next »

[sierragal]

Reading a draft paper (I'm organizing special topic sub-section for upcoming conference), I got a whiff of de ja vu, did some searching, and found the presenter had *already published* a paper whose introduction, conclusion, and significant pieces of argument are reproduced verbatim in the "draft" submitted.  Presenter had also submitted said "draft" to an anthology in the works.  Only differences between published paper and what presenter sent me: close readings of a few different texts (though much of textual analysis in the published paper is summarized here).  This person's tenure-track: should know better.

I'm rejecting the paper for the anthology on grounds that much has already seen print and the publisher wants only original work.  But what about the conference? 

Program copy's been submitted, accepted, this person has joined the association, registered for the conference.  As fiona noted on another thread, many conference orgs are struggling--I don't want to deprive them of a registration--and I don't think I have the authority to remove the paper from the session now.  Or do I?  I've chaired sessions for years, but never run into anything this egregious. (Maybe I've just been WAY too trusting.)

I was thinking of noting, in the anthology rejection, that I expect that the paper to be presented will, of course, be original work.  Kind of an empty threat, though.  What could I do in the moment if this person just shows up and presents the same paper anyway?  Say, "sheesh, I toldja to make it new"? 

But wait, there's more!  Having checked on this person's materials, figured I'd best checked others:  several seem to be "paper recycling" from prior (or upcoming) conferences--same titles, abstracts.  These are grad students, probably responding to scary job market and urgings to make themselves as productive and visible as possible.  Again, program copy's been sent, accepted, people have registered.  What to do?

I'm thinking of sending my comments re: revisions and saying, "I noticed that you're giving / gave a paper of the same name at Conference X.  I'm assuming that you are going to make substantial revisions / additions/ changes, rather than present the same paper twice, right?"  I know that not all grad students get appropriate mentoring and would like to give benefit of the doubt that they may really not know this is not kosher.  Proverbial teachable moment and all. . . . their work is good draft level work, and I frankly enjoyed making suggestions. 

*groan* advice would be much appreciated!

[shrek]

I think your approach is a good one.

[pink_]

It's not unusual in my field to have the same paper, or virtually the same paper, given at different venues.  This is true not only of grad students but also tenured faculty at respected institutions.  As long as it isn't to the same audience, I guess I don't see what the big deal is.  Publication is a different matter, but even then, there are essays that appear in multiple collections on occasion, especially if they are from a big name in the field or are important contributions to the scholarship.

But even if you disagree and this is a really big problem for your field, I don't see what there is to be done about it now without making you look like the Wicked Witch of the West.  The program is in and people have likely made travel arrangements already. You aren't just screwing over the organization, but you are also potentially making enemies of colleagues in your field. You never know when your paths will cross again, and they may be the ones making the choices of whether or not to accept the paper or publish the article next time.

[untenured]

Are you checking papers in your sub-section or the broader conference?  If the latter, that responsibility would fall to the conference head.  And it's probably too late to act anyway.

Generally though, I agree with pink.

Presenting the same paper with the same title is one thing.  The presenter is being transparent and it will be obvious on the CV it's the same presentation.  Tweaking the title to give the appearance of new work seems a little sneaky to me.  That being said, all the presentations in the world don't help if they don't translate into publications.  Of course, publishing substantially the same article in two journals is a no-no.

Untenured

[the_walrus]

Another ditto of Pink.  In my field, it's absolutely normal to give the same paper at different conferences.  It's considered a perfectly legitimate way of developing your ideas.  I was recently at a conference, actually, where a hot shot quipped about how this was the 9th time he'd given the paper in the last 5 years or something.

Of course, yes, publication is a different matter, but also in my field, one can say a number of things about the same set of data.  So same data doesn't necessarily mean they're saying the same thing.  

And, in any event, like Pink said, it's just a conference, so I definitely wouldn't get exercised about it.

[mended_drum]

In my field, it's not normal to give a paper more than once, and those who do it get talked about--unless they are specifically invited to give the paper a second time.  That did happen to me once or twice, when someone who heard the paper at a conference asked me to bring it to another conference which would, presumable, have a significantly different audience.

For developing ideas, the standard is for the presenter to present a different piece of a longer work, and most of my colleagues explain that when reading the paper.

[the_walrus]

In my field, it's not normal to give a paper more than once, and those who do it get talked about--unless they are specifically invited to give the paper a second time.  That did happen to me once or twice, when someone who heard the paper at a conference asked me to bring it to another conference which would, presumable, have a significantly different audience.

For developing ideas, the standard is for the presenter to present a different piece of a longer work, and most of my colleagues explain that when reading the paper.

Fair enough; must be that fields differ (radically) on this point.  I'm in the social sciences, fwiw.

[drrom]

This is not uncommon and I think you've over-stepped here in looking at others' titles.  These ideas are often discussed at the conferences and then incorporated into a new version of the paper.  I see conferences as an opportunity to not only present but to also workshop and discuss with a room full of experts who otherwise would not have been in earshot. 

Leave them alone.  Unless it's explicitly stated in the CFP that ONLY original papers that have never before been presented are sought, then you can't do anything about it. 

The anthology is another story. 

[sierragal]

Thanks to all of you who responded:  you really helped me think this through.

I'm in a humanities field, and when in graduate school, I was given the message that mended_drum noted, loud and clear: you don't present the same paper twice unless specifically invited to do so.  But as I've asked around, it seems that things have changed since my long-ago grad school days. . . . and I have to say, the arguments in this thread about legitimate reasons to give the paper in front of different audiences make sense, especially if the author is seeking input to revise for publication.  Were I these folks, though, I'd be concerned lest my c.v. look padded.  Hopefully their grad advisors work with them on issues like that. . . . but I am not their advisor and don't want to overstep my bounds, particularly if grad schools are now telling students things different than what I was told back in the day.

So . . . I'm not saying anything to the people who are presenting the same thing two or three times.  Their work is good and I'm glad to have their papers in the mix for discussion at the conference. 

By the way, the person who submitted for my anthology a paper about half of whose text had already been published has *not* responded to my email, which was brief and polite, but to the point (along the lines of "what a very interesting paper.  Unfortunately, as noted in our earlier emails, Publisher X will only accept original work, and since much of your paper appeared in Journal Y earlier this year, regrettably I cannot accept it for the anthology.  However, it will be a fine contribution to our conference panel and discussion, and I look forward to meeting you in person then.").

Again, thanks for your helpful posts!

[archman]

In the (life) sciences, we get tarred and feathered for "double dipping".

I did it once as a naive grad student. My award-winning presentation at conference #1 was submitted (with minimal revisions) at conference #2. The audience for this conference was a slightly different discipline. I won a second award. When I stupidly joked among my peers about how *little work* this second presentation took and gave the details why, my personal and working relationships with several peers nose-dived. Permanently.

I am discernably embarrassed by the incident, and do not list the second presentation on my CV or talk about it much.

[inthelab]

In the (life) sciences, we get tarred and feathered for "double dipping".

I did it once as a naive grad student. My award-winning presentation at conference #1 was submitted (with minimal revisions) at conference #2. The audience for this conference was a slightly different discipline. I won a second award. When I stupidly joked among my peers about how *little work* this second presentation took and gave the details why, my personal and working relationships with several peers nose-dived. Permanently.

I am discernably embarrassed by the incident, and do not list the second presentation on my CV or talk about it much.

I'm in the life sience too; presenting the same work at diferent venues is not that uncommon (I've heard the same seminar from some people multiple times).  If someone is invited multiple times in one year, that person may not have substantially new or different data that person cares to present (doesn't want to be scooped, wants to confirm novel findings, etc.).

[