Viewpoint| Volume 214, ISSUE 1, P91-93, January 2016

Download started.


Self-plagiarism: a misnomer

Published:September 09, 2015DOI:
      The opprobrium of self-plagiarism makes one a scientific pariah. This paper provides a critical evaluation of the discourse of “self-plagiarism” in scientific publications. We first show that “self-plagiarism” is a misnomer and should be replaced with “unacceptable duplication.” We distinguish acceptable from unacceptable duplication in scientific communications, providing a typology of both. We then review issues of copyright infringement and propose a preventive ethics approach to unacceptable duplication.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Lindey A.
        Plagiarism and originality.
        Harper, New York, NY1952: 217-230
      1. Roig M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: a guide to ethical writing. Available at: Accessed March 1, 2015.

        • Jefferson T.
        Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: scientific misconduct or necessity?.
        Sci Eng Ethics. 1998; 4: 135-140
        • Bretag T.
        • Carapiet S.
        A preliminary study to identify the extent of self-plagiarism in Australian academic research. Plagiary: cross-disciplinary studies in plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification.
        MPublishing, University of Michigan Library, Ann Arbor (MI)2007: 92-103
      2. Wikipedia. Available at: Accessed March 1, 2015.

      3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Research Integrity. Available at: Accessed July 28, 2015.

      4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Available at: Accessed May 18, 2015.

        • Chervenak F.A.
        • McCullough L.B.
        Clinical guides to preventing ethical conflicts between pregnant women and their physicians.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 162: 303-307
        • Chervenak F.A.
        • McCullough L.B.
        • Brent R.L.
        The professional responsibility model of obstetric ethics: avoiding the perils of clashing rights.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 205: 315.e1-315.e5
        • Collberg C.
        • Kobourov S.
        • Brent R.L.
        Self-plagiarism in computer science Communications of the ACM.
        . 2005; 48.4: 88-94
      5. iThenticate. Available at: Accessed March 15, 2015.

        • Errami M.
        • Sun Z.
        • Long T.C.
        • George A.C.
        • Garner H.R.
        Déjà vu: a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature.
        Nucleic Acids Res. 2009; 37: D921-D924
      6. Committee of Publication Ethics. Available at: Accessed March 15, 2015.

      Linked Article

      • Scientific misconduct and self-plagiarism
        American Journal of Obstetrics & GynecologyVol. 214Issue 4
        • Preview
          The recent report on self-plagiarism is very interesting.1 Mandal et al2 recently reported an Indian perspective, mentioned several problems referring to scientific misconduct, and noted that self-plagiarism was a very common problem. In fact, the problem can be seen worldwide. Here, we would like to share our experience. First, in the context of non-English speaking countries, such as Thailand, scientific misconduct might be observable in the form of “translational plagiarism.”3 This can be seen in several publications, including reports by eminent researchers from local universities.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF
      • Reply
        American Journal of Obstetrics & GynecologyVol. 214Issue 4
        • Preview
          We appreciate the comments of Drs Joob and Wiwanitkit with regard to our recent article.1 Most of their comments (eg, “translational plagiarism”) are on plagiarism and not self- plagiarism, but some are relevant to both. The authors of this letter are correct that the response to plagiarism or unacceptable duplication is quite variable and at times minimal. The medical and scientific community may need to address this issue and possibly create a set of rules for detection and response to these issues.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF