31–40 of 49 posts
Half the plagiarism violations are "self-plagiarism", which I assume means copying from your own previously published works. Hardly seems like such an ethical problem to copy from yourself except of course if you're paid by the word.
It's an ethical problem when you certify that you haven't done exactly that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I felt a little uneasy reading this in the article. I write CS conference papers that are all in the same area, so obviously, some of the background information (which is a pretty small part of the overall paper) is basically copied from paper to paper. And that part is the most polished. I don't feel uneasy because I'm doing anything remotely unethical---I'm not. I feel uneasy because it sounded a bit like the descr…
Is this an issue with conferences? My guess is that conferences would prefer to have interesting topics, and probably wouldn't care as much if the material was partially recycled. I have known people who presented early results of a study at one conference, and the final results at another. They were upfront about it, so it wasn't unethical, but I guess you could accuse them of resume padding. Personally, I would pre…
I can speak for Computer Science and the problem is "quid pro quo". Irrespective of what the conferences/journals say, reviews are NEVER blind and the people know each other in the community. No one "dares" to cross lines or report in fear of being censured.
Half the plagiarism violations are "self-plagiarism", which I assume means copying from your own previously published works. Hardly seems like such an ethical problem to copy from yourself except of course if you're paid by the word.
Half the plagiarism violations are "self-plagiarism", which I assume means copying from your own previously published works. Hardly seems like such an ethical problem to copy from yourself except of course if you're paid by the word.
It increases the amount of crap out there, plus it pads the CV
For fun, trying googling "It increases the amount of crap", and you will find that your very own post meets the academic definition of plagiarism. Both for containing a single plagiarised phrase and percentage wise (46% plagiarised!).
I've seen post grads spend weeks using software to look for identical phrases of 4 words in their final work and previous work and then slightly rephrasing a sentence to avoid duplication of a common phrase and the dreaded self-plagiarism. Then running the thing again and inevitably finding the new wording was a duplication as well. I couldn't see it as anything other than a colossal waste of time. If you are writing about the same topic it's inevitable that you will phrase things in the same way at times.
All of this does nothing to combat the CV padding you worry about because it only concerns reusing the same exact language, not talking about the same ideas over and over in different ways.
As an outsider it seems that academia has descended into a kind of madness about plagiarism and self plagiarism. I think this is largely thanks to software companies trying to sell their plagiarism detection systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure you can really write production quality code in a Ph.D., because that requires a production environment, which just isn't available in academia, and also because writing such code conflicts with research goals.
Sure you can. Plenty of 16 year olds have written say windows managers that thousands of people use -- that's production quality code. Your second argument is circular -- I'm saying a valid research goal should be to write solid and useful code, and then explain it. For example, you could write an OS kernel or kernel subsystem to fill some particular part of the design space. A great but rare example is what the auth…
Academia wants new ideas. Production (industry) generally revolves around making a new idea useful to a broad range of people, by which point it's an old idea. You can take something written in academia and put it into production, but if you do that in your Ph.D. it almost certainly isn't helping you to finish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an ethical problem when you certify that you haven't done exactly that.
It would also be bad if you get your Bachelor with one of the papers, the Master with the next and they are the same.
Half the plagiarism violations are "self-plagiarism", which I assume means copying from your own previously published works. Hardly seems like such an ethical problem to copy from yourself except of course if you're paid by the word.
Exactly. A research group will build an experimental setup and then do several experiments with it. In each paper you need to describe the experimental setup, so it makes sense to write that description once and use it in several papers while only changing the parts of the setup that you changed for the new experiment. Another case in which this often occurs is in the introduction. Each paper has a one or two paragra…
Either way, I agree with everyone else in this thread as well. The system of publish or perish is 1. dumb 2. old 3. not moving science forward. It's become more of a "I need xyz papers published this year" instead of "I'm curious about xyz and how it solves abc". That isn't science, it's a career/ego metric.
Good news is that there are groups (like myself, science exchange, figshare etc) who are working to fix that. It's a matter of time, but a social change to science is starting.