Recycling Research Without (Self-)Plagiarism: The Importance of Context and the Case of Conference Contributions

Authors : Gert Helgesson, Jonas Åkerman, Sara Belfrage

In this paper, we clarify the notions of plagiarism and self-plagiarism and show that a rather straightforward observation about these notions has important implications for the admissibility of recycling research outputs. The key point is that contextual variation must be taken into account in normative assessments of recycling research outputs, and we illustrate this with some examples.

In particular, we apply the analysis in order to dissolve a disagreement about the proper handling of submissions to conferences. Some researchers are comfortable with sending the same contribution to several conferences, while others find that unacceptable and a clear deviation from good research practise. We take a closer look at the arguments regarding whether it is acceptable or not to make the same conference contribution more than once, including the argument that submitting the same contribution more than once would amount to self-plagiarism.

We argue that contextual variation must be taken into account, in accordance with our previous analysis, and conclude that whether or not a duplication of a conference contribution deviates from good research practise depends on what significance is ascribed to it in the specific case. We conclude with some practical recommendations, emphasising for example, the importance of being explicit and clear on this point, and encourage conference organisers to provide opportunities to specify relevant facts in the submission.

URL : Recycling Research Without (Self-)Plagiarism: The Importance of Context and the Case of Conference Contributions

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1653

La communication scientifique au XXIe siècle : enjeux et représentations des chercheurs

Auteurs/Authors : Cheikh Ndiaye, Aminata Cissé, Félicité Métonou

Différentes politiques publiques mises en place au cours des dernières décennies, notamment depuis le début du siècle, contribuent à la réalisation d’un projet de croissance économique tant au niveau européen que mondial. Leurs répercussions sur l’organisation du paysage scientifique, les missions des enseignants-chercheurs ou leurs activités sont visibles.

S’interrogeant sur les finalités de la communication scientifique, les auteurs – à partir d’une revue de littérature, d’observations et expériences personnelles, d’une analyse de données issues d’une enquête qualitative – replacent la publication dans son contexte aux valeurs atypiques avant de la réenvisager comme un mécanisme de promotion individuelle.

En valorisant le chercheur, elle l’inscrit cependant dans le consensus pour le bien collectif, devenant un moyen privilégié de son intégration sociale.

URL : http://www.refsicom.org/1501

Notebook and Open science : toward more FAIR play

Authors : Mariannig Le Béchec, Célya Gruson Daniel, Clémence Lascombes, Émilien Schultz

Notebooks are now commonly used in digital research practices. Despite their increasing ubiquity, the characteristics, roles, and uses associated with notebooks have seldom been studied from a social science perspective.

In this article, we present an overview of the available empirical work on notebooks in order to describe existing practices, typologies crafted to grasp their diversity, and their limitations when used in data analysis workflows.

Following this review, which highlights a focus of studies on interactive computational notebooks specifically within data science rather than research practices in academic contexts, we discuss the role of notebooks as a vector and lever for the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles associated with open science.

URL : Notebook and Open science : toward more FAIR play

DOI : https://doi.org/10.46298/jdmdh.13428

Open Access APCs Are Already a Scam”: Knowledge and Opinions of Open Access and Article Processing Charges From Faculty at a Large Public University

Authors : Heidi M. Winkler

Introduction:

In the 2020s, open access (OA) continues to act as a challenging force in the ever-shifting landscape of scholarly communication. The objective of this study was to survey faculty at an R1 research institution about their perspectives on OA publishing, article processing charges (APCs), and knowledge of the institutional repository (IR).

Methods:

This study employed an anonymous online survey of 415 faculty members, with a response rate of 12.77% (53 responses). The survey collected both quantitative and qualitative data from respondents.

Results and Discussion:

Results showed engagement with OA publishing but skepticism of APCs as a reasonable alternative to subscription-based funding models. Survey respondents were also mostly unaware of the library’s IR self-archiving service.

Conclusion:

For-profit OA business models do not serve academics, and they and scholarly communications librarians should better collaborate to advocate for transitioning away from APCs. The article concludes by sharing how the author changed practice based on the results of the study.

URL : Open Access APCs Are Already a Scam”: Knowledge and Opinions of Open Access and Article Processing Charges From Faculty at a Large Public University

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.17647

Enhancing Research Methodology and Academic Publishing: A Structured Framework for Quality and Integrity

Authors : Md. Jalil Piran, Nguyen H. Tran

Following a brief introduction to research, research processes, research types, papers, reviews, and evaluations, this paper presents a structured framework for addressing inconsistencies in research methodology, technical writing, quality assessment, and publication standards across academic disciplines. Using a four-dimensional evaluation model that focuses on 1) technical content, 2) structural coherence, 3) writing precision, and 4) ethical integrity, this framework not only standardizes review and publication processes but also serves as a practical guide for authors in preparing high-quality manuscripts. Each of these four dimensions cannot be compromised for the sake of another.

Following that, we discuss the components of a research paper adhering to the four-dimensional evaluation model in detail by providing guidelines and principles. By aligning manuscripts with journal standards, reducing review bias, and enhancing transparency, the framework contributes to more reliable and reproducible research results. Moreover, by strengthening cross-disciplinary credibility, improving publication consistency, and fostering public trust in academic literature, this initiative is expected to positively influence both research quality and scholarly publishing’s reputation.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.05683

Publication Trends in Artificial Intelligence Conferences: The Rise of Super Prolific Authors

Authors : Ariful Azad, Afeefa Banu

Papers published in top conferences contribute influential discoveries that are reshaping the landscape of modern Artificial Intelligence (AI). We analyzed 87,137 papers from 11 AI conferences to examine publication trends over the past decade. Our findings reveal a consistent increase in both the number of papers and authors, reflecting the growing interest in AI research.

We also observed a rise in prolific researchers who publish dozens of papers at the same conference each year. In light of this analysis, the AI research community should consider revisiting authorship policies, addressing equity concerns, and evaluating the workload of junior researchers to foster a more sustainable and inclusive research environment.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07793