| Title |
Self-Plagiarism in Academic Publishing: The Anatomy of a Misnomer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-012-9416-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Liviu Andreescu |
| Abstract |
The paper discusses self-plagiarism and associated practices in scholarly publishing. It approaches at some length the conceptual issues raised by the notion of self-plagiarism. It distinguishes among and then examines the main families of arguments against self-plagiarism, as well as the question of possibly legitimate reasons to engage in this practice. It concludes that some of the animus frequently reserved for self-plagiarism may be the result of, among others, poor choice of a label, unwarranted generalizations as to its ill effects based on the specific experience (and goals) of particular disciplines, and widespread but not necessarily beneficial publishing practices. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 21% |
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Librarian | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 24% |
| Unknown | 19 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 25 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 14 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 21% |
| Unknown | 25 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,033,051
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#406
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,518
of 282,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,535 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.