3

A simple analysis method was proposed in an already-published paper. I am working on a more complicated version of the same method. The future works section of the published paper and my future works section have the same goal. Is it acceptable for both papers to have similar future works goals?

  • 2
    Isn't the main objective of writing just to tell the truth as you understand it? Of course not, and we all know it (just read your favorite newspaper) but have we really fallen so low that we would be ready to lie not for a purpose, but just to avoid accusations of "self-plagiarism"? I hope not. If the goals are the same, I see nothing that prevents you to openly proclaim it. It makes sense to emphasize that those goals have already been proclaimed earlier in [X], but as long as they are not achieved, I see nothing wrong with proclaiming them over and over again. – fedja Apr 18 '18 at 11:59
  • @fedja I mentioned the existing works in my papers many times. Also, I mentioned that my new work is an extension of their work. However, both our works can have the same future works. However, each in its main idea. Their future works is for the simple version while mine is for the complicated version. – user91551 Apr 18 '18 at 12:24
4

Future work or goals may be broadly similar, there is absolutely no problem there. But if they are identical, the natural question is, what objective does your present work achieve?

You have extended the method (simple to more complicated), so you have already advanced something. Your future work and summary should reflect that - from a writing point of view more than an ethical point of view. If a reader were to only glance at your abstract, conclusions and future work, it should be clear that you have accomplished some goal that was previously unmet.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy