How much can you self-plagiarize

  • Context: Physics 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BillKet
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the ethical considerations of self-plagiarism in academic publishing, specifically regarding the reuse of content from previously published papers that stem from the same experiment but analyze different aspects of the data. Participants explore the implications of citing oneself, the necessity of rephrasing content, and the statistical consequences of using the same data in multiple analyses.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether they can copy and paste sections from a previous paper or if they need to rephrase them, given that the methods and introduction are similar.
  • Another participant suggests that self-citation is necessary to avoid plagiarism, similar to citing others' work when replicating experiments.
  • Some participants clarify that if the data is from the same experiment but analyzed differently, it may not require extensive rephrasing as long as proper citation is provided.
  • There is a discussion about the potential confusion arising from the participant's statements regarding re-analysis of data, with some noting contradictions in their claims.
  • Concerns are raised about the statistical implications of analyzing the same data set multiple times, particularly regarding multiple comparisons and p-values.
  • A participant provides an example to illustrate the distinction between analyzing different subsets of data from the same experiment and the implications for statistical integrity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of rephrasing content versus simply citing previous work. There is also a lack of consensus on the statistical implications of using the same data in multiple analyses, indicating ongoing debate on these issues.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of distinguishing between different analyses of data from the same experiment and the potential statistical consequences of multiple comparisons, but the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best practices for self-citation and content reuse.

BillKet
Messages
311
Reaction score
30
Hello! I am writing a paper resulted from a given experiment, but I already published a paper before from the same experiment. The topic of the papers (the obtained results) are different (hence why there are 2 papers), but the introduction and especially the methods sections are basically identical (it is what we did with the data that is different). Can I just copy paste parts from the old paper, or slightly rephrase them, or is that considered plagiarism. And if so, how should I proceed? The experimental setup is absolutely identical in both cases. How should I proceed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to cite yourself to avoid plagiarism, just the same as if you had replicated someone else’s experiment. You also need to explicitly identify that you are re-analyzing data that was already published. This has statistical consequences.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd and berkeman
Dale said:
You need to cite yourself to avoid plagiarism, just the same as if you had replicated someone else’s experiment. You also need to explicitly identify that you are re-analyzing data that was already published. This has statistical consequences.
Thank you for your reply! Yes, I will cite myself. My questions was more along the lines, do I need to rephrase certain paragraphs (that basically have exactly the same content) or can I just copy and paste them (with the right citation to myself)? Actually I am not re-analyzing data. This data is from the same experiment, but it was not related to the first analysis.
 
BillKet said:
Actually I am not re-analyzing data. This data is from the same experiment, but it was not related to the first analysis.
Ah, ok. Then you don’t need to do more than cite yourself.

BillKet said:
do I need to rephrase certain paragraphs (that basically have exactly the same content) or can I just copy and paste them (with the right citation to myself)?
That is up to you. I would probably not do either in favor of simply referring to the technique by reference. In other words, I would only summarize the experiment with all details done by reference, similar to how I would cite someone else whose experiment I were replicating. But that is up to you.
 
Last edited:
BillKet said:
(it is what we did with the data that is different).
BillKet said:
Actually I am not re-analyzing data. This data is from the same experiment, but it was not related to the first analysis.
Dale said:
Ah, ok. Then you don’t need to do more than cite yourself.

Sorry, In your OP you say you "did something different with the data", yet you then say "Actually I am not re-analyzing data."
That seems contradictory at first glance. @Dale, do you not think so?
 
DaveC426913 said:
That seems contradictory at first glance. @Dale, do you not think so?
It did confuse me, at least.

For clarity, suppose that in your experiment you collected 100 pieces of data and analyzed 75 of them with some technique. Then if you are analyzing the remaining 25 pieces of data there is little concern (except if you selected those 25 systematically from the whole sample). If you are analyzing some of the 75 pieces of data then it is a statistical consent even if the analysis is completely different.
 
Last edited:
Dale said:
It did confuse me, at least.

For clarity, suppose that in your experiment you collected 100 pieces of data and analyzed 75 of them with some technique. Then if you are analyzing the remaining 25 pieces of data there is little concern (except if you selected those 25 systematically from the whole sample). If you are analyzing some of the 75 pieces of data then it is a statistical consent even if the analysis is completely different.
@DaveC426913 @Dale I am using data from the same experiment, but the 2 data sets are independent. For example, from a molecular spectroscopy experiment, one paper would be about the lifetime of certain low laying states, while the second one would be about the ionization potential. The data was all taken within the same experiment (of course the wavelength of the laser was adjusted, but everything else was the same), but the 2 data sets are completely different and you can't use one data set to statistically improve the other.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveC426913
BillKet said:
you can't use one data set to statistically improve the other
That isn’t the relevant statistical issue, but from what you describe the data should be fine. From what you describe it sounds more like two experiments run in parallel.

The issue is about multiple comparisons. If you conduct further analysis of the same data then you increase the p-value of your previously published study. (You also increase the p-value if you perform additional analysis that you don’t report)
 

Similar threads

Physics Move from technician to scientist
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Physics How do you keep track of scientific literature in your field?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
High School Does DCQE show a shift between the two "which path" results?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Other Is using my papers in my PhD thesis plagiarism?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
9K
Graduate Using AI to evaluate white papers?
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
Graduate Confused about noise power spectral density measurement
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Physics How Can I Find a Suitable PhD Program in Europe?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Graduate Power spectral density of a laser's frequency noise
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
How Can a Web-App Make Theoretical Physics and Mathematics More Accessible?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Job Skills [Career] - What kind of life does a career in physics entail?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K