Self-plagiarism

I want to present the view that style plays a role in artworld conditions that allows for successful self-plagiarisms.

Gross vs. Seligman (decided in 194) seems to be the only case in U.S. copyright history in which the owner of a copyright won an infringement lawsuit against a self-plagiarist.

The purpose of this research study was to evaluate faculty perceptions regarding student self-plagiarism or recycling of student papers. Although there is a plethora of information on plagiarism and faculty who self-plagiarize in publications, there is very little research on how faculty members perceive students re-using all or part of a previously completed assignment in a second assignment.[…] Although faculty agreed students need to be educated on self-plagiarism, faculty assumed students had previously been educated on plagiarism as well as self-plagiarism; only 13 % ensured students understood this concept.

Based on the guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), self-plagiarism has been classified into four categories: (1) Text recycling: Text recycling refers to cloning of larger sections of one’s previously published text in a subsequent paper; (2) Redundant publication: This occurs when covert duplicate publication of one’s own work appears in two or more journals with the same data, results, and discussion, with or without editing; (3) Augmented publication: This is a new paper resulting from the addition of new data to previously published data; and (4) Segmented publication: Segmented publication, known also as salami-slicing, occurs when the results derived for one experiment are published as two or more papers, thereby preventing the readers from obtaining a wider understanding of the overall experiment in a single paper.