self plagiarism phd thesis

UCL Doctoral School

• Self-Plagiarism

Guidance on incorporating published work in your thesis

How you can include published work in your thesis and avoid self-plagiarism

Doctoral candidates who are worried about what they can include in their thesis can follow this guidance. It covers the inclusion of previously published papers and how to integrate them properly.

Publishing first, then submitting thesis for examination

If you've published before submitting your thesis:

• an appropriate citation of the original source in the relevant Chapter; and
• completing the UCL Research Paper Declaration form – this should be embedded after the Acknowledgments page in the thesis.
• Before using figures, table sheets, or parts of the text, find out from the editor of the journal if you transferred the copyrights when you submitted the paper.
• When in doubt, when you do not own copyright, get formal approval from copyright owners to re-use the material (this is frequently done for previously published data and figures to be included in a doctoral thesis; please see more information on the UCL Copyright advice website ).
• ensure the style matches that of the rest of the thesis, both in formatting and content,
• add additional information/context where beneficial, such as additional background/relevant literature, more detailed methods,
• offer additional data not included in the publication, such as preliminary data, null findings, anything included in supplementary materials.
• If you worked together with co-authors, your (and their) contributions to the publication should be specified in the UCL Research Paper Declaration form.

Examples of including previously published work in your thesis

After gaining approval from the copyright holder, you would be allowed to copy and paste sections from the published paper into your thesis.

You might make minor edits to the text to ensure that it fits the overall style of your thesis (e.g. changing “We” to “I”, where appropriate) and that it is written in your voice (see bullet point on ‘Initial drafts of papers’ below).

You might also incorporate additional text/figures/Tables that did not appear in the original publication.

Unacceptable

You cannot embed the unedited pdf of the published paper into your thesis.

You also cannot copy and paste the entire paper without making any attempt to match the style to the rest of the thesis.

Submitting thesis first (and the degree is successfully awarded) and published after

If your thesis is published first, then this must be declared to a journal publisher so that you can check with the editor about the acceptability of including part of your thesis.

You must make sure that you have cited the original source correctly (your thesis for example) and acknowledged yourself as author. Where possible, you could also provide a link.

This applies not just to reproducing your own material but also to ideas which you have previously published elsewhere.

Tips for reusing material in final thesis

We strongly recommend you write your upgrade document (and/or any progression documents) in the same style and format as you would your final thesis. This will help you plan the format of your final thesis early and you can then reuse as much of your upgrade material in your final thesis as makes sense.

Initial drafts of papers

We strongly recommend you keep your initial drafts of papers for use in your final thesis; this way it is written in your voice (not that of your supervisors, co-authors, or journal editor) and will be less likely to affect any copyright issues with the publisher. This does not mean you cannot incorporate supervisor corrections; however, all text should be written by you and not subject to vast rewriting/editing by others as is often the case with journal publications. You should still cite your published work where relevant.

Plan your thesis structure and project timings carefully from the start

This means considering thesis structure, time of upgrade/progression reviews, and, if appropriate, which chapters might be turned into publications and when.

Prioritise the thesis over any other priorities

Furthermore, as you approach the final months before your submission deadline (which you should check carefully with your supervisory team and funder as expectations may vary), we strongly encourage you to prioritise the thesis over any other conflicting priorities, e.g. internships, publications, etc…

Remember to follow these guidelines to ensure the appropriate use of published work in your doctoral thesis while avoiding self-plagiarism.

What is Self-Plagiarism

The UCL Academic Manual describes self-plagiarism as:

“The reproduction or resubmission of a student’s own work which has been submitted for assessment at UCL or any other institution. This does not include earlier formative drafts of the particular assessment, or instances where the department has explicitly permitted the re-use of formative assessments but does include all other formative work except where permitted.”

Read about this in more detail in Chapter 6, Section 9.2d of the UCL Academic Manual page .

How self-plagiarism applies to Doctoral Students

Re-use of material already used for a previous degree.

A research student commits self-plagiarism if they incorporate material (text, data, ideas) from a previous academic degree (e.g., Master's of Undergraduate) submission, whether at UCL or another institution, into their final these without explicit declaration.

Note on Upgrades

The upgrade report is not published nor is it used to confer a degree, and is therefore excluded from the above definition of “material”.

In effect, the upgrade report (and any other progression reviews) is a form of “thesis draft” owned by the student and we encourage the reuse of material in the upgrade report in the final thesis where relevant.

As a result, material written by yourself can be used both in publications and your final thesis, and the self-plagiarism rule does not apply here. However, since your final thesis will be ‘published’ online, there are several rules you must follow.

For additonal detail, visit the UCL Discovery web page .

Links to forms

UCL Research Paper Declaration Form for including published material in your thesis (to be embedded after the Acknowledgements page).

• Form in MS Word format (DOCX)
• Form in LaTeX format (TEX) , thanks to David Sheard, Dept of Mathematics
• Form in PDF preview (PDF)

Helpful resources

• Step-by-step guide and FAQs on publishing doctoral work
• Information about your own copyright
• Information on online copy of your thesis

• my research
• contributions and comments

recycling your thesis text – is it self plagiarism?

The term self-plagiarism is usually associated with re-using your own work, recycling slabs of material already published, cutting and pasting from one text to another, producing something which duplicates something that has already appeared elsewhere.

Self-plagiarism is not the same as stealing someone else’s work and passing it off as your own, that’s plagiarism. Nor is it the same as violating copyright – using other people’s text without permission, or even re-using your own work when the copyright has been signed over to someone else. We all know these practices are wrong, so if self plagiarism is like these, it must be too.

The idea of self-plagiarism is scary. We all know that plagiarists get punished if they are found out. They can be sacked, their work pulped or retracted. And universities and publishers are increasingly on the lookout for plagiarism, using automatic software to detect it. So the notion of plagiarising your own work carries with it the spectre of the surveillance and punishment.

But recycling your own work is more often discussed as an ethical question not a legal one. A question of deliberate deceit perhaps. Reuse of your own writing can be regarded as a form of ‘cheating’ – you’ve written something which is published and then you don’t do the hard work of writing something new, you take the easy way out by dragging and dropping the text you made earlier. You aren’t producing something new or original, this version of recycling goes, and to make things worse, you’re tricking the reader into thinking that the work is new. You’re double-dipping – writing without integrity. Some people even see such recycling of text as a form of academic fraud.

But the reuse situation isn’t that straightforward. There may well be circumstances where recycling doesn’t seem unethical, but sensible. Where it’s not simply a question of saving the effort of producing a new version of material.

Think of descriptions of research projects which appear in methods sections of journal articles and in books. It’s not just that there are only so many ways that you can present the same information about the one research project – it’s more that you actually want the way in which you report your project, and its design and processes, to be consistent across publications. Similarly, if you have developed a novel interpretation or heuristic or model which you then use as the basis of future work, you also want there to be a through line from the initial work to the latter. While some of this origin tracing can and should be done via citation, there may also be some common wording that you want to use, something longer than a quotation, perhaps something more like a big chunk of a chapter. Re-use is often key to iterative knowledge-building.

