Definition · Plain-language
Self-plagiarism
Self-plagiarism is reusing your own previously published or submitted work — text, data or an entire paper — without disclosing or citing the earlier version.
The step most authors miss
Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.
A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.
Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.
The recognised forms
Self-plagiarism appears in several patterns. Duplicate or redundant publication republishes substantially the same study in more than one venue. Text recycling reuses passages of your own earlier prose without quotation or citation. Dual or simultaneous submission sends the same manuscript to two journals at once, against their submission terms. "Salami slicing" splits a single coherent study into several thinner papers to maximise publication count. Each of these can distort the literature, double-count findings in meta-analyses and breach copyright transferred to the original publisher, which is why editors scrutinise them.
Why reusing your own work can still be wrong
It seems counter-intuitive that reusing your own writing could be an ethics breach, but the problem is not ownership — it is transparency. Readers and reviewers assume that a paper presents new work; undisclosed reuse misrepresents what is original and can inflate a researcher’s apparent productivity. Duplicate publication also wastes peer-review and editorial effort and can skew evidence synthesis if the same data are counted twice. COPE provides guidance and flowcharts that direct editors to handle suspected text recycling and redundant publication, treating serious cases as research misconduct.
How to reuse your own work properly
Legitimate reuse is a matter of disclosure. Cite your own earlier publications just as you would cite anyone else’s, and use quotation marks or a clear acknowledgement for any recycled passages. When building on a prior study, state explicitly what is new and what has appeared before, and tell the editor at submission about any related or overlapping work. Some limited reuse — for example, repeating an established methods description — is widely accepted provided it is acknowledged. Transparency with editors and readers is the line that separates fair reuse from self-plagiarism.
Key facts
At a glance
- Definition: reusing your own prior work without disclosure or citation
- Forms: duplicate publication, text recycling, dual submission, salami slicing
- Status: a publication-ethics breach, even though the work is your own
- Guidance: COPE and journal editors handle suspected cases
- Risk: double-counts data in evidence synthesis; may breach transferred copyright
- Fix: cite your earlier work and disclose overlap to the editor
Common misconceptions
What people often get wrong
Often heard: You cannot plagiarise yourself, because it is your own work.
Actually: You can. Self-plagiarism is a publication-ethics breach because it hides that the material is not new; ownership is not the issue, undisclosed reuse and the misleading of readers are.
Often heard: Submitting the same manuscript to two journals at once just improves my odds.
Actually: Dual submission breaches almost every journal’s terms and wastes editorial and reviewer effort. Submit to one venue at a time, and disclose any related work.
Often heard: Reusing my own methods section word for word is always fine.
Actually: Limited reuse of standard methods text is often accepted, but only when acknowledged. Undisclosed recycling of substantial passages is text recycling, a recognised form of self-plagiarism.
