Sir

Self-plagiarism seems to be an endemic phenomenon in biomedical journals, according to a recent Nature News discussion (http://tinyurl.com/2fcnfg) of the Commentary 'A tale of two citations' (Nature 451, 397–399; 2008). Classical examples include redundant publication, duplicate publication and text recycling. But is self-plagiarism really a bad thing?

We should try to disseminate scientific knowledge to the largest audience possible in order to help people solve their problems. This principle should be constrained only by legal issues such as copyright — not by ethical norms and/or constraints that violate this humanistic principle.

Some argue that self-plagiarism represents ethical misconduct: for example, duplicated data can affect meta-analyses and waste precious publication space. But self-plagiarism is currently not a legal issue; it does not meet the US Public Health Service research misconduct standards.

As editor of an international journal, The Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, I believe that a comprehensive ban on self-plagiarism is a fundamental error.

The reader assumes, unless told otherwise, that the text is written by the author, and that it is novel and accurate. I believe that ethical writing in relation to self-plagiarism should be defined by: full disclosure if the new and/or derivative work incorporates text previously published; citing the old work in the new; and ensuring that there is no violation of copyright law.

If duplication of content within these constraints helps the author to reach a new or larger readership, and/or if text recycling within these constraints helps to present the same idea more accurately across several publications, they become legitimate conduct. Efforts to suppress the dissemination of scientific knowledge by overregulation call to mind the Inquisition, which was established to prevent spiritual wrong-doing in the Middle Ages.