most part, be the same as the methodology of the previously published work. In that case, it is worth stating that the details of the methodology have been published previously and to cite reference to the previous work and provide in the present paper a brief and pertinent summary of the methods. As per this editorial,
"simply referencing the earlier paper" regarding the methodology may suffice, yet providing the pertinent aspects of the methods with referencing to the earlier paper may be more useful.
By and large, as per this article, if a new academic work involves some form of "text recycling" from a previous work, there is a need to clearly acknowledge that through reference citation. Besides, "...being somewhat lazy not to have attempted to rephrase/rethink previously written passages," seems worth avoiding (ibid).
However, when communicating with your collaborators about the need to avoid "self-plagiarism", you need to be wary (as pointed out by @Patricia Shanahan) not to tend to tell them that they have committed plagiarism but provide your inputs and forward your suggestions on how you feel the draft work can be improved.
answered yesterday
Ayalew A.
27615
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Ayalew A.
27615
answered yesterday
Ayalew A.
27615
answered yesterday
Ayalew A.
27615
27615
6
A suggestion is to simply comment on it as if you already assumed they would (of course!) be fixing up those sections because they were at present verbatim copied from a prior paper. Under assumption that for a draft, they had put them there as placeholders for what type of information needed to go in those sections.
– Carol
23 hours ago
1
Great advice, especially on how to deal with the methods piece.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
add a comment |Â
6
A suggestion is to simply comment on it as if you already assumed they would (of course!) be fixing up those sections because they were at present verbatim copied from a prior paper. Under assumption that for a draft, they had put them there as placeholders for what type of information needed to go in those sections.
– Carol
23 hours ago
1
Great advice, especially on how to deal with the methods piece.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
6
6
A suggestion is to simply comment on it as if you already assumed they would (of course!) be fixing up those sections because they were at present verbatim copied from a prior paper. Under assumption that for a draft, they had put them there as placeholders for what type of information needed to go in those sections.
– Carol
23 hours ago
A suggestion is to simply comment on it as if you already assumed they would (of course!) be fixing up those sections because they were at present verbatim copied from a prior paper. Under assumption that for a draft, they had put them there as placeholders for what type of information needed to go in those sections.
– Carol
23 hours ago
1
1
Great advice, especially on how to deal with the methods piece.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
Great advice, especially on how to deal with the methods piece.
– Dawn
22 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It's common to reuse text in a draft, especially when after all it will likely be similar whether it is rewritten from scratch or copied. I don't think it's a good approach because it affects the flow of the text, but I wouldn't mention it to the collaborator, I would just try to edit it into the same style.
answered 1 hour ago
Caharpuka
162
New contributor
Caharpuka is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It's common to reuse text in a draft, especially when after all it will likely be similar whether it is rewritten from scratch or copied. I don't think it's a good approach because it affects the flow of the text, but I wouldn't mention it to the collaborator, I would just try to edit it into the same style.
answered 1 hour ago
Caharpuka
162
New contributor
Caharpuka is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
It's common to reuse text in a draft, especially when after all it will likely be similar whether it is rewritten from scratch or copied. I don't think it's a good approach because it affects the flow of the text, but I wouldn't mention it to the collaborator, I would just try to edit it into the same style.
answered 1 hour ago
Caharpuka
162
New contributor
Caharpuka is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It's common to reuse text in a draft, especially when after all it will likely be similar whether it is rewritten from scratch or copied. I don't think it's a good approach because it affects the flow of the text, but I wouldn't mention it to the collaborator, I would just try to edit it into the same style.
answered 1 hour ago
Caharpuka
162
New contributor
Caharpuka is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
Caharpuka
162
New contributor
Caharpuka is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
Caharpuka
162
answered 1 hour ago
Caharpuka
162
162
New contributor
Caharpuka is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Caharpuka is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Caharpuka is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f116778%2fcollaborator-has-shared-a-draft-paper-with-a-significant-amount-of-self-plagiari%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
7
Not everyone knows that self plagiarism is an issue, so for many it is very natural to just copy from previous work. However, you should certainly mention the issue to them and recommend that everything be properly cited. Publishing the paper as is could bring comments, even condemnation, from readers and reviewers.
– Buffy
yesterday
If the review is double blind (some are in my field) it might simply come across as straight plagiarism.
– Pam
15 hours ago
Journals nowadays run automated checking so they can be the ones to deal with it. Also, if it's an expanded version of a prior paper, and their subsequent paper will have a note of this, what they are doing is perfectly acceptable. So you don't know enough to decide yet.
– A Simple Algorithm
15 hours ago
@ASimpleAlgorithm Huh? What information do you imagine the asker here is missing, as a collaborator on the second paper who has access to its full (draft) text? I presume that if it were indeed an expanded version of the group's prior paper and explicitly framed itself in those terms, the OP wouldn't've asked this question in the first place, or at least would've mentioned those facts.
– Mark Amery
2 hours ago