tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post6301542666441317576..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Smacking Down Self-Plagiarism - The Bruno Frey Affair Becomes OfficialUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-18161640217723339502011-08-23T16:44:29.195-04:002011-08-23T16:44:29.195-04:00Ken,
Sorry if the links are not working. In the p...Ken,<br /><br />Sorry if the links are not working. In the past, when I have typed in such addresses the links have worked. Not sure why these are not working.<br /><br />Anyway, in my essay on plagiarism I make the point that the "red flag" of self-plagiarism is failing to cite the other work(s) for which there is serious overlap. Autor makes this point as well in his letter to Frey; none of the other papers were cited in the one sent to his journal. Indeed, I was aware there was a problem the minute I saw the paper in JEP, although I did not initiate the proceedings that transpired.<br /><br />So, sure, anyone with an organized research program is likely to repeat pieces of it in succeeding papers. The non-self plagiarizer makes clear what in the new paper has appeared before, e.g. "See Rosser (2009) for more extended discussion of this model," and what is new in the paper being considered. Indeed, for most authors this is crucial, say it upfront in the introduction clearly, "This paper extends previous work by this author by doing blah blah blah." Needless to say, none of this was done by Frey and his coauthors in their submission to the JEP.Barkley Rosserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13114257724762074636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-57830308627670610992011-08-22T11:41:11.253-04:002011-08-22T11:41:11.253-04:00Good piece which would be much more readable if yo...Good piece which would be <em>much</em> more readable if you used some basic html code and/or embedding of links.<br /><br />"I think that the message needed to be sent that this sort of practice is professionally unacceptable..."<br /><br />Noted for the record: professional writers often 'plagiarize' themselves by this definition, using chunks of previously-published text in a piece for a different audience. "The Author(s) warrant(s) that the above-named manuscript is his<br />or her [shouldn't there also be an "or their"? - klh] own original work of authorship and has not been published previously" seems consistent with that in spirit, if not in letter.<br /><br />Autor's declaration translates well as: "As soon as JEBO accepted the article, you should have withdrawn it from JEP," or a violation of that other commercial writer's rule: simultaneous submissions are acceptable, but withdraw from the others on acceptance.<br /><br />The error, it appears, is not in the multiple submissions; it's the failure to withdraw (or, at least, notify of acceptance and let the journal decide).<br /><br />Or am I missing something?Ken Houghtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01440837287933536370noreply@blogger.com