方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法；存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 自我剽窃与文本回收× | 相似性与剽窃：理解区别× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 研究伦理 | 研究伦理 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 1990s | 2000s |
| 提出者≠ | International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) | Academic integrity frameworks and plagiarism detection software companies |
| 类型 | Concept | Concept |
| 开创性文献≠ | 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 ↗ | Hirsch, L. R. (2013). Recognizing plagiarism: A guide for academic professionals. Teaching Professor Blog. link ↗ |
| 别名≠ | text recycling, self-copying, duplicate publication, redundant publication | similarity index, turnitin score, similarity percentage |
| 相关≠ | 2 | 4 |
| 摘要≠ | 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. | A critical distinction exists between similarity percentages generated by plagiarism detection software (Turnitin, iThenticate) and an actual plagiarism verdict. A similarity index is a red flag requiring review; it is not a plagiarism determination. High similarity can result from legitimate quotations, references, shared technical language, or common knowledge. Conversely, low similarity does not guarantee absence of plagiarism. Human expert judgment is essential—similarity detection software provides data, not judgment. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|