0

I'm writing a series of three papers. Each paper I'm writing contains two parts (part A + part X), where part A is a new technology and part X is the field of applying it. Part A is common in all the three papers while part X (the field) is variable according to the field the paper discusses.

Can I use the resources of part A in the same arrangement (but with different paraphrasing) in all three papers, or should I get different resources for the same information in part A for all of them?

my question here represent my intention to understand the scientific logic not to suggest bad solution because i am a beginner still .

|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Buffy, Dmitry Savostyanov, Morgan Rodgers, user3209815, Richard Erickson Jul 19 at 13:32

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "The answer to this question strongly depends on individual factors such as a certain person’s preferences, a given institution’s regulations, the exact contents of your work or your personal values. Thus only someone familiar can answer this question and it cannot be generalised to apply to others. (See this discussion for more info.)" – Dmitry Savostyanov, Morgan Rodgers, user3209815, Richard Erickson
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Your question is stated in too abstract a way for good advice, I think. Anyone could answer in just about any way, which won't help you. Do something that seems to make sense to you. – Buffy Jul 18 at 20:29
  • 1
    Do you have a supervisor, a research mentor or a more experienced colleague, who can take a look at your paper drafts/plans and give you perhaps a more specific advice? – Dmitry Savostyanov Jul 18 at 20:57
  • Is your concern that your later papers will have less credibility because you'll be citing yourself? – candied_orange Jul 18 at 21:18
  • Clearly on-topic IMHO, despite appearing as off-topic in the close queue. What the asker is proposing to do is a bad idea, but that's not a reason to close the question! – Flyto Jul 18 at 22:12
  • @DmitrySavostyanov i will search for but for the moment i dont , i was just thinking in loud voice but unfortunately many people think in aggressive way toward the beginner questions – Rain Man Jul 18 at 22:30
4

It sounds to me like you are trying to game the system by publishing Part A three times simultaneously with revisions to the wording to claim it is not self-plagiarized.

Assuming Part A is important, which it seems to be because you are describing it as a new technology, you seem to be trying to get three journals to think they are each the first to publish that new technology, when in fact they are not. This is unethical.

If all the applications are relevant, you should publish whichever your favorite one is with Part A, and then submit separate papers citing that paper that show the results with the other applications. These works will likely repeat some of Part A, but only as much as is needed to explain it for that application.

However, this is something best discussed with your academic advisor.

|improve this answer
  • my intentions is not to gaming any one nor publishing in three different journals, its the same journal i would like to publish in it ,its just because that the technology i am concerned with is still new and have application in many fields . the third section of your kind answer is a good advice . many thanks – Rain Man Jul 18 at 22:15
  • @RainMan Okay that's good to hear, hopefully you will also take my first advice not as an offense but realize that others might have the same concern. Finally, the last sentence I write is probably the most important and I strongly encourage you to get advice from a senior person close to you. – Bryan Krause Jul 18 at 22:20
  • Thanks alot sir , unfortunately many people think in aggressive way towards the beginners questions while my objectives is to understand the logic of papers publishing , this is my second try and that is why i am facing many questions , thanks for all your answer parts not meaning to underestimate your answer in any way – Rain Man Jul 18 at 22:24
  • 2
    @RainMan The aggression towards novices, at least from me and I assume from others, always comes from a perspective of caring. If you are a parent, you should not usually yell at your children (or dog), but if a child is about to fall of a cliff, you need to yell to get their attention to save them. Similarly, sometimes it's important to point out dangers in an attention-grabbing way, especially if you can do so before the mistake is made. Afterwards it isn't much use. – Bryan Krause Jul 18 at 22:50
  • 1
    some times it will prevent people from asking especially the beginners , in some places in our worlds young students are beaten by their teachers in their schools when they do mistakes to let them ( as teachers suppose) do matters correct , the result is that they left the schools .. understanding and supposing good intentions in my opinion is more helpful – Rain Man Jul 18 at 23:01
1

In general, the best way to approach this specific type of problem is to consult with your advisor and review the standards of the place (journal?) to where you are submitting this work.

As practical writing advice goes, arbitrarily changing sources will not help your readers. If you got your information from Source Z, you should cite Source Z instead of arbitrarily citing Source Q, even if the information is largely the same between both of them.

You may make your research better if you try to rework part A as each field (part X) changes. Many of your resources will largely be the same between the three papers, but part A will cater more closely to the specific topic this way. A reader of one of your individual papers is likely better served this way too.

|improve this answer
  • 1
    Thanks a lot sir for your kind answer – Rain Man Jul 18 at 22:41
  • I thought that if you got the information from source Z, you should try to trace the idea to the earliest source A, and cite A, to acknowledge the original author, not an arbitrary guy who used this idea later. – Dmitry Savostyanov Jul 19 at 8:43
  • @DmitrySavostyanov I agree with this. I was trying to say that if Source Z talks about something like how rainbows are formed, and Source Q also mentions stuff on how rainbows are formed, you should cite Source Z instead of Source Q because you got your information from Source Z and would be citing Source Q for the sake of having an arbitrarily different source on how rainbows are formed. Of course, you should do your due diligence and trace Source Z back to A where this was a novel discovery. – Kevin Miller Jul 19 at 15:41

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.