Duplicate use of data question
Posted 25 March 2013 - 05:44 PM
We have already published data on the characterization of Protein X.
I have now characterized Protein Y. I would like to compare the data in a publication (a part of a publication, 10-20% of total data). Is it OK to make a figure with both Protein X & Y data? The Protein X data would be the previously published data.
I am debating whether or not I should only include Protein Y data and constantly reference the Protein X paper, or include both Protein Y & X data and mention that the X data was taken from the previous publication.
Any take on this would be great,
Posted 25 March 2013 - 06:44 PM
Posted 25 March 2013 - 07:48 PM
"Data for protein X was previously described (Reference) but has been included for comparison." I also state this in the results when I first mention the comparison.
I feel that if I am very transparent about the fact that protein X data is from our previous paper, it shouldnt pose an issue. I am hesitant to contact the editors since it seems like a difficult question to ask in my opinion. Can I re-use my data? I feel that without the data in front of them they will give a stern NO and my name will be on their bad list.
If I state that it was previously published in the figure legend and results section, I think any potential problems would be flagged during peer review. Am I correct in this line of thinking?
Posted 26 March 2013 - 05:20 AM
Another idea would be to put the first figure or the data of it into the supporting data which interested readers can download if necessary, if there are no copyright issues then. Some journals offer this (e.g. PLOS One)
One must presume that long and short arguments contribute to the same end. - Epicurus
...except casandra's that belong to the funniest, most interesting and imaginative (or over-imaginative?) ones, I suppose.
Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:18 AM
Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:48 AM
Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:17 AM
Then if you are comparing side by side, in a table, it's a new table with partially old data. I think that's OK. You may emphase again that protein X data were taken from the previous paper in the figure legend.
From that point of view it's perfectly fair to the reader, he knows whats old and what's new. I have seen many studies, that noted, that some data from prevous paper was included (i.e. first paper was a case report about brand new mutation, characterisation and everything, second paper was a cohort study with the patient from case report also included among i.e. other types of mztations or so on). So scientifically I think it's OK too.
Other question of course is, whether these new data alone are enough to make a new paper, if the comparison has some new message and so on. But this would be on the decision of the editor.
I never trust anything that can't be doubted.
Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:20 AM
6) The use and reuse of empirical data follows the same principles as other types of research, although some issues are unique to the nature of data as opposed to ideas expressed in text and mathematics. Some general guidelines regarding plagiarism in the reporting of empirical research are:
a) Reuse of empirical data to support new analysis must clearly identify the original source of the data and the degree to which the data is being reused or analyzed in a new and innovative way.
Plagiarism in empirical research includes: i) copying or using any data without citation (and permission), ii) duplicating analysis (on the same data as an earlier paper) without citation which is essentially the same as the earlier paper, iii) copying, or direct reproduction, of charts and graphs that represent data from a previous publication in effectively the same way as an earlier paper, without citation.
The overarching goal of this policy is transparency, so that the editorial staff understands what is new and original, and the degree to which the paper is drawing on the work of others or the authors. If you are not sure how to properly credit work that is presented elsewhere (such as a parallel publication which is also under review or a conference proceeding), the best strategy is to describe the situation in a cover letter to the editor.
Edited by HOYAJM, 26 March 2013 - 11:32 AM.