[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (off-topic) self-plagiarism
Sorry to bring this up again but having had a look for through these papers
it seems that while the abstracts are almost identical the application of
the model used is different. Instead of finding six papers I was only able
to find 3 (but six links to papers). For these three papers a large
proportion of the material was indeed similar (e.g. methods section made up
a bulk of the paper). But as the 2 papers I had access to had different
applications of the two model I felt that to say they are the same paper is
maybe untrue. If he has a model with a wide range of applications and
applies this model to fields as disparate as face recognition and virology
it could perhaps be deemed as fitting that they need to be published in
journals that people practising in the respective fields read?
Using the same abstract over and over is inappropriate and lazy but to me
this still doesn't look like he re-used the same paper.
From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception
[mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Laszlo Toth
Sent: 07 July 2009 17:25
Subject: Re: (off-topic) self-plagiarism
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Pierre Divenyi wrote:
> I respectfully disagree with Peter. When a journal sends a paper for
> it is often explicitly but always implicitly implied that the paper and
> content are confidential.
As I said, I have found the paper in many already-published versions,
which are clearly public. So its just an additional thing that I have an
n+1th version which is confidental. I might have found the self-plagiarism
also accidentaly, just by browsing the web. I think it's not against any
law if I say: type the following sentence in google and compare the
abstracts of the
papers that come up.
"The proposed fast time delay neural networks"
Hungarian Academy of Sciences *
Research Group on Artificial Intelligence * "Failure only begins
e-mail: tothl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx * when you stop trying"
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.