Methoden vergleichen
Prüfen Sie die ausgewählten Methoden nebeneinander; abweichende Zeilen sind hervorgehoben.
| Selbstplagiat und Textrecycling× | Wörtliche Plagiat× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fachgebiet | Forschungsethik | Forschungsethik |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Entstehungsjahr≠ | 1990s | 1950s |
| Urheber≠ | International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) | Academic integrity framework (modern definition) |
| Typ | Concept | Concept |
| Wegweisende Quelle≠ | Roig, M. (2015). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity. link ↗ | Council of Canadian Academies (2019). The state of science and technology in Canada. Ottawa: Council of Canadian Academies. link ↗ |
| Aliasnamen≠ | text recycling, self-copying, duplicate publication, redundant publication | direct plagiarism, copy-and-paste plagiarism, literal copying |
| Verwandt≠ | 2 | 4 |
| Zusammenfassung≠ | Self-plagiarism, or text recycling, occurs when an author reuses substantial portions of their own previously published work in a new publication without disclosure or acknowledgment. This includes republishing the same article in different venues, duplicating methods sections across multiple papers, or reusing discussion sections. While the intellectual property is the author's own, self-plagiarism is considered misconduct because it violates the principle that published work represents new research and it may inflate publication counts. | Verbatim plagiarism is the most straightforward and recognizable form of academic misconduct: copying text word-for-word from a source without quotation marks, citation, or attribution. It is the most easily detected form of plagiarism and carries severe institutional and career consequences. |
| ScholarGateDatensatz ↗ |
|
|