Published protocols have the potential to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews (SR). When reporting the results of a completed SR, the question might arise whether text used in the protocol can also be used in the completed SR? Does this constitute text recycling, plagiarism, or even copyright infringement? In theory, no major changes to the protocol will be expected for the introduction and methods sections if the SR is completed in time. The benefits of maintaining the introduction and methods section of a protocol in the published SR are straightforward. Authors will require less time for writing up the completed SR. Potential benefits can also be expected for peer reviewers and editors. However, reusing text can be described as self-plagiarism. The question to be answered is whether this type of self-plagiarism is acceptable when copying text used previously (as would be the case when copying text from the protocol and pasting it into the subsequent completed SR)? The “traditional answer” to this question is “yes” because authors should not get credit for one piece of work for more than one time unless the work is cited appropriately. In contrast, we propose that in this context, it seems to be fully acceptable from a scientific and ethical perspective. As such, authors should not be accused of plagiarism in this case, but rather be encouraged to be efficient. However, legal issues need to be taken into consideration (e.g., copyright). We hope to stimulate a discussion on this topic among authors, readers, editors, and publishers.

Reuse of words, ideas, or artistic expression from material one had previously published or submitted, especially without acknowledgment of their earlier publication or submission.: #* #* #* {{quote-journal|en| journal=Journal of Academic Ethics| date=December 2013| volume=11| issue=4| page=297–310| title=Faculty Perceptions of Student Self Plagiarism: An Exploratory Multi-university Study| author=Colleen Halupa; Doris U. Bolliger| passage=The purpose of this research study was to evaluate faculty perceptions regarding student self-plagiarism or recycling of student papers. Although there is a plethora of information on plagiarism and faculty who self-plagiarize in publications, there is very little research on how faculty members perceive students re-using all or part of a previously completed assignment in a second assignment. Although faculty agreed students need to be educated on self-plagiarism, faculty assumed students had previously been educated on plagiarism as well as self-plagiarism; only 13 % ensured students understood this concept.}} #*

"On Reusing Our Previously Disseminated Work". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Broome, M (November 2004). "Self-plagiarism: Oxymoron Plagiarism is the representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work. Although precise definitions vary depending on the institution, in many countries and cultures plagiarism is considered a violation of academic integrity and journalistic ethics, as well as of social norms around learning, teaching, research, fairness, respect, and responsibil Submitting someone's work as their own. Taking passages from their own previous work without adding citations (self-plagiarism). Re-writing someone's work without properly citing sources. Using quotations but not citing the source. Interweaving various sources together in the work without citing. Citing some, but not all, passages that should be cited. Melding together cited and uncited sections of the piece. Providing proper citations, but failing to change the structure and wording of the borrowed ideas enough (close paraphrasing). Inaccurately citing a source. Relying too heavily on other people's work, failing to bring original thought into the text. The authors of a 2019 systematic literature review on academic plagiarism detection derived a four-leven typology of academic plagiarism, from the total words of a language (lexis), from its syntax, from its semantics, and from methods to capture plagiarism of ideas and structures. The typology categorizes plagiarism forms according to the layer of the model they affect: Characters-p… The reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one's own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or citing the original work is sometimes described as self-plagiarism or recycling fraud. Scholarly articles of this nature are often referred to as duplicate or multiple publication. Self-plagiarism is considered a serious ethical issue in settings where someone asserts that a publication consists of new material, such as in publishing or factual documentation. It does not apply to public-interest texts, such as social, professional, and cultural opinions usually published in newspapers and magazines. Identifying self-plagiarism is often difficult because limited reuse of material is accepted both legally (as fair use) and ethically. In addition, there can be a copyright issue if copyright of the prior work has been transferred to another entity. Many people (mostly, but not limited to critics of copyright and intellectual property) do not believe it is possible to plagiarize oneself. Critics of the concepts of plagiarism and copyright may use the idea of self-plagiarism as a reductio ad absurdum argument.

A Perspective on Academic Plagiarism Debora Weber-Wulff. 2.2.9 Self - plagiarism Many researchers are of the opinion that if they are the authors of a text ... reusing a paper with different author lists is clearly not acceptable in terms ... Since human beings have been writing it seems there has been plagiarism. It is not something that sprouted with the advent of the Internet. Teachers have been struggling for years in countries all over the globe to find good methods for dealing with the problem of plagiarizing students. How do we spot plagiarism? How do we teach them not to plagiarize? And how do we deal with those who have been found out to be plagiarists? The purpose of this book is to collect material on the various aspects of plagiarism in education with special attention given to the German problem of dissertation plagiarism. Since there is a wide-spread interest in the German plagiarism situation and in strategies for dealing with it, the book is written in English in order to be accessible to a larger audience.

The task of the unpaid reviewer in academic publishing has always been a taxing one. Although the notion is one of blind peer review, the selection of reviewers is far from random. Journals try to balance a prospective reviewer’s expertise with their availability, and with their track record of returning a useful review on time. Ideally, the reviewer should have a specific (reasonably expert) knowledge of the paper’s topic, but should also retain enough in common with the interested, but jargon-averse, academic reader to empathise with non-specialist journal subscribers. Reviewers should be able to judge the quality of the argument, of the writing, and of the contribution of the article to the field. It’s a tough ask, and now there is a further layer of concern: will the reviewer – having satisfied all the foregoing – be able to spot ‘self-plagiarism’? Self-plagiarism is a relatively new evil – at least, few people in the author’s circle appear aware of it. Googling the term results in some 8,000 hits (whereas plagiarism scores 3,150,000). At first blush, the usual interpretation of plagiarism – the pinching of some one else’s intellectual property without acknowledgement – seems to rule out the possibility of self-plagiarism. Surely, if the ideas and words are your own, a little judicious re-purposing is all grist to the mill? Indeed, most of the anti-plagiarism sites, for example: What is Plagiarism? (Georgetown University), don’t include the term at all. Instead, the site