For example, I want to propose a new algorithm for an existing problem, and I already have published several papers about this topic, they share exactly same background, is it OK for me to copy the “background” and “related work” part from my published paper?

The background contains some already well-studied techniques, in order for the paper to be self-containing, they should be briefly introduced (instead of just being cited).

I don’t see the meaning that I have to express the exact same thing in a different way for every new paper

I am currently writing my master thesis and I am also running a popular blog about my research area. Some people asked me about certain topics and if I could write about them on my blog to make them more understandable to newcomers in our field.

Now it is tempting for me to just copy parts of my yet uncompleted thesis and mash together into blog posts. This will help me to save time writing them (I usually do not have the time) and it will benefit others. However, I worry that people see that as self-plagiarism. In particular people on the thesis committee might say I copied parts of the thesis from the internet.

What would be the right way to save me from trouble here. Shall I cite my unpublished thesis, or should my thesis cite my blog posts? Should the blog posts have clear indications that I copied verbatim from my unpublished thesis? Will I get into trouble if people see that in my thesis I copied verbatim from my blog posts (if I cite my blog posts rather than the other way around).

Recently I received a plagiarism report on my accepted manuscript. It is highlighted that total 25% text appeared in other sources though they are cited properly.

When I checked the report, I found ~20% text appears in references only and another ~3% text is due to the use of a long phrase “The tropical cyclone wind speed climatology”. This phrase was actually very frequently used in one of my another paper. The rest ~2% text appears in introduction and methods. In methods, I had used some well known mathematical equations and related descriptions e.g. which variable denotes what.

So how to deal with this situation? How can I convince to the editor?

I wrote my master’s thesis which looked at something through two different lenses using two different datasets.
I want to use one of those angles to submit a paper to a conference, and potentially the other in the future. So my questions are:

  1. Is this okay to do?
  2. Do I need to cite my master’s thesis, even if it is unpublished?
  3. Can I just copy parts that would apply, or do I need to paraphrase and cite different parts of the paper? For example, the analysis section of the paper, I give the background of the interviews I conducted. Can I just use this same language for the paper I want to submit to the conference?

In University, I was part of a philosophy reading group where people would occasionally give talks about their on-going research. Several years ago I gave one such talk, and presented original and new ideas that were never published or presented in a more formal setting, although the ideas were also presented in a term paper I wrote that same year. There is no public record of the contents of the talk, or even that that talk happened.

Now I am in a situation where I wish to reference that same idea in a research paper. It is outside the scope of the current paper paper to present those ideas as a new thing, but it would be something that would be appropriate to reference as existing.

How would I do that? I could get a DOI for the talk and reference it using that, but I would feel weird about referencing an unavailable talk that I gave, as it would feel like citation padding. This is doubly true since it is early in my career. I could write up a summary of the talk and put it on a publicly available repository, but I’m not sure if that’s a thing that is done. Are there other options?

I am a referee on a paper. I am concerned with the reuse in this paper of illustrations that appeared a year ago in a different article by the same authors in the same journal.

In the earlier article the illustration was found in the body of the paper and in the later article it appears in the Introduction section.

The illustration is of reasonable quality and it provides a concise metaphor of the framework the authors are working in, but the details of the illustration are not discussed below. I am concerned that the exact same look of the illustration might cause confusion to the readers who may come across the two papers.

On this site I have found an excellent discussion regarding the reuse of text. The accepted answer points to COPE Text recycling guidelines where a comment suggests that the practice regarding illustrations might be different.

In my field (Pathology), and probably in others as well, a much bigger
problem than recycled text (probably not so bad in an invited review
article, in which the authors are specifically invited to discuss
their previous publication/s, obviously with appropriate citation) is
recycled photographs, diagrams/drawings, Tables and the like. Again,
the rule we usually follow is to require permissions from the original
publisher/s and, obviously, citations. I must say, however, as an
author as well as an editor, that it has always annoyed me to have to
get permission from a publisher to reuse my own original

Should I suggest the authors remove the illustration in question?

I just rememebered a case when I was still in school: we had to write an essay about a specific topic and one guy put big parts of his essay on Wikipedia before handing it in. When the teacher checked for plagiarism she indeed found big parts of his text in the Wikipedia article and thus accused him of plagiarism.

How would that situation be with journal papers (or other “official” ways of publishing)?
Can I reuse part(s) of texts I wrote myself but that are available publicly/online like on Wikipedia, my Blog, university homepage, etc.?

(Maybe consider that pseudonyms are used on Wikipedia, Blogs, etc.)

I just wanted to see what people think about a possible plagiarism issue. I found a new article which, as far as I can tell, uses data first shown in an older publication from the same group but with a different first author. This may be irrelevant but I thought I’d mention it anyways; this new article’s only novelty is to analyze the old data with a model developed in another group.

To the point: this new article has many (more than 8) sentences taken from the older article from the same research group. These sentences describe the experimental setup. It’s clearly the same setup as the older article.

Is this plagiarism? I’ve been taught that it is but I’ve talked to another academic who says it’s not since there are only a limited number of ways that methods can be explained.