Subject: Re: (off-topic) self-plagiarism From: Peter Lennox <P.Lennox@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:28:55 +0100 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>I take Pierre's point about the implicit confidentiallity, actually; however, if you have your own account with tunrnitin, no-one else can access the document (as I understand it, but please do verify in case I'm wrong!) and you can safely remove it after checking. Even after you've removed it, it exists on the database so that turnitin checks behind the scenes, as it were. However, be aware that a subsequent check will return a 100% similarity, as it's checking against itself - but you can remove that primary source in checking options to avoid this 'feedback loop' Dr Peter Lennox Director of Signal Processing and Applications Research Group (SPARG) School of Technology, Faculty of Arts, design and Technology University of Derby, UK e: p.lennox@xxxxxxxx t: 01332 593155 w: http://sparg.derby.ac.uk/SPARG/Staff_PLX.asp ________________________________________ From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Iftikhar Riaz (Lance) Nizami [Nizamii2@xxxxxxxx Sent: 07 July 2009 16:53 To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: (off-topic) self-plagiarism Dr. Toth - Pierre Divenyi, in an earlier post in reply to your enquiry, said that the manuscript in question was covered by confidentiality rules and that hence there was nothing that you could do. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed ethics issues closely since my graduate years, and Dr. Divenyi is dead wrong. If the manuscript is indeed substantially a copy, then any expectation of confidentiality would have evaporated the instant that the very first version of the paper reached public exposure, either through journal publication or posting on a website. To say that confidentiality applies is hilarious. As such, there are a variety of options open to you. Let me respectfully point out (as others have) that your major responsibility is to inform your editor. The editor can (and should) then inform the editors of all the journals in which earlier copies appeared. There is already a tradition of this. The editor should also inform the Deja Vu online register of duplications; indeed, the paper(s) may already be listed there. If your editor refuses to do all these things, ask why not. If the editor still refuses, then do these things yourself. And tell your friends. There are too many charlatans out there who are flourishing in the world's most over-competitive job market because no one has the courage to speak up. By asking the opinions of Auditory List, you've already taken the first step to doing the right thing. On behalf of honest scientists everywhere, please continue. - Lance Nizami PhD, Decatur, GA 30030 In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:06:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tothl@xxxxxxxx writes: Dear List, I have a dilemma that I don't know where to turn with. I received a paper from a journal for review. A quick search on google revealed that the author has published the same paper (with negligible modifications) already at least 6-7 times. Is there anything I can do besides rejecting the paper from this journal? Thanks, and sorry for the off-topic mail. Laszlo Toth Hungarian Academy of Sciences * Research Group on Artificial Intelligence * "Failure only begins e-mail: tothl@xxxxxxxx * when you stop trying" http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/~tothl * ________________________________ Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals<http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003>. The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this email was sent to you in error, please notify the sender and delete this email. Please direct any concerns to Infosec@xxxxxxxx The policy is available here: http://www.derby.ac.uk/LIS/Email-Policy