To the editor

Article Outline

• Copyright

I read your editorial about self-plagiarism in the November/December issue of Nursing Outlook with interest. As an author, I have found editors to be alert to this issue and to request copies of previous work. I applaud your efforts to explicate issues related to self-plagiarism particularly for authors. The last thing a seriously committed researcher needs is to be accused of something that, in turn, devalues the importance of their work.

I don’t have any thoughtful answers to the problem you posed, but rather raise further issues for thought. Every time I write a new research article, I struggle to write similar things in a different way. I even find, sometimes, that I get bored with writing similar material but often find that an article cannot often stand on its own without certain basic and important background detail. Like you, I had a major funded-research project with multiple outcomes. Therefore, an attempt to make a section of the literature review or methods sound different is a major challenge. I’ve published 5 manuscripts from the research, each focusing on a different variable, or a new combination of variables that provides different insight into the topic. Furthermore, I have additional manuscripts that should emerge out of the same grant when I get the time. Some time ago, I made a list of potential articles and came up with a list of 17 (over and above what I’ve previously published). So what is one to do to avoid repetitions in the literature review or methods? When writing multiple manuscripts emerging from a body of research, one possible answer to self-plagiarism is to eliminate some text on methods or in the literature review by referring to other articles. However, as a consumer of research literature, I also know how maddening it is to have to access yet another publication to get details, particularly about research methods.

Another issue to be raised regarding self-plagiarism is the issue of what to do when research is physiologic in nature. Physiology does not necessarily change, but the depth of understanding in the average reader may be lacking. Therefore, some repetition of the physiology behind the concept of interest is needed to help the reader understand the “conceptual framework” and rationale for choice of the variables.

An additional issue to consider when discussing self-plagiarism is the amount of literature on the topic. For example, I am the seminal researcher on the topic “antepartum bed rest.” With a few brief excursions, no one has, as yet, begun investigations to extend the body of knowledge on the topic. The lack of research by new investigators makes it difficult to write a different literature review, as there is no new literature upon which to expand. One can certainly add a new review of literature that emanates from the unique variable of interest but, at some point, there is often a need to return to a review of the seminal literature of the topic. Also, in my particular instance, I find that I repeatedly have to discuss somewhere in many manuscripts the 2 basic assumptions behind bed rest treatment (effective and safe) in order to place the problem and/or results in context. (The treatment is not effective and my research shows it is unsafe). Yet, I still have reviewers and readers question me about the assumptions behind bed rest treatment in disbelief that a common medical treatment that is ineffective and unsafe could be used. Reader questions raise an additional issue related to self-plagiarism. Like the learning process, do some things need to be repeated to facilitate full reader-comprehension?

I have struggled with the issues of “self-plagiarism” that you describe in your editorial. Perhaps that is the desired outcome (ie, to make sure that each investigator/author carefully examines and re-examines what she/he writes in light of self-plagiarism before submitting a manuscript. Submitting previous manuscripts with a current manuscript submission would also allay editors’ fears of author self-plagiarism and make editor screening for it easier.

These are just a few thoughts. I look forward to further dialogue on the topic and hope you get many letters that you will publish in your journal.