Duplicating thesis text, repurposing it for publication often bothers PhDers. Sometimes a lot. That’s understandable. The PhD is most often now a digital text and is a publication in its own right, but the PhD is also the basis for papers and perhaps a book. Let me explain the most common examples of re-use.

Publishing before the thesis and then reusing it in the thesis text. Publishing prior to the PhD being finalised is quite common and is often done as disciplinary convention, as reputational move and/or as a means of developing a line of argument for the thesis itself. This isn’t a huge issue.

In the PhD by publication, the papers are by definition part of the thesis text. They often appear in their final published form, which may be copyrighted to a journal, not the final author version. I am not aware than any publisher has taken issue with the practice of using the final copyrighted version. But they could I guess. In which case you’d use the final author version as is often now done in university repositories.

By contrast, in the monograph PhD, the text of a previously published paper is usually incorporated into the text and an acknowledgement made, either at the beginning of the text or when the text appears, that some of the material has been published elsewhere. There are however some disciplinary differences here about how acceptable this practice is, and it is always worth checking out rules and conventions with your supervisor and/or your university librarian.

Publishing after the thesis is completed and publicly available. The situation is a little different when the thesis becomes the basis for post-graduation publications. Here the question is how much you can cut and paste from the digital thesis into another, usually shorter, form. There is an a priori question of course about how much you should recycle given that the thesis is written for a different audience and a particular purpose. Most books of the PhD are actually very substantially rewritten. Put that issue aside for a moment. The question is how much should, and can you, re-use of the thesis? What are the risks and wrongs?

Theres a lot of rumour about cutting and pasting from your big book. Everyone seems to have heard of the publisher who refuses a book proposal on the grounds that it will be substantially the same as an e-thesis. However, there seems little actual evidence of this happening. A study by UCL librarians Brown and Sadler found no cases of this happening in the UK, although fears and worries about the possibility were rife particularly among PhDers and their supervisors. But…

Because no one is quite sure about recycling from the thesis you may get various forms of advice. If you want to re-use substantial thesis extracts for a book you may be advised to restrict access to your thesis for a period of time so that the new publication become the major source. Embargo to avoid problems. Or you may be advised to discuss the re-use of thesis material with the publisher if you are writing the-book-of-the-thesis. Or you may be encouraged to learn about open access so that you can have a conversation with an editor about the benefits of having both the thesis and a new book version of the work available at the same time.

Maybe you’re not writing a book but journal articles and book chapters. Reuse here is different. You aren’t very likely to be carrying over thesis literature work – too long. Your methods chapter will be too big. So we are probably talking about bits of what appears in your thesis as results and discussion. For example, there may be tables, graphs or diagrammes. There may be descriptions of participants or places. Most likely there are chunks of worked analyses that you want to cut and paste. Usually it seems to be enough to say in the text of the paper or chapter that the material is based on doctoral work, providing a citation to the thesis online. But there’s always the possibility of something more sinister happening. Again loads of urban myths here.

So is recycling a real problem? Are we just getting worked up over not very much? The first problem seems to be that we don’t even agree on what self plagiarism is, let alone whether it’s a serious issue or not.

My own view, which won’t be everyone’s, is that provided you recycle thesis material in ways that are acknowledged, then some re-use in journal papers and book chapters is not only acceptable but also sensible. After all, you slogged over these chunks for quite some time and worked hard on making them as good as you could. You may find of course when you revisit them that you do still want to tinker with the wording, or add a bit more/cut some things out. For me, the key thing is to own up to this re-use and not to try to hide it. As long as you make sure to check with the relevant editors and journal rules then transposing some text from a thesis or research report to book or journal seems to me to be quite in keeping with the spirit of scholarly publication ethics.

But, as always, do check this out. If in doubt who to ask, start with your university library.

And help may be at hand. Do look at this research project on text recycling which offers some very helpful guidelines for how to steer through murky re-use territory. One of the things the project suggests is doing away with the ambiguous term self plagiarism – Yes!!!- and adopting a more specific set of terms – see the note at the end of this post.

Recognising the reality of text re-use, the project’s guidelines for researchers say:

• Authors should recycle text where consistency of language is needed for accurate communication. This consistency can be especially important when describing methods and instrumentation that are common across studies. If the amount of recycled material is substantial, authors should determine whether permissions are needed (see Recycling Text Legally) and whether it is acceptable for the outlet (see Recycling Text Transparently).
• Authors may recycle text so long as the recycled material is accurate and appropriate for the new work and does not infringe copyright or violate publisher policies.
• Authors should be careful not to recycle text in ways that might mislead readers or editors about the novelty of the new work.

Sounds good to me. Can we all decide this is the way to go?

The Text Recycling Project is based at Duke University and is directed by Cary Moskowitz. It is primarily concerned with practices in STEM but is of much wider interest and application. The project has produced a number of scholarly papers on reuse .

A recent and open access paper written by Moskowitz proposes a new taxonomy for re-use – developmental recycling, generative recycling, adaptive publication and duplicate publication. The paper is open access and well worth reading. I for one will be adopting his terms.

Image by  Sigmund  on  Unsplash

Share this:

About pat thomson

4 responses to recycling your thesis text – is it self plagiarism.

Anonymous My supervisor hired me to write a paper with him and his wife and another academic and advised me to copy paragraphs from my thesis. When I questioned if I needed to cite my work he advised that it was standard practice and “as co-author it was my writing therefore it should not make a difference”. They’ve since dropped my name but the published paper still contains the paragraphs (and then some). Is this plagiarism?

I reckon it is, but I’m no authority on the finer legal points. I would contact the journal editor in chief of the journal, if that’s where it’s published,and tell them what has happened. You might also try your university library and or current employer or union for advice and support. If they agree it’s misuse of your work, they should help you to take action.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Search for:

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

patter on facebook

Recent Posts

• a musing on email signatures
• creativity and giving up on knowing it all
• white ants and research education
• Anticipation
• research as creative practice – possibility thinking
• research as – is – creative practice
• On MAL-attribution
• a brief word on academic mobility
• Key word – claim
• key words – contribution
• research key words – significance
• a thesis is not just a display

SEE MY CURATED POSTS ON WAKELET

Top posts & pages.

• aims and objectives - what's the difference?
• I can't find anything written on my topic... really?
• writing a bio-note
• writing the thesis – the theoretical framework
• headings and subheadings – it helps to be specific
• connecting chapters/chapter introductions
• avoiding the laundry list literature review
• connecting chapters/chapter conclusions
• concluding a paper
• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.com

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

What is self-plagiarism and what does it have to do with academic integrity?

Emerging trends series

By completing this form, you agree to Turnitin's Privacy Policy . Turnitin uses the information you provide to contact you with relevant information. You may unsubscribe from these communications at any time.

Self-plagiarism—sometimes known as “ duplicate plagiarism ”—is a term for when a writer recycles work for a different assignment or publication and represents it as new.

