Scientists as Schrodinger's Cat: Replay to Roig's "The Debate on Self-Plagiarism: Inquisitional Science or High Standards of Scholarship?"/reply to David's "Scientists as Schrödinger's Cat"

By David, Daniel; Roig, Miguel | Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, September 2008 | Go to article overview

Scientists as Schrodinger's Cat: Replay to Roig's "The Debate on Self-Plagiarism: Inquisitional Science or High Standards of Scholarship?"/reply to David's "Scientists as Schrödinger's Cat"


David, Daniel, Roig, Miguel, Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies


Daniel DAVID*

"Babes-Bolyai" University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

In which self-plagiarism is concerned, considering the current state in the field, there are only two ways to go. The first way to go is to agree upon three minimal criteria for ethical writing (1. a new publication based on an old one is intended to target a new audience; 2. copyright laws are respected; and 3. it is made clear to the reader and in the author's CVs that the new paper reproduces old ones or parts of them) and to follow them in order to allow for the full expression of the humanistic spirit of science (i.e., disseminating knowledge produced to solve various problems). The second way to go is to elaborate clear rules and guidelines to avoid self-plagiarism, endorsed by all the major actors in the field; from that point on self-plagiarism can be considered misconduct. However, these rules cannot be applied retrospectively, to a time when they did not exist and/or were not lawful. All things considered, the current state of the field is unfair for scientists! As there are no clear lawful regulations regarding self-plagiarism, most scientists are like Schrodinger's cats, neither guilty nor not-guilty! It depends on who, on how, and on if someone is looking...!

I have read Dr. Roig's article carefully. I must say that I still have the feeling that the author is more focused on the form rather than the content of a scientific publication. In my view, the major and ultimate goal of science is to generate knowledge used to solve various theoretical or practical problems (see David, 2007). Thus, the dissemination of scientific knowledge through publications is the ultimate and one of the fundamental components of any scientific endeavor (David, 2007; David, 2008).

In my previous publications on this topic (David, 2007; 2008) I have pointed out that if we implement three minimal criteria, which Dr. Roig seems to agree with in his article, there is no need for other inquisitional, excessively detailed procedures (sic!), to avoid the so called self-plagiarism (i.e., stealing ideas from oneself). These three minimal criteria are as follows (David, 2007; 2008): (1) the new publication based on an old one is intended to target a new audience; (2) copyright laws are respected: (3) it is made clear to the reader and in the author's CVs that the new paper reproduces old ones or parts of old ones (and to what extent).

In his article, Dr. Roig says that he basically agrees with these criteria. However, when discussed in his paper, it becomes clear that they are not enough, and that we need detailed specifications on how to re-write our own work and ideas, reminding of inquisitional science (Chapman, 2007; David, 2007; 2008) etc. We analyze Dr. Roig's arguments as follows.

Concerning the first criterion, Dr. Roig says that in the age of the internet there is no need to target new audiences by publishing the same material in more than one Journal. We strongly disagree, as least from the perspective of someone coming from an Eastern European country, part of the former communist block. First of all, I would like to remind the readers that in less developed countries, and even in the newly emerging Eastern European democratic countries, there is no full access to the internet, or if there is access, people still cannot afford to pay the fees required for the full version of articles. Thus, some Journals are still on a market of their own, without yet being players on the global market of science. Second, at least in less developed countries, many Journals are not available online, and therefore articles they publish are not accessible via the internet! Therefore, the re-publication of an article in a different Journal, to target a new audience, is still legitimate. Moreover, during the communist period, this was a straightforward state policy, scientists being encouraged to publish some of their best papers both in the country and abroad! …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Scientists as Schrodinger's Cat: Replay to Roig's "The Debate on Self-Plagiarism: Inquisitional Science or High Standards of Scholarship?"/reply to David's "Scientists as Schrödinger's Cat"
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.