Do not copy and paste, but you might [re]think this message for all undergraduate students!!!
自己剽窃
Remind you, that Self-plagiarism is
an unmitigated violation of research ethics
池田光穂
■自己剽窃（Self-plagiarism）とは
「過去に自分が書いたレポート・
論文またはその一部を、自分が書いた内容であるからという理由で適切な引用や註釈なしに、他の科目
のレポート・論文に使用することが、自己剽窃にあたります」（https://bit.ly/3jyFqHl）
ウィキペディアには、自己剽窃（じこひょうせつ； Self-plagiarism）あるいは自己盗用「とは、自分の文書（学 術出版、論文、書籍、レポート、申請書など）やデータ、図、表と全く同じもの、あるいは、少し改変したものを、原典の引用なしに、自分で再使用し、発表・ 文書化する行為である。原則的には盗用とみなされ、研究倫理違反（＝研究不正）とされる。しかし、違反としない人・機関もあり、問題点が多い」ウィキペディア「自己盗用」）。と記載しているが、端的に言って「違反としない人・機関もあり」という人も機関も現在では大問題であり、自己盗用 とは（グローバルスタンダードでは）立派な研究公正・研究倫理違反であると認定される。
以下の黄色の枠内は、英語のウィキペディアからの記
事である。
| Self-plagiarism,
Duplicate
publication. The reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one's own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or citing the original work is sometimes described as "self-plagiarism"; the term "recycling fraud" has also been used to describe this practice.[74: Dellavalle, Robert P.; Banks, Marcus A.; Ellis, Jeffrey I. (September 2007). "Frequently asked questions regarding self-plagiarism: How to avoid recycling fraud". Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 57 (3): 527. ] Articles of this nature are often referred to as duplicate or multiple publication. In addition there can be a copyright issue if copyright of the prior work has been transferred to another entity. Self-plagiarism is considered a serious ethical issue in settings where someone asserts that a publication consists of new material, such as in publishing or factual documentation.[75: ebecca Attwood. "Allow me to rephrase, and boost my tally of articles". Times Higher Education. 3 July 2008.] It does not apply to public-interest texts, such as social, professional, and cultural opinions usually published in newspapers and magazines.[76: Plagiarism Policy". unknown today] In academic fields, self-plagiarism occurs when an author reuses portions of their own published and copyrighted work in subsequent publications, but without attributing the previous publication.[77: Hexham, Irving (2005). "The Plague of Plagiarism: Academic Plagiarism Defined". UCalgary.ca.][78:Roig, M. (2010). Plagiarism and self-plagiarism: What every author should know. Biochemia Medica, 20(3), 295-300.] Identifying self-plagiarism is often difficult because limited reuse of material is accepted both legally (as fair use) and ethically.[79: Samuelson, Pamela (August 1994). "Self-plagiarism or fair use?" (PDF). Communications of the ACM. 37 (8): 21–5] Many people mostly, but not limited to critics of copyright and "intellectual property" do not believe it is possible to plagiarize oneself.[80: "Reverse Plagiarism? Or, Did I Say That?". 2007-11-26.] Critics of the concepts of plagiarism and copyright may use the idea of self-plagiarism as a reductio ad absurdum argument. Contested definition Miguel Roig has written at length about the topic of self-plagiarism[81: Roig, M. (2005). "Re-Using Text from One's Own Previously Published Papers: An Exploratory Study of Potential Self-Plagiarism". Psychological Reports. 97 (1): 43–49][82: Roig, M. (2015) [Created in 2003]. "Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing" (PDF). "Avoiding Plagiarism, Self-plagiarism, and Other Questionable Writing Practices: A Guide to Ethical Writing". U.S. Department of Health & Human Services: Office of Research Integrity.][83: Roig, M. (8 January 2015). "On Reusing Our Previously Disseminated Work". American Association for the Advancement of Science.] and his definition of self-plagiarism as using previously disseminated work is widely accepted among scholars of the topic. However, the term "self-plagiarism" has been challenged as being self-contradictory, an oxymoron,[84: Broome, M (November 2004). "Self-plagiarism: Oxymoron, fair use, or scientific misconduct?". Nursing Outlook. 52 (6): 273–4. ] and on other grounds.[85: Andreescu, Liviu (November 2012). "Self-Plagiarism in Academic Publishing: The Anatomy of a Misnomer". Science and Engineering Ethics. 19 (3): 775–797] For example, Stephanie J. Bird[86: Bird, SJ (October 2002). "Self-plagiarism and dual and redundant publications: what is the problem? Commentary on 'Seven ways to plagiarize: handling real allegations of research misconduct'". Science and Engineering Ethics. 8 (4): 543–4.] argues that self-plagiarism is a misnomer, since by definition plagiarism concerns the use of others' material. Bird identifies the ethical issues of "self-plagiarism" as those of "dual or redundant publication". She also notes that in an educational context, "self-plagiarism" refers to the case of a student who resubmits "the same essay for credit in two different courses." As David B. Resnik clarifies, "Self-plagiarism involves dishonesty but not intellectual theft."[87: Resnik, David B. (1998). The Ethics of Science: an introduction, London: Routledge. p.177, notes to chapter six, note 3] According to Patrick M. Scanlon,[88: Scanlon, PM (2007). "Song from myself: an anatomy of self-plagiarism". Plagiary. 2 (1): 1–11. ] "self-plagiarism" is a term with some specialized currency. Most prominently, it is used in discussions of research and publishing integrity in biomedicine, where heavy publish-or-perish demands have led to a rash of duplicate and "salami-slicing" publication, the reporting of a single study's results in "least publishable units" within multiple articles (Blancett, Flanagin, & Young, 1995; Jefferson, 1998; Kassirer & Angell, 1995; Lowe, 2003; McCarthy, 1993; Schein & Paladugu, 2001; Wheeler, 1989). Roig (2002) offers a useful classification system including four types of self-plagiarism: duplicate publication of an article in more than one journal; partitioning of one study into multiple publications, often called salami-slicing; text recycling; and copyright infringement. Codes of ethics Some academic journals have codes of ethics that specifically refer to self-plagiarism. For example, the Journal of International Business Studies.[89:Lorraine Eden. "JIBS Code of Ethics". Journal of International Business Studies. Archived from the original on 2010-07-23.] Some professional organizations like the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) have created policies that deal specifically with self-plagiarism.[90: "ACM Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism". June 2010.] Other organizations do not make specific reference to self-plagiarism such as the American Political Science Association (APSA). The organization published a code of ethics that describes plagiarism as "...deliberate appropriation of the works of others represented as one's own." It does not make any reference to self-plagiarism. It does say that when a thesis or dissertation is published "in whole or in part", the author is "not ordinarily under an ethical obligation to acknowledge its origins."[91: American Political Science Association (2008). "A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science". Second Edition. Section 21.1] The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) also published a code of ethics that says its members are committed to: "Ensure that others receive credit for their work and contributions," but it makes no reference to self-plagiarism.[92: American Society for Public Administration. "ASPA's Code of Ethics"] Factors that justify reuse Pamela Samuelson, in 1994, identified several factors she says excuse reuse of one's previously published work, that make it not self-plagiarism.[79] She relates each of these factors specifically to the ethical issue of self-plagiarism, as distinct from the legal issue of fair use of copyright, which she deals with separately. Among other factors that may excuse reuse of previously published material Samuelson lists the following: The previous work must be restated to lay the groundwork for a new contribution in the second work. Portions of the previous work must be repeated to deal with new evidence or arguments. The audience for each work is so different that publishing the same work in different places is necessary to get the message out. The author thinks they said it so well the first time that it makes no sense to say it differently a second time. Samuelson states she has relied on the "different audience" rationale when attempting to bridge interdisciplinary communities. She refers to writing for different legal and technical communities, saying: "there are often paragraphs or sequences of paragraphs that can be bodily lifted from one article to the other. And, in truth, I lift them." She refers to her own practice of converting "a technical article into a law review article with relatively few changes—adding footnotes and one substantive section" for a different audience.[79] Samuelson describes misrepresentation as the basis of self-plagiarism.[79] She also states "Although it seems not to have been raised in any of the self-plagiarism cases, copyrights law's fair use defense would likely provide a shield against many potential publisher claims of copyright infringement against authors who reused portions of their previous works."[79] Source: Self-plagiarism |
このように、自己剽窃に関する議論、すなわち自己剽
窃は（真正なる）研究不正か否かについては、いまだ論争の渦中にあるが、動向として確実に言えることは「自己剽窃に関する議論のうち研究不正ではないとい
う主張は通らない」。そしてそのような動向を踏まえて、「自己剽窃は、すでに（非可変的テキストとして）公刊された時点では、完全な再利用は『引用符』に
よる引用を例外として研究不正として分類されうる」ということになる。すなわち、自己剽窃は限りなく研究倫理違反に抵触する（Remind you,
that Self-plagiarism is an unmitigated violation of research
ethics）と肝に命じたほうがよい。
リンク
文献
Do not copy and paste, but you might [re]think this message for all undergraduate students!!!