JEBP

  • About
  • Journal’s Board
  • Submission and Instructions to Authors
  • Issues
  • News

SCIENTISTS AS SCHRODINGER’S CAT: REPLAY TO ROIG’S “THE DEBATE ON SELF-PLAGIARISM: INQUISITIONAL SCIENCE OR HIGH STANDARDS OF SCHOLARSHIP?”

Daniel DAVID
“Babes-Bolyai” University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

In which self-plagiarism is concerned, considering the current state in the field, there are only two ways to go. The first way to go is to agree upon three minimal criteria for ethical writing (1. a new publication based on an old one is intended to target a new audience; 2. copyright laws are respected; and 3. it is made clear to the reader and in the author’s CVs that the new paper reproduces old ones or parts of them) and to follow them in order to allow for the full expression of the humanistic spirit of science (i.e., disseminating knowledge produced to solve various problems). The second way to go is to elaborate clear rules and guidelines to avoid self-plagiarism, endorsed by all the major actors in the field; from that point on self-plagiarism can be considered misconduct. However, these rules cannot be applied retrospectively, to a time when they did not exist and/or were not lawful. All things considered, the current state of the field is unfair for scientists! As there are no clear lawful regulations regarding self-plagiarism, most scientists are like Schrodinger’s cats, neither guilty nor not-guilty! It depends on who, on how, and on if someone is looking…!

Keywords: self-plagiarism, research, ethics

Pages: 259-261

Jan 10, 2010admin
REPLY TO DAVID’S “SCIENTISTS AS SCHRÖDINGER'S CAT”THE DEBATE ON SELF-PLAGIARISM: INQUISITIONAL SCIENCE OR HIGH STANDARDS OF SCHOLARSHIP?
Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies

Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies

Categories
  • Vol XIX, No.1, 2019 (9)
  • Vol XIX, No.2, 2019 (9)
  • Vol XX, No.1, 2020 (8)
  • Vol XX, No.2, 2020 (10)
  • Vol XXI, No. 1, 2021 (8)
  • Vol XXI, No. 2, 2021 (11)
  • Vol XXII, No.1, 2022 (9)
  • Vol XXII. No.2, 2022 (9)
  • Vol XXIII, No.1, 2023, Special Issue (8)
  • Vol XVIII, No. 2, 2018 (10)
  • Vol XVIII, No. 1, 2018 (10)
  • Vol XVI, No. 2, 2016 (9)
  • About (7)
  • Vol XVII, No. 2, 2017 (10)
  • Vol XVII, No. 1, 2017 (9)
  • Vol XVI, No. 1, 2016 (9)
  • Vol XV, No. 2, 2015 (9)
  • Vol XV, No. 1, 2015 (12)
  • Vol XIV, No. 2, 2014 (13)
  • Vol XIV, No. 1, 2014 (7)
  • Vol XIII, No. 2, 2013 (13)
  • Vol XIII, Special Issue 2a, 2013 (11)
  • Vol XIII, Special Issue 1a, 2013 (7)
  • Vol XIII, No. 1, 2013 (8)
  • Vol XII, No. 2, 2012 (8)
  • Vol XII, No. 1, 2012 (9)
  • Vol XI, No. 2, 2011 (11)
  • Vol XI, No. 1, 2011 (8)
  • Vol X, No. 1, 2010 (9)
  • Vol IX, No. 2, 2009 (8)
  • Vol IX, No. 1, 2009 (9)
  • Vol VIII, No. 2, 2008 (11)
  • Vol VIII, No. 1, 2008 (9)
  • Vol VII, No. 2, 2007 (5)
  • Vol VII, No. 1, 2007 (7)
  • Vol VI, No. 2, 2006 (9)
  • Vol VI, No. 1, 2006 (8)
  • Vol V, No. 2, 2005 (7)
  • Vol V, No. 1, 2005 (6)
  • Vol IV, No. 2, 2004 (3)
Keywords
irrational beliefsrebtcbtcognitive-behavioral therapydistressEditorialcognitive restructuringappraisalschemasautism spectrum disordersbinary model of distresshypnosisrational emotive behavior theoryconversion disorderpositive illusionsautismrational anticipation techniqueattributionsincompatible information techniquecognitive psychologydevelopmenttheory of mindcommunicationearly interventiontoddlersneural structuresdeficitsfunctional and dysfunctional emotionsthe Attitudes and Belief Scale 2unitary model of distressarousalfunctional and dysfunctional negative emotionsmind reading beliefseating behavioursmental healthirrational and rational beliefspre-goal/ post-goal attainment positive emotionsdysfunctional consequencesimpairmentcore relational themeswithdrawal motivational systemsapproach motivational systemsdysfunctional positive emotionspreferencesdemandingness
e-mail us:

jebpeditor@gmail.com

The International Institute for the Advanced Studies of Psychotherapy and Applied Mental Healt

http://psychotherapy.psiedu.ubbcluj.ro

2017 © Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies