Adham Hamdy

900105057
Submitted to the AIC (Academic Integrity Committee)
On Self Plagiarism

Plagiarism is perceived in most cases as an act of fraud or

theft of intellectual property. However, as the concept developed it
became more and more evident that it would be revised
conceptually, its boundaries and borderlines of its exact definition
become more and more vague. Recently, I had a close encounter
with this vagueness, and it nearly cost me my timely graduation.
The issue of self-plagiarism remains on that ethical borderline
between full on plagiarism and a fine piece of work. First thing is
first, although at first instance self plagiarism seems to be a logical
fallacy on the premise that you cant technically commit an act of
theft or fraud on ones self intellectual property. The confusion lies in
a functional sense of the verb to plagiarize, the word originates from
Greek and it translates to kidnap, thus plagiarism was mostly
perceived as an act of theft. Thus, in this paper we will examine the
label of self-plagiarism and whether it qualifies as an accurate
reflection of the question of reusing or recycling work. Since after all
the absence of a 3rd party, which rights have been violated some
may argue that it is not a crime and it is a legitimate shortcut.
However, as the case at hand shows us, Jonah Lehrer had a
series of unfortunate events that started with him re-using some of
his old work. Jonah Lehrer, a journalist who had a bright career up
ahead of him, a columnist for the New York Times and publisher of
three books. His world literally crumbled in a series of revelations
that shed light over his ethical stands and thus investigation
campaigns were launched in his works and at least 13 other
instances of language reuse in his previous writings1. However in
1 https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2012/06/21/self-plagiarismethics-and-the-case-of-jonah-lehrer/

both academia and the business world alike, self-plagiarism has

posed not only ethical but also legal questions. Usually cases of selfplagiarism leave judges and committees confused on whether the
act qualifies as plagiarism? If not then what reprimands and their
severity should be? In some cases theyd be left to wonder on
whether there is anything wrong done at all? Thus the scope of this
paper would be to record and archive an academic opinion on the
case of self-plagiarism, in it I will attempt to define the clarify the
vague conceptual borderlines. Not only that but also to serve as a
warning sign that, in my opinion, is still missing at our institution, I
believe that many students seem to preconceive issues concerning
their work submitted elsewhere. Moreover, after researching the
topic more, it came to my attention that the qualification of selfplagiarism heavily depends on the arena the acquisitions are being
made as well as the expectations had from the audience, viewers
etc.2.
Jonathan Bailey a writer for a web page called Plagiarism
Today seems to have had extensive writings on self-plagiarism as
well as the case of Jonah Lehrer and this Id be citing him a lot.
Bailey seems to have qualified priorys that seem to allow for selfplagiarism. First thing, one of the major things people have
problems with is resubmitting work previously submitted and
framing it as fresh and new work. The act of deception itself poses
tension between the author and their readers and thus further
precautions and dialogue need to be made. So first disclaimer that
has to be made is that the work is not fresh and not new, this can be
easily done by properly citing the earlier work if the expectations
are its fresh work. Unfortunately, academic papers seem to set the
environment for more conservative and strict expectations, since
after all the papers should reflect recent learning outcomes, also in
2 https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2011/09/07/self-plagiarismethical-shortcut-or-moral-scourge/

grading the assignment an inequality is created between a student

who submitted fresh work and a student who didnt. However, on an
intellectual level it freshness of the work does not impede its
relevance and originality, and thus it should be permitted and
equated to fresh work given the proper disclaimer of the previous
work. In other instances in the legal field, it is almost essential to
survive on previous writings for reference and confirmation and thus
the offence of self-plagiarism does not stand. On a separate note, I
advise the Academic Integrity Committee to try and use other terms
than self-plagiarism since after all we are able to come up with
crafted conceptions that clearly reflect the situations. Though the
case still remains an academic integrity issue however it does not
fall under the category of plagiarism, I would suggest the
undeclared re-usage of previous works as a more reflective concept
to both the deceptive nature of the act while refraining from
including it under the umbrella of plagiarism related acts. Selfplagiarism is an oxymoron. As for the cases where recycling is
unacceptable, the term copyright violation covers that. If a piece
was a work made for hire, the publisher owns the copyright, and the
writer has no right to reuse it without permission. If it was a
freelance work, the terms of the contract will dictate under what
circumstances, if any, the writer can republish the material. And if a
publisher were paying for original material, submitting recycled
work would be a violation of the contract. This is a legal issue, not
an ethical one. Asking around in freelance circles, authors usually
refer to this act as double-dipping or shotguning were authors
edit previous works both in style and content to an extent far
enough not to be detected, and theyd get paid twice for the same
work basically. Now confusion could be made between this double
publication and re-usage, since double publication would account for
copyright violations and thus it would be redundant to discuss it.
This is wrong and deceptive, but I would like to argue on the other
hand that academic institutions at all levels should allow for the

declared and direct re-usage of material which property rights

belong to the author, it should be regulated of course, but not
avoided non-the less3.
Moreover, one should also advise instructors to make it clear
for students that they are expecting original and fresh work; this
could be disclaimed in the syllabus. Instructors could even allow for
re-usage of previous works, and outline how they should properly
do that.
In Lehrers case both his employers and readers expected
original and fresh work since after al he is writing in a daily
newspaper and thus the crackdown on him spread like wildfire.
However, since after all I was in a learning environment and its and
already grey topic, I was lucky enough to walk out after further
exploring the topic. On one hand I learned my lesson, which is to
properly refer to previous works, which is a matter of Author VS
reader relationship, I learned that its widely used method, its simple
relatively, and it avoids you loosing a lot. On the other hand, Bailey
advises against self-plagiarism and he calls on authors to avoid it
to preserve sterling reputations, and that is what I didnt walk out
with. Knowing how the world works, while something like this case
might seem to end at a trivial point, however the fact remains that I
am not walking out of AUC with the sterling reputation of a young
academic to say the least, its a precious thing to loose. All of which
could have been avoided I Just cited, simple and clear.

Web Bibliography:
Bailey, Jonathan. Self-plagiarism: Ethical shortcut or moral scourge?
September 2011. (web) @
3 http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/177959/corbett-i-thinkwe-should-all-stop-using-the-term-self-plagiarism/

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2011/09/07/self-plagiarism-ethicalshortcut-or-moral-scourge/

Bailey, Jonathan. Self-Plagiarism, ethics and the case of Jonah

Lehrer. June 2012. (web) @
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2012/06/21/self-plagiarism-ethicsand-the-case-of-jonah-lehrer/

Silverman, Craig. Corbett: I think we should all stop using the term
self-plagiarism. June 2012 (web) @
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/177959/corbett-i-think-weshould-all-stop-using-the-term-self-plagiarism/