Checking for plagiarism........duplicate publication.....and text recycling
I applaud The Lancet’s plan to use a service to determine whether a submitted paper has been plagiarised from another author or is a duplicate of a previously or simultaneously published paper by
the same author (Jan 22, p 281).1 Having said this, I do not agree with the editors on the issue of “selfplagiarism”. I have published several scientific books, more than 80 chapters, and over 430 original articles, and I firmly believe that we authors have three responsibilities to our readers: (1) to provide scientifically valid inform ation, (2) to provide the newest information possible, and (3) to provide prose that is not copied from another author’s work. On the other hand, if I publish an original paper in a journal and am then asked to provide a review article on the same subject for another journal or book, I should have the right to use my original words and sentences verbatim as long as the subject
matter remains valid and up-todate and as long as I reference any and all previous work from which
the sentences and paragraphs have been taken. In my opinion, neither the publisher nor the reader is entitled to a reworking of the prose. Thus, in many settings, “text recycling” is neither inappropriate nor evidence of misconduct.
I declare that I have no confl icts of interest.
1 Kleinert S, on behalf of the editors of all
Lancet journals. Checking for plagiarism,
duplicate publication, and text recycling.
Lancet 2011; 377: 281–82.
I applaud The Lancet’s plan to use a service to determine whether a submitted paper has been plagiarised from another author or is a duplicate of a previously or simultaneously published paper by
the same author (Jan 22, p 281).1 Having said this, I do not agree with the editors on the issue of “selfplagiarism”. I have published several scientific books, more than 80 chapters, and over 430 original articles, and I firmly believe that we authors have three responsibilities to our readers: (1) to provide scientifically valid inform ation, (2) to provide the newest information possible, and (3) to provide prose that is not copied from another author’s work. On the other hand, if I publish an original paper in a journal and am then asked to provide a review article on the same subject for another journal or book, I should have the right to use my original words and sentences verbatim as long as the subject
matter remains valid and up-todate and as long as I reference any and all previous work from which
the sentences and paragraphs have been taken. In my opinion, neither the publisher nor the reader is entitled to a reworking of the prose. Thus, in many settings, “text recycling” is neither inappropriate nor evidence of misconduct.
I declare that I have no confl icts of interest.
Neil R Miller
nrmiller@jhmi.edu
*Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins
Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA; and
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta,
GA, USA1 Kleinert S, on behalf of the editors of all
Lancet journals. Checking for plagiarism,
duplicate publication, and text recycling.
Lancet 2011; 377: 281–82.
No comments:
Post a Comment