IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v123y2020i1d10.1007_s11192-020-03373-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-plagiarism in academic journal articles: from the perspectives of international editors-in-chief in editorial and COPE case

Author

Listed:
  • Wen-Yau Cathy Lin

    (Tamkang University)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Wen-Yau Cathy Lin, 2020. "Self-plagiarism in academic journal articles: from the perspectives of international editors-in-chief in editorial and COPE case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 299-319, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:123:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03373-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03373-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03373-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03373-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Self‐plagiarism: An odious oxymoron," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(5), pages 873-873, May.
    2. Antonio García-Romero & José Manuel Estrada-Lorenzo, 2014. "A bibliometric analysis of plagiarism and self-plagiarism through Déjà vu," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 381-396, October.
    3. Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Self-plagiarism: An odious oxymoron," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(5), pages 873-873, May.
    4. Horbach, S.P.J.M.(Serge) & Halffman, W.(Willem), 2019. "The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 492-502.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chekhovich, Yury V. & Khazov, Andrey V., 2022. "Analysis of duplicated publications in Russian journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    2. Mona Farouk Ali, 2021. "Attitudes towards plagiarism among faculty members in Egypt: a cross-sectional study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3535-3547, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simplice A. Asongu, 2021. "The Effects of Mobile Phone Technology, Knowledge Creation and Diffusion on Inclusive Human Development in Sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(3), pages 1367-1398, September.
    2. Pfeil, Katharina & Necker, Sarah & Feld, Lars P., 2023. "Compliance management in research institutes: Boon or bane?," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 23/1, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    3. Tove Faber Frandsen & Mette Brandt Eriksen & David Mortan Grøne Hammer & Janne Buck Christensen, 2019. "Fragmented publishing: a large-scale study of health science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1729-1743, June.
    4. Qin Zhang & Juneman Abraham & Hui-Zhen Fu, 2020. "Collaboration and its influence on retraction based on retracted publications during 1978–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 213-232, October.
    5. Tingting Zhang & Baozhen Lee & Qinghua Zhu, 2019. "Semantic measure of plagiarism using a hierarchical graph model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 209-239, October.
    6. Anna Abalkina & Alexander Libman, 2020. "The real costs of plagiarism: Russian governors, plagiarized PhD theses, and infrastructure in Russian regions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2793-2820, December.
    7. Diego Raphael Amancio, 2015. "Comparing the topological properties of real and artificially generated scientific manuscripts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1763-1779, December.
    8. Qin Zhang & Hui-Zhen Fu, 2022. "Productivity patterns, collaboration and scientific careers of authors with retracted publications in clinical medicine," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1883-1901, April.
    9. Mohan, Vijay, 2019. "On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:123:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03373-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.