For students, this may involve recycling an essay or large portions of text written for a prior course and resubmitting it to fulfill a different assignment in a different course. For researchers, this involves recycling prior published work and submitting it for publication to another journal without quotes or citation or acknowledgment of the prior work. Duplicate plagiarism, or “Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals is widely considered unethical and would also likely constitute copyright infringement and violate the author-publisher contract of most journals” ( Moskowitz, 2021 ).

The broader act of recycling one’s own work in some areas like scientific research, which the Text Recycling Project expands upon, is more nuanced; in research, work is often cumulative and builds on prior research. In those cases, researchers may engage in developmental recycling, generative recycling, or adaptive publication to publish later work or revise the writing for a broader audience—all while citing prior publication ( Moskowitz, 2019 ).

Students who aren’t as familiar with this form of academic misconduct often don’t have a deeper understanding of academic integrity. Because they are reusing their own work, they may feel that this isn’t plagiarism or misconduct at all.

They may be stunned to find that they have, for instance, a higher similarity score when submitting to Turnitin, as it will match against a prior submission (their own). Students may then ask for that older paper to be deleted, not knowing they have engaged in duplicate plagiarism. In many cases, this is an opportunity to increase student understanding of academic integrity.

Academic integrity entails honesty and original work. But it also includes a deep understanding of the importance of citation and academic respect. Even if the paper is the student’s own, the work ought to be original for that particular assignment; duplicate plagiarism is a short-cut solution that hampers learning.

For researchers, duplicate plagiarism (wholesale republication of entire papers without citation) violates copyright and can affect the i mpact factor of both journals and researchers . A decrease in the impact factor detrimentally affects academic reputation and future publication possibilities.

While there are many instances of intentional duplicate plagiarism, most cases of self-plagiarism are unintentional and can be remedied with explicit instruction on the core principles of academic integrity, citation, and the prioritization of original work.

Many similarity check tools like iThenticate and Feedback Studio curtail self-plagiarism and also present learning opportunities to transform instances of plagiarism into teachable moments .

A more sophisticated understanding of academic integrity will help curtail self-plagiarism for both students and researchers. Researchers can mitigate the consequences of duplicate plagiarism by citing their previously published work. Having a deeper understanding of academic integrity avoids embarrassment and upholds learning as well as academic reputations.

Furthermore, designing assessments specific to your classroom can also help curtail self-plagiarism; when essay prompts are tailored to your classroom discussion, prior student work will likely not be relevant and be avoided.

We hope this post helps you on your academic integrity journey.

Teaching and Research guides

Research integrity.

• Introduction
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge
• Generative artificial intelligence
• Intellectual property, copyright and moral rights

What is plagiarism?

What is self-plagiarism, referencing and citation, ithenticate.

• Responsible metrics
• Research data management
• Social media for researchers
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• Training, policies and resources
• Further help

Plagiarism is the unacknowledged use of source material including, but not limited to words, ideas, arguments, theories, and even the data of others. Plagiarism may occur when:

• other peoples' work is poorly acknowledged or mis-represented
• errors are unwittingly made in relation to the use of source material, e.g. mis-reporting a source or misattribution (attributing a source wrongly)

Plagiarism constitutes a breach of research integrity because it results in unfair credit or benefits. Research integrity includes the proper use of established conventions to acknowledge other researchers’ work but also extends to how a researcher uses or acknowledges their own work (i.e. self-plagiarism).

Researchers must ensure that they cite and acknowledge their own work and the work of others (whether published or unpublished) accurately and in accordance with the Code, [and] the conventions accepted within the relevant discipline or disciplines  (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2020, p. 5). While this is most applicable to published work, it is also considered best practice for spoken presentations (i.e. conferences/symposiums).

How to avoid plagiarism

Avoiding plagiarism involves developing good researcher habits for managing and organising notes and keeping track of your reading. It does mean that for researchers, proper use of source material needs to be front of mind from the early stages of research.

Good habits to develop to avoid plagiarism:

• Keep careful records of all sources used, ensuring FULL bibliographical details are recorded
• Avoid inadvertent copying, summarise the information in point form
• Use your own words, not the words of others

When citing sources:

• If you have used any source then cite it
• Using or adapting any images, graphs, or tables, may require permission (see the Library's  Copyright Guide )

National Health and Medical Research Council. (2020). Publication and dissemination of research: A guide supporting the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research  https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/attachments/publications/publication_and_dissemination_of_research_guide.pdf  Licensed under  CC BY 4.0

Self-plagiarism is the re-publication of one’s own previously published work (or part of it) without adequate acknowledgment of the source, or justification. It is sometimes referred to as duplicate publication or redundant publication.

Researchers may seek to publish the same research in more than one publication, such as an original journal article, followed by publication in book form and/or in anthologies, collections and translations. An author who submits substantially similar work to more than one publisher, or who submits work similar to work already published, must disclose this at the time of submission. Disclosure must also be included in the work itself to prevent any such re-use having the effect of portraying previously presented ideas or data as new  (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2020, p. 6).

How to avoid self-plagiarism

• If using your own previously published works/words, then provide clear citation details
• Obtain permission from the original publisher or copyright owner before republishing their own or others’ findings (legal requirements)

The RMIT Library has developed some sources to make referencing conventions easier for students and researchers alike.

• Easy Cite Referencing Tool How to quote, paraphrase and write citations in a selection of styles used at RMIT, including RMIT Harvard, APA, AGLC4, Vancouver, IEEE and Chicago A and B.
• Reference management tools Find out about time-saving tools, including EndNote, Zotero and Mendeley, that will help you manage references and bibliographies.

What is iThenticate?

iThenticate – checks text-similarity in research outputs including draft manuscripts, journal articles, book chapters, and books, and draft theses prior to publication and/or HDR examination. It protects intellectual property while allowing researchers to identify potential errors in citation and attribution.

• Access iThenticate

Help using iThenticate

The  iThenticate website  has a suite of information, including the  iThenticate Quick Start Guide  to download.

• << Previous: Intellectual property, copyright and moral rights
• Next: Responsible metrics >>

• Last Updated: May 13, 2024 7:35 AM
• URL: https://rmit.libguides.com/researchintegrity

Advertisement

Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

• Published: 16 June 2018
• Volume 49 , pages 285–311, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Sarah Elaine Eaton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0607-6287 1 &
• Katherine Crossman 1  

1349 Accesses

9 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Self-plagiarism is a contentious issue in higher education, research and scholarly publishing contexts. The practice is problematic because it disrupts scientific publishing by over-emphasizing results, increasing journal publication costs, and artificially inflating journal impact, among other consequences. We hypothesized that there was a dearth of empirical studies on the topic of self-plagiarism, with an over-abundance of editorial and commentary articles based on anecdotal evidence. The research question was: What typologies of evidence characterize the literature on self-plagiarism in scholarly and research journals? We conducted a scoping review, using the search terms “self-plagiarism” and “self-plagiarism” (hyphenated), consulting five social sciences research databases, supplemented by a manual search for articles, resulting in over 5900 results. After removing duplicates and excluding non-scholarly sources, we arrived at a data set of 133 sources, with publication dates ranging from 1968 to 2017. With an interrater reliability of over 93% between two researchers, our typological analysis revealed 47 sources (34.3%) were editorials; 41 (29.9%) were conceptual research (including teaching cases); 16 (11.7%) were editorial responses; 12 (8.6%) were secondary research; and only 8 sources (5.8%) were primary research. There is little guidance in the available literature to graduate students or their professors about how to disentangle the complexities of self-plagiarism. With primary and secondary research combined accounting for 14.4% of overall contributions to the data set, and primary research constituting only 6% of overall contributions, we conclude with a call for more empirical evidence on the topic to support contributions to the scholarly dialogue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Plagiarism in Philosophy Research

A bibliometric analysis of plagiarism and self-plagiarism through déjà vu.

