某些人觉得我唬人,那我贴一点规范出来大家看看:
3.7. So-called "self-plagiarism" and recycling fraud:
Legally it is impossible under American law to steal from oneself. Therefore, because plagiarism is defined as theaft some people argue that self-plagiarism is impossible by definition. This is because people cannot steal from their own work. There are, however,circumstances such as insurance fraud when people defraud others by claiming that something they owned was stolen when it was not.
On the Internet Humanist Forum, professor Paul Brian of the University of Montreal argued that "self-plagiarism," or the recycling of an old work in a new guise, "is also a theft since the author leads the book-buyer to think that there is a new book of his on the market. The author is misleading his/her readers: to me, it is just the same thing as to sell a secondhand car while claiming it's a brand new one" (The Humanist Forum 7/13, 16 April 1992). Perhaps a better analogy is the used car dealer who changes a car's odometer to make it appear much less used than it really is. Such a practice is recognized to be illegal. So too "self-plagiarism" is fraud if not outright theaft (Brogan 1992:453-465). To avoid confusion here perhaps it is better to drop the term "self-plagiarism" and simply call it recycling fraud.
Recycling fraud must be carefully distinguished from the legitimate recycling of a writer's own work that to a greater or lesser extent everyone does. Although recycling fraud in academic publications is a gray area many universities implicitly recognize the practice as fraudulent by publishing rules preventing students from submitting essentially the same essay for credit in different courses. There are also rules against someone submitting the same graduate thesis to different universities. Among established academics self-plagiarism is a problem when essentially the same article or book is submitted on more than one occasion to gain additional salary increments or for purpose of promotion.
Like plagiarism the essence of recycling fraud is the author's attempt to deceive the reader. This happens when no indication is given that the work is being recycled and an effort is made to disguise the original text. The issue is one of the extent of the deception. Disguising a text occurs when an author makes cosmetic changes that cause the same article, chapter, or book to look significantly different when in reality it actually remains unchanged in most of its wording and its central argument. Changing such things as paragraph breaks, capitalization, or the substitution of technical terms using different languages that leads readers to believe they are reading something completely new is recycling fraud when such changes are the only ones an author makes to a text.
The extent of recycling is also an indication of recycling fraud. Academics normally republish revised versions of their Ph.D. thesis. They also often develop different aspects of an argument in several papers that require the repetition of key passages from an original work. This is not recycling fraud if the work develops new insights. It is recycling fraud if the argument, examples, evidence, and conclusions remain the same without the development of new ideas or presentation of additional evidence. In other words it is recycling fraud when two works only differ in their appearance but are presented as separate and distinct works.
最后一段讲的是在phd毕业之后,把学位论文改成发表论文要注意如何防止作弊。“Academics normally republish revised versions of their Ph.D. thesis. ”
其中有一个很重要的原则,你使用过去自己写的文章可以,但需要有新的东西“new insights”。如果他们仅仅在形式上不同,而在实质上一样,是不允许的。
我要说的就这些,觉得这些条例是骗人的话,那就随便抄去。每个学校的严格程度不一样,但基本原则都是不允许抄袭。
|