Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review
Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review
复制标题
社会科学中的自我剽窃研究文献：范围界定审查
DOI：
10.1007/s10780-018-9333-6
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Katherine Crossman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sarah Elaine Eaton;Katherine Crossman
自我剽窃在高等教育、研究和学术出版领域是一个有争议的问题。这种做法是有问题的，因为它通过过度强调结果，增加期刊出版成本和人为夸大期刊影响力等后果来扰乱科学出版。我们假设缺乏关于自我剽窃的实证研究，而过多的社论和评论文章都是基于轶事证据。研究的问题是：什么类型的证据特征的文献自我剽窃的学术和研究期刊？我们进行了一个范围审查，使用搜索词“自我剽窃”和“自我剽窃”（连字符），咨询五个社会科学研究数据库，辅以手动搜索文章，导致超过5900个结果。在删除重复内容并排除非学术来源后，我们得到了133个来源的数据集，出版日期从1968年到2017年不等。两名研究者之间的评价者间信度超过93%，我们的类型学分析显示，47个来源（34.3%）是社论; 41个（29.9%）是概念研究（包括教学案例）; 16个（11.7%）是编辑回应; 12个（8.6%）是次要研究;只有8个来源（5.8%）是主要研究。在现有的文献中，很少有指导研究生或他们的教授如何理清自我剽窃的复杂性。初级和次级研究合计占数据集总贡献的14.4%，初级研究仅占总贡献的6%，我们的结论是呼吁更多的经验证据来支持对学术对话的贡献。
Self-plagiarism is a contentious issue in higher education, research and scholarly publishing contexts. The practice is problematic because it disrupts scientific publishing by over-emphasizing results, increasing journal publication costs, and artificially inflating journal impact, among other consequences. We hypothesized that there was a dearth of empirical studies on the topic of self-plagiarism, with an over-abundance of editorial and commentary articles based on anecdotal evidence. The research question was: What typologies of evidence characterize the literature on self-plagiarism in scholarly and research journals? We conducted a scoping review, using the search terms “self-plagiarism” and “self-plagiarism” (hyphenated), consulting five social sciences research databases, supplemented by a manual search for articles, resulting in over 5900 results. After removing duplicates and excluding non-scholarly sources, we arrived at a data set of 133 sources, with publication dates ranging from 1968 to 2017. With an interrater reliability of over 93% between two researchers, our typological analysis revealed 47 sources (34.3%) were editorials; 41 (29.9%) were conceptual research (including teaching cases); 16 (11.7%) were editorial responses; 12 (8.6%) were secondary research; and only 8 sources (5.8%) were primary research. There is little guidance in the available literature to graduate students or their professors about how to disentangle the complexities of self-plagiarism. With primary and secondary research combined accounting for 14.4% of overall contributions to the data set, and primary research constituting only 6% of overall contributions, we conclude with a call for more empirical evidence on the topic to support contributions to the scholarly dialogue.