Ideas About Plagiarism and Self-plagiarism with University Professors and Researchers: A Case Study with WebQDA

Data availability.

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework repository, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UDVMK .

Adhikari, N. (2010). Avoiding plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Journal of Nepal Paediatric Society, 30 (2), 77–78.

Google Scholar  

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the american psychological association (6th ed.). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.

Amos, K. A. (2014). The ethics of scholarly publishing: Exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 102, 87. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.2.005 .

Anderson, S., Allen, P., Peckham, S., & Goodwin, N. (2008). Asking the right questions: Scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems, 6 (7), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-6-7 .

Andreescu, L. (2013). Self-plagiarism in academic publishing: The anatomy of a misnomer. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 (3), 775–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9416-1 .

Anesa, P. (2014). Avoiding plagiarism and self-plagiarism through the use of corpora. In C. Desoutter, D. Heller, & M. Sala (Eds.), Corpora in specialized communication (pp. 55–74). Bergamo, Italy: University of Bergamo.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 .

Arumugam, A., & Aldhafiri, F. K. (2016). A researcher’s ethical dilemma: Is self-plagiarism a condemnable practice or not? Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 32 (6), 427–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2016.1185894 .

Baggs, J. G. (2008). Issues and rules for authors concerning authorship versus acknowledgements, dual publication, self plagiarism, and salami publishing. Research in Nursing & Health, 31 (4), 295–297.

Baserga, R. (2011). Self-plagiarism in music and science. Nature, 479, 36.

Berlin, L. (2009). Plagiarism, salami slicing, and Lobachevsky. Skeletal Radiology, 38, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-008-0599-0 .

Berquist, T. H. (2013a). Self-plagiarism: A growing problem in biomedical publication! American Journal of Roentgenology . https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.12.10327 .

Berquist, T. H. (2013b). Self-plagiarism: Another reminder to authors. American Journal of Roentgenology, 201 (5), 939–939. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11723 .

Bird, S. J. (2002). Self-plagiarism and dual and redundant publications: What is the problem? Science and Engineering Ethics, 8 (4), 543–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0007-4 .

Bird, S. B., & Sivilotti, M. L. A. (2008). Self-plagiarism, recycling fraud, and the intent to mislead. Journal of Medical Toxicology, 4, 69.

Bonnell, D. A., Hafner, J. H., Hersam, M. C., Hersam, M. C., Kotov, N. A., Buriak, J. M., et al. (2012). Recycling is not always good: The dangers of self-plagiarism. ACS Nano, 6 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn3000912 .

Bretag, T., & Carapiet, S. (2007). A preliminary study to identify the extent of self-plagiarism in Australian academic research. In T. Bretag & S. Carapiet (Eds.), Plagiary: Cross-disciplinary studies in plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification (pp. 92–103). Ann Arbor, MI: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library.

Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2009). Self-plagiarism or appropriate textual re-use? Journal of Academic Ethics, 7 (3), 193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-009-9092-1 .

Broad, W. J. (1981). The publishing game: Getting more for less. Science, 211 (4487), 1137–1139. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7008199 .

Broome, M. E. (2004). Self-plagiarism: Oxymoron, fair use, or scientific misconduct? Nursing Outlook, 52 (6), 273–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2004.10.001 .

Brown-Syed, C. (2010). Did I say that? Thoughts on self plagiarism. Library & Archival Security, 23 (2), 137–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/01960071003609945 .

Bruton, S. V. (2014). Self-plagiarism and textual recycling: Legitimate forms of research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 21 (3), 176–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.848071 .

Bruton, S. V., & Rachal, J. R. (2015). Education journal editors’ perspectives on self-plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13 (1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9224-0 .

Callahan, J. L. (2014). Creation of a moral panic? Self-plagiarism in the academy. Human Resource Development Review, 13 (1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484313519063 .

Chalmers, I. (2009). Intentional self-plagiarism. The Lancet, 374 (9699), 1422. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61864-X .

Cheung, M., & Driver, D. C. (2004). Self-plagiarism as a social work concern. The Hong Kong Journal of Social Work, 38 (01n02), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219246204000026 .

Chrousos, G. P., Kalantaridou, S. N., Margioris, A. N., & Gravanis, A. (2012). The ‘self-plagiarism’ oxymoron: Can one steal from oneself? European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 42 (3), 231–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2362.2012.02645.x .

Clarke, R. (2009). Journal self-citation XIX: Self-plagiarism and self-citation—a practical guide based on underlying principles. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25, 155–164.

Collberg, C., & Kobourov, S. (2005). Self-plagiarism in computer science. Communication of the ACM, 48 (4), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1145/1053291.1053293 .

Collberg, C., Kobourov, S., Louie, J., & Slattery, T. (2003a). SPLAT: A system for self-plagiarism detection. In Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet 2003 , Algarve, Portugal.

Collberg, C., Kobourov, S., Louie, J., & Slattery, T. (2003b). A study of self-plagiarism in computer science. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240739140_A_Study_of_Self-Plagiarism_in_Computer_Science .

Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O’Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., et al. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67 (12), 1291–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013 .

Cowell, J. M. (2017). Publication ethics: Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication and piecemeal publication. The Journal of School Nursing, 33 (1), 7–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840516685797 .

Cronin, B. (2013). Self-plagiarism: An odious oxymoron. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 64 (5), 873–873.

Culley, T. M. (2014). APPS’s stance on self-plagiarism: Just say no. Applications in Plant Sciences, 2 (7), 1400055. https://doi.org/10.3732/apps.1400055 .

Davis, K., Drey, N., & Gould, D. (2009). What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46 (10), 1386–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.02.010 .

de Vasconcelos, S. M. R., & Roig, M. (2015). Prior publication and redundancy in contemporary science: Are authors and editors at the crossroads? Science and Engineering Ethics, 21 (5), 1367–1378.

Dellavalle, R. P., Banks, M. A., & Ellis, J. I. (2007). Frequently asked questions regarding self-plagiarism: How to avoid recycling fraud. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 57 (3), 527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2007.05.018 .

Eaton, S. E. (2017). Comparative analysis of institutional policy definitions of plagiarism: A pan-Canadian university study. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, 48 (3), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-017-9300-7 .

