In our August “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:
Is it self-plagiarism or otherwise unethical to send out for publication two different pieces, to two different journals, if they argue for different theses in different subfields, but both use the same underlying bit of reasoning to justify their conclusion? That is, the key move, the “ace-in-the-hole” argument that does the most justificatory work, is the same in both of them?
I guess I think it’s sort of hard to say without seeing the actual papers–as (I think) I can imagine cases like this that aren’t problematic but also cases that may be (e.g., cases where two papers are basically the same but with minor differences in conclusions defended). These latter types of cases might run afoul of journal policies that papers must not be under review elsewhere, or alternatively (if one paper ends up being published before the other), journal policies that prohibit submitting a paper that contains a significant amount of content that has already been published.
What do readers think?
Leave a Reply