Elbeck, M. (2009). Exploring the murky waters of self-plagiarism. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 14, 41–51.

Errami, M., & Garner, H. (2008). A tale of two citations. Nature, 451 (7177), 397–399.

Errami, M., Hicks, J. M., Fisher, W., Trusty, D., Wren, J. D., Long, T. C., et al. (2007). Déjà vu—a study of duplicate citations in Medline. Bioinformatics, 24 (2), 243–249.

Eva, K. W. (2017). How would you like your salami? A guide to slicing. Medical Education, 51 (5), 456–457.

Fisher, E. R., & Partin, K. M. (2014). The challenges for scientists in avoiding plagiarism. Accountability in Research, 21 (6), 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.877348 .

Fonseca, M. (2013). The pitfalls of salami slicing: Focus on quality and not quantity of publications. Editage Insights . Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/the-pitfalls-of-salami-slicing-focus-on-quality-and-not-quantity-of-publications .

Gallant, T. L. B. (2016). Response to White’s Shadow scholars and the rise of the dissertation service industry. Journal of Research Practice, 12 (1), 2.

García-Romero, A., & Estrada-Lorenzo, J. M. (2014). A bibliometric analysis of plagiarism and self-plagiarism through Déjà vu. Scientometrics, 101 (1), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1387-3 .

Genereux, R. L., & McLeod, B. A. (1995). Circumstances surrounding cheating: A questionnaire study of college students. Research in Higher Education, 36 (6), 687–704.

Gennaro, S. (2017). Duplicate publication (editorial). Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 49 (2), 125–126.

Gilliver, S. (2012). Forgive me for repeating myself: Self-plagiarism in the medical literature. Medical Writing, 21 (2), 150–153. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480612Z.00000000031 .

Goldblatt, D. (1984). Self-plagiarism. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 43 (1), 71–77.

Gottlieb, L. N. (2008). Self-plagiarism: Some common sense, some reasonable accommodation—please! Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 40 (2), 5–9.

Green, L. (2005). Reviewing the scourge of self- plagiarism. M/C Journal . Retrieved from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0510/07-green.php .

Habibzadeh, F., & Shashok, K. (2011). Plagiarism in scientific writing: Words or ideas? Croatian Medical Journal, 52 (4), 576–577. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2011.52.576 .

Halupa, C. (2014). Exploring student self-plagiarism. International Journal of Higher Education, 3 (1), 121–126.

Halupa, C., & Bolliger, D. U. (2013). Faculty perceptions of student self plagiarism: An exploratory multi-university study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11 (4), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-013-9195-6 .

Halupa, C., & Bolliger, D. U. (2015). Student perceptions of self-plagiarism: A multi-university exploratory study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13 (1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9228-4 .

Halupa, C., Breitenbach, E., & Anast, A. (2016). A self-plagiarism intervention for doctoral students: A qualitative pilot study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-016-9262-x .

Harris, R., Hall, J., Muirhead, A., McAteer, E., Schmoller, S., & Thorpe, G. (2004). Impact of e-learning on learner participation, attainment, retention, and progression in further education: Report of a scoping study . Glasgow: University of Glasgow.

Hartle, R. T., Kimmins, L., & Huijser, H. (2009). Criminal intent or cognitive dissonance: how does student self plagiarism fit into academic integrity? Paper presented at the 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity (4APCEI), Wollongong.

Helgesson, G., & Eriksson, S. (2015). Plagiarism in research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 18 (1), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9583-8 .

Hicks, R., & Berg, J. A. (2014). Multiple publications from a single study: Ethical dilemmas. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 26 (5), 233–235.

Hoit, J. D. (2007). Salami science. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 94.

Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2017). The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’. Research Policy . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.004 .

Ison, D. C. (2012). Plagiarism among dissertations: Prevalence at online institutions. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10 (3), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9165-4 .

Ison, D. C. (2015). The influence of the internet on plagiarism among doctoral dissertations: An empirical study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13 (2), 151–166.

Jackson, D., Walter, G., Daly, J., & Clary, M. (2013). Editorial: Multiple outputs from single studies: Acceptable division of findings vs. ‘salami’ slicing. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 23, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12439 .

Jennings, B. M., & Froman, R. D. (2013). When you wrote it before. Research in Nursing & Health, 36 (3), 225–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21528 .

Jones, D. L. R. (2011). Academic dishonesty: Are more students cheating? Business Communications Quarterly, 74 (2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569911404059 .

Joob, B., & Wiwanitkit, V. (2013). Self-plagiarism. American Journal of Roentgenology, 201 (1), W161–W161. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10655 .

Joob, B., & Wiwanitkit, V. (2014). Self-plagiarism: What else should be considered in addition to a simple reminder? American Journal of Roentgenology, 2002 (6), W601. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.13.12145 .

Joob, B., & Wiwanitkit, V. (2016). Scientific misconduct and self-plagiarism. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 214 (4), 549–550.

Joob, B., & Wiwanitkit, V. (2017). Salami slicing of data set, translational plagiarism, and self-plagiarism: The storyline. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 39 (2), 218.

Kainins, A. U., Halm, K., & Castillo, M. (2015). Screening for self-plagiarism in a subspecialty-versus-general imaging journal using iThenticate. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 36, 1034–1038. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4234 .

Karlsson, J., & Beaufils, P. (2013). Legitimate division of large data sets, salami slicing and dual publication, where does a fraud begin ? . Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 21 (4), 751–752.

Kassirer, J. P., & Angell, M. (1995). Redundant publication: A reminder. New England Journal of Medicine, 333 (7), 449–450. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199508173330709 .

Keeble, R. (2016). Publication ethics: Stressing the positive. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 14 (1), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-10-2015-0037 .

Klosterman, C. (2013). Can I use the same paper for multiple college courses? New York Times Magazine . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/magazine/can-i-use-the-same-paper-for-multiple-college-courses.html .

Kokol, P., Završnik, J., Železnik, D., & Vošner, H. B. (2016). Creating a self-plagiarism research topic typology through bibliometric visualisation. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14 (3), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-016-9258-6 .

Kravitz, R. L., & Feldman, M. D. (2011). From the editors’ desk: Self-plagiarism and other editorial crimes and misdemeanors. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26 (1), 1–1.

Kulikova, E. (2016). Stolen science: Why plagiarism and self-plagiarism are unacceptable. Bulletin of Russian State Medical University, 6, 48.

Langdon-Neuner, E. (2008). Publication more than once: Duplicate publication and reuse of text. Journal of Tehran University Heart Center, 3 (1), 1–4.

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5 (1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 .

Loui, M. C. (2002). Seven ways to plagiarize: Handling real allegations of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8 (4), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0005-6 .

Lowe, N. (2003). Publication ethics: Copyright and self-plagiarism. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 32 (2), 145–146.

Marik, P. A. (2015). Self-plagiarism: The perspective of a convicted plagiarist! European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 45, 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12473 .

Martin, B. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42 (5), 1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.011 .

Materials, Nature. (2005). The cost of salami slicing. Nature Materials, 4 (1), 1–1.

Mehić, B. B. (2013). Plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences, 13 (3), 139.

Merrill, E. (2015). Where we go wrong: Issues of dual publication and self-plagiarism. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 79 (3), 355–356.

Mkhize, P. L., van der Poll, J. A., & Lubbe, S. (2009). Analysing student perceptions of intellectual property rights in a self-plagiarism framework. Alternation, 16 (1), 243–260.

Mohapatra, S., & Samal, L. (2014). The ethics of self-plagiarism. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 12, 147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2014.10.005 .

Moses, I. (1990). Teaching, research and scholarship in different disciplines. Higher Education, 19 (3), 351–375.

Moskovitz, C. (2016). Self-plagiarism, text recycling, and science education. BioScience, 66 (1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv160 .

Neill, U. S. (2008). Publish or perish, but at what cost? The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 118 (7), 2368.

Noè, L. F., & Batten, D. J. (2006). ‘Publish or perish’: The pitfalls of duplicate publication. Palaeontology, 49 (6), 1365–1367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00617.x .

Norman, G. (2014). Data dredging, salami-slicing, and other successful strategies to ensure rejection: Twelve tips on how to not get your paper published. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 19 (1), 1–5.

O’Brien Louch, M. (2016). Single sourcing, boilerplates, and re-purposing: Plagiarism and technical writing. Information Systems Education Journal, 14 (2), 27–33.

O’Connor, S. J. (2010). What do duplicate publications; self-plagiarism and the monotony of endless descriptive studies signify: Publication pressures or simply a collective lack of imagination? European Journal of Cancer Care, 19 (3), 281–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2010.01192.x .

O’Hair, R. A. J., & Neff, J. (2013). Is there “self plagiarism” and “salami” publishing in JASMS? Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry , 24 , 986–987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13361-013-0674-1 .

Owen, W. J. (2004). In defense of the least publishable unit. Chronicle of Higher Education., 50 (23), C1–C4.

Persaud, N. (2012). Primary data source. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 1095–1097). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Pierson, C. A. (2015). Salami slicing—how thin is the slice? Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 27 (2), 65–65.

Reich, E. S. (2010). Self-plagiarism case prompts calls for agencies to tighten rules. Nature, 468 (7325), 745. https://doi.org/10.1038/468745a .

Robinson, S. R. (2014). Self-plagiarism and unfortunate publication: An essay on academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 39 (2), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.655721 .

Rogerson, A. M., & McCarthy, G. (2017). Using Internet based paraphrasing tools: Original work, patchwriting or facilitated plagiarism? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13 (1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-016-0013-y .

Roig, M. (2005). Re-using text from one’s own previously published papers: An exploratory study of potential self-plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 2005 (97), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.97.1.43-49 .

Roig, M. (2006). Ethical writing should be taught. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 333 (7568), 596–597. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38946.501215.68 .

Roig, M. (2008). The debate on self-plagiarism: Inquisitional science or high standards of scholarship? Journal of Cognitive & Behavioral Psychotherapies, 8 (2), 245–258.

Roig, M. (2010). Plagiarism and self-plagiarism: What every author should know. Biochemia Medica, 20 (3), 295–300.

Roig, M. (2011). Avoiding plagiarism, self - plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing . U.S. Department of Health & Human Services: Office of Research Integrity Retrieved from https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCA728CA728&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8# .

Roig, M. (2015a). Avoiding plagiarism, self - plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing . U.S. Department of Health & Human Services: Office of Research Integrity Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/avoiding-plagiarism-self-plagiarism-and-other-questionable-writing-practices-guide-ethical-writing .

Roig, M. (2015b). On reusing our previously disseminated work . American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved from https://www.aaas.org/news/reusing-our-previously-disseminated-work .

Roig, M. (2016). Recycling our own work in the digital age. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 655–669). Singapore: Springer.

Roig, M., & Ballew, C. (1994). Attitudes toward cheating of self and others by college students and professors. The Psychological Record, 44 (1), 3.

Roig, M., & Caso, M. (2005). Lying and cheating: Fraudulent excuse making, cheating, and plagiarism. The Journal of Psychology, 139 (6), 485–494. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.6.485-494 .

Rosenzweig, M., & Schnitzer, A. E. (2013). Self-plagiarism: Perspectives for librarians. College & Research Libraries, 74 (9), 492–494.

Rösing, C. K., & Del Bel Cury, A. A. (2013). Self-plagiarism in scientific journals: An emerging discussion. Brazilian Oral Research, 27 (6), 451–452. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242013000600001 .

Samuelson, P. (1994). Self-plagiarism or fair use. Communications of the ACM, 37 (8), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/179606.179731 .

Saver, C. (2014). Self plagiarism. Nurse Author & Editor, 24 (3), 3.

Scanlon, P. M. (2007). Song from myself: An anatomy of self-plagiarism. Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism Fabrication and Falsification., 2, 1–10.

Schein, M., & Paladugu, R. (2001). Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg? Surgery, 129 (6), 655–661.

Schultz, D. M., Rauber, R. M., & Heideman, K. F. (2015). AMS policy on plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Weather, Climate, and Society, 7, 105–106.

Shashok, K. (2011). Authors, editors, and the signs, symptoms and causes of plagiarism. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 5 (3), 303–307. https://doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.84107 .

Siebers, R. (2012). Self-plagiarism and the scientific literature. New Zealand Journal of Medical Laboratory Science, 66, 3.

Siebers, R., & Taylor, T. (2014). Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and the journal. New Zealand Journal of Medical Laboratory Science, 68 (1), 2.

Sikes, P. (2009). Will the real author come forward? Questions of ethics, plagiarism, theft and collusion in academic research writing. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32 (1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270902749247 .

Smith, E. R. (2007). Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and duplicate publication. The Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 23 (2), 146–147.

Stone, T. E., & Conway, J. (2017). Self-plagiarism prevention and management at Nursing & Health Sciences. Nursing & Health Sciences, 19 (1), 1–4.

Suárez, A. L., Bernhard, J. D., & Dellavalle, R. P. (2012). Telling the same tale twice: Déjà vu and the shades of grey in self-plagiarism. In L. Bercovitch & C. Perlis (Eds.), Dermatoethics: Contemporary ethics and professionalism in dermatology (pp. 233–236). London: Springer, London.

Sun, Y. C., & Yang, F. Y. (2015). Uncovering published authors’ text-borrowing practices: Paraphrasing strategies, sources, and self-plagiarism. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 224–236.

Šupak-Smolčić, V. (2013). Salami publication: Definitions and examples. Biochemia Medica, 23 (3), 237.

Šupak-Smolčić, V., & Bilić-Zulle, L. (2013). How do we handle self-plagiarism in submitted manuscripts? Biochemia Medica, 23 (2), 150–153. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.019 .

Sutherland-Smith, W. (2016). Academic integrity in the digital age: Introduction. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 571–573). Singapore: Springer.

Talbott, J. A. (2016). Salami slicing, duplicative publication, and data set utilization: Where to draw the line. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 204 (11), 868. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000630 .

Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Copy-paste: 2-click step to success and productivity that underlies self-plagiarism. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23 (3), 943–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9804-z .

The Lancet (staff). (2009). Self-plagiarism: unintentional, harmless, or fraud? The Lancet, 374 (9691), 664. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61536-1 .

Thurman, R. H., Chervenak, F. A., McCullough, L. B., & Halwani, S. (2016). Self-plagiarism: A misnomer. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 214 (1), 91–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.09.004 .

Thyer, B. A. (2011). Conceptual research. In B. A. Thyer (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (pp. 366–369). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

University of Calgary. (2018). University calendar. Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/ .

Vincent-Robinson, C. (2016). Faculty perceptions of self - plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty among university students. (Doctor of Education thesis), Florida International University, Miami, FL.

Vitse, C. L., & Poland, G. A. (2012). Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, scientific misconduct, and VACCINE: Protecting the science and the public. Vaccine, 30 (50), 7131–7133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.08.053 .

Walker, A. L. (2008). Preventing unintentional plagiarism: A method for strengthening paraphrasing skills. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, 387.

Wen, Q., & Gao, Y. (2007). Dual publication and academic inequality. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17 (2), 221–225.

White, S. M. (2011). Self-plagiarism: Correspondence. Anaesthesia, 66 (3), 220–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06645.x .

Wilson, D. (2013). Avoidance of inappropriate authorship and self-plagiarism. Nursing Praxis in New Zealand, 29, 4.

Wiwanitkit, V. (2012). Self-plagiarism: Letter to the editor. European Journal of Clinical Investigation . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2362.2012.02665.x .

Wiwanitkit, V. (2014). Simultaneous submission, duplicate publication, self-plagiarism and the proper management. Journal of Minimal Access Surgery, 10, 51.

Wiwanitkit, V. (2015). Self-plagiarism: Guilty or not? European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 45 (11), 1220–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12536 .

Wiwanitkit, S., & Wiwanitkit, V. (2013). Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and scientific misconduct: Preventive and correction action. Vaccine, 31, 1765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.01.010 .

Wood, B. (1968). Self-plagiarism and foreign policy. Latin American Research Review, 3 (3), 184–191.

Zhang, Y. H. (2013). Bilingual (multilingual) publications and duplicate publications: For or against? Journal of Zhejiang University: Science A (Applied Physics & Engineering), 14 (9), 687–690.

Zulfiqar, H. (2017). Possible self- plagiarism and redundancy: A need to redefine journal policies in this digital age of cloud storage and file sharing sites. Khyber Medical University Journal, 9 (3), 162.

Download references

This study was funded by a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Grant from the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary. Grant # 10015164.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

Sarah Elaine Eaton & Katherine Crossman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SE designed the concept and drafted the manuscript. SB and KC developed exclusion/inclusion criteria, identified and categorized sources. KC developed Figs.  1 and 2 . Percentage contributions are SE: 70%, KC: 30%. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Elaine Eaton .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Eaton, S.E., Crossman, K. Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review. Interchange 49 , 285–311 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-018-9333-6

Download citation

Received : 07 April 2018

Accepted : 25 May 2018

Published : 16 June 2018

Issue Date : August 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-018-9333-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Self-plagiarism
• Text recycling
• Scoping review
• Primary research
• Secondary research
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Self-Plagiarism Q & A

Self-plagiarism Webcast »

SELF-PLAGIARISM Q&A FORUM

This page includes the Q&A portion of the webcast titled, "What's Mine is Mine: Self-plagiarism, Ownership and Author Responsiblity," which featured Rachael Lammey from CrossRef, Kelly McBride from Poynter and Jonathan Bailey from Plagiarism Today. Bob Creutz, Executive Director of iThenticate, joins the panel in providing responses to questions that were asked during the webcast.

Question about self-plagiarism? Ask the experts!

20 Q&A's about Self-plagiarism

Q1: "i asked about the difference between duplicate publication and self-plagiarism. i think the moderator kind of addressed that with asking the speakers to define self-plagiarism, but they didn't answer with respect to duplicate publication. they seem similar, but self-plagiarism is a somewhat expanded definition that isn't really addressed by icmje and gpp2.".

A: (Rachael) Here’s a really good link to an article in Biochemica Medica called ‘Plagiarism and self-plagiarism: what every author should know’. It goes into detail on the different types of self-plagiarism, duplicate publication being one of them: www.biochemia-medica.com/content/plagiarism-and-self-plagiarism-what-every-author-should-know

Q2: "Under what conditions an author can use some part of his/her previously published research article in his/her next research article?"

A: (Rachael) I think the key thing is making sure that you reference the previous work that you’re using correctly. Make it clear to anyone reading your paper which parts of your work have been published previously and where. Also, check with the particular publication you’re submitting to in case they have a specific policy to this effect. Here’s an example from the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) that reflects the policy for their titles: www.acm.org/publications/policies/plagiarism_policy . If you look at the second paragraph you’ll see that the text does not need to be quoted, but does need to be cited. Many publishers have policies such as this so it’s always worth checking those to see how best to reference your previously published work.

Q3: "Let’s say I am working on the same topic and write three papers. When writing the literature review of the second and third paper I am reusing some parts of the previous literature reviews and citing my previous work. Is this self-plagiarism?"

A: (Rachael) Again, I’d say check the publisher policy (or, if it’s not clear email them) but as long as you ensure that you’re citing your previous work and making it clear to anyone reading it that the material isn’t ‘new’ then you would avoid being accused of passing material off as new when it has already been used.

Q 4: "What is the difference between duplicate publication and self-plagiarism?"

A: (Rachael) See link in answer to Q1: duplicate publication is a type of self-plagiarism.

Q5: "As an author, where do I access policy and guidelines around what constitutes self-plagiarism?"

A: (Rachael) Most publishers have their own policies on self-plagiarism - I’d look to the author resources for the publisher you want to submit your research to for information. So here are some examples, you’ve seen the ACM one above, and there’s a policy from Nature here: www.nature.com/authors/policies/plagiarism.html . In fact, there are a series of really useful links on this page: www3.imperial.ac.uk/library/researchers/plagiarismdetection that will provide guidelines on self-plagiarism and how to think about citing your work so you can provide clarity for readers.

Q6: "If a scientist is describing a method that is used in different papers, can they use that same description?"

A:  (Bob)  Anecdotal feedback from CrossCheck members indicates that editors are largely unconcerned with plagiarism in method sections.  In fact, it has been requested that iThenticate includes a feature that excludes methods from originality check.

(Rachael) I’d agree with Bob. An Editor reading the paper as a subject specialist will understand that there will necessarily be a degree of overlap/the same methods section if the same method has been used.

Q7: "What if someone do self-plagiarism few years ago but he wants to remove it?"

A:  (Bob)  Authors can request that publishers retract articles.

(Rachael) Yes, they can contact the publisher to request that the article be retracted or ask the publisher for advice.

Q8: "Is it right to considered different forms of self-plagiarism? Which might they be?"

A: (Rachael) See answer to Q1 and also the resource mentioned in Q5 for descriptions of different forms of self-plagiarism.

Q9: "Let’s say I am working on the same topic and write three papers. When writing the literature review of the second and third paper I am reusing some parts of the previous literature review papers and citing my previous work. Is this self-plagiarism?"

A: (Rachael) Same as Q3.

Q10: "When is it too much? What is the threshold of reusing info? 80% new ration to 20% reused? Or the other way around? How does the editor work with the author? Is it just a matter of reworking the references OR are there sanctions for the author? How do you determine intent?"

A: (Rachael) Every journal is a little different as it is often up to the Editor’s discretion as to what they’re looking for in a paper. If you are re-using a lot of text, then it’s always best to make it clear in your paper what is new about this version or why/how it differs from your previous work. Again, it’s always important to reference your previous work clearly in the paper. If you reference/cite as per the journal or publisher instructions then they will be able to see that your intent is not to mislead. Intent is almost impossible to prove, so many editors may un-submit the paper and ask for it to be properly referenced if they think that it is not or let the author provide additional information to clarify how the work has been used previously. It is unlikely that sanctions would be taken against an author in a case such as this, especially if the author co-operated with the Editor in providing the additional information requested.

Q11: "If someone else got published a part of your research with his own name, what can you do?"

A: (Rachael) I would contact the publisher who has published the work and provide the information you can on how your research has been appropriated by the other author. They should have a procedure that they can follow in order to follow-up on your concerns.

Q12: "Does the medium matter? If one has written a book, and later draws from that work for a newspaper column, for example,  does this equate to self-plagiarism?"

A: (Rachael) I’d check with the newspaper what their policy is, but if you reference the book correctly then that will help provide clarity for readers.

Q13: "Is it self-plag. if there are some common data in a full paper and letter and conference paper?"

A: (Rachael) A lot of publishers will have their own policies on this and on re-using information from conference papers, so I would always check with them. Most are fine with authors re-using their own work in this way, but it’s best to check with them how to present it first.

Q14: "Is it legitimate to publish journal publications and re-use the information for the PhD thesis with a reference to the publication?"

A: (Rachael) This is normally fine - it falls a little under copyright. So if you publish in a journal, you will have to sign a copyright form. Check this form and the publisher’s copyright policy. Most will be fine with you re-using the information in a PhD thesis as it is not for commercial use, but it is always best to double check. And yes, you will need to make reference to the publication.

Q15: "Are there certain content pieces where self-plagiarism is more acceptable?  ie Turning a PhD dissertation into a book, review article, annual update?"

A: (Rachael) Normally self-plagiarism refers to work that has already been published. If your PhD dissertation has been published then the policies described by the publisher would apply in terms of referencing etc. I’d always check with the publisher to be sure as depending on the subject area different approaches may apply to different content pieces.

Q16: "What happened with me is that I sent my research article for publication based on my PhD work, similarity report showed that someone has copied my work and got it published with his own name. What should I do in such situation?"

A: (Rachael) See answer to Q11.

Q17: "We upset terribly an author when we asked him to rewrite two self-plagiarised paragraphs in a manuscripts. He was so angry he was so angry he withdrew the manuscript immediately. Any hints on how to negate that situation?"

A: (Rachael) I agree that this is tricky. Many publishers/journals have standard letters that they use in cases where they want the author to either reference or re-write pieces of their work. Some authors will be pleased for the help, some might never resubmit and some might come back angrily and sadly I think that’s the case no matter how carefully you phrase the letter to them. I would ask your publisher if they do have any text you can use (and adapt to make specific to your publication) and if you treat each author who you need to contact in the same fashion then I think that’s all you can do.

Q18: What is exactly "black list"? Can plagiarism in a publisher cause black list in all the publishers? Or it is just related to each publisher?

A: (Rachael) There is a lot of discussion around follow-up actions with authors and it’s something that I would urge caution in doing. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has a case regarding this: http://publicationethics.org/case/duplicate-publication-6 and they would always advise against black-listing authors as such an approach can lead to legal difficulties. If a journal or number of journals have had issues with an author then you will tend to remember them when they next come to submit, but realistically black-listing is difficult to enforce (i.e. the author could just come and resubmit under a different email address) and it can risk legal action against the publisher.

Q19: "Is it self-plagiarism if there are some common data in different works?"

A: (Kelly) From my point of view, self-plagiarism is limited to just the actual words and not the ideas, making it acceptable to reuse such content as long as nothing was copied verbatim.

Q20:  "What should someone do if they want to correct an instance of self-plagiarism in their past?"

A: (Kelly) noted that, if it’s online, it’s trivial to edit the work or add a note to it for a correction. However, with printed works, it’s a much more difficult situation. This was echoed by Jonathan who noted nothing is set in stone on the Web but that with print, while there is a correction or a retraction policy, it often feels inappropriate to really address the issue as it may either be inadequate or too extreme depending upon the nature of the self-plagiarism.

Self-plagiarism webcast highlights (PDF)

The Ethics of Self-plagiarism (PDF)

For Instructors:

For Students:

For Educational Resources:

Graduate School of Health and Medical Sciences

• Thesis and defence
• Screening for duplicat...

Screening for duplicate text in PhD theses

The Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences screens all PhD theses for duplicate text immediately after submission and prior to forwarding to the assessment committee. If no duplicate text is identified, the screening takes a maximum of seven days. The Royal Library conducts the screening using the detection software iThenticate. 

Pre-screening of the thesis

It is possible for PhD students to pre-screen their thesis before submission by participating in the course “Responsible Conduct of Research 2: Getting Ready for Submission of Manuscripts and Thesis” . The course is mandatory for all PhD students enrolled on 1 August 2020 or later. 

PhD theses are considered research products

As per 1 July 2017, PhD theses are covered by the Danish Act on Research Misconduct. PhD students are responsible for the content of their thesis. The principal supervisor is expected to advise the PhD student on Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). Information about RCR at the faculty is available on the SUND website.  For questions on text duplication, please speak to your principal supervisor. For additional guidance, contact the Graduate School. Danish Act on Research Misconduct   (in Danish).

Consequences when duplicate text is found

When plagiarism is suspected in a PhD thesis, the University of Copenhagen Practice Committee and the Danish Committee on Research Misconduct investigate the scope and nature of the duplicate text. The Danish Committee on Research Misconduct assesses whether research misconduct has occurred. The decision from the Committee is forwarded to the Dean’s office for the relevant steps to be taken on the matter.

Self-plagiarism

In most cases of suspected self-plagiarism, the PhD student and their principal supervisor are summoned for a meeting at the Graduate School to discuss revisions of the thesis before it is submitted for assessment. The Practice Committee may also investigate the matter.

Guidelines for avoiding plagiarism and self-plagiarism in PhD thesis writing

Overview of the screening process,  - click to enlarge the picture.

Flow chart: Research misconduct

Flow chart: questionable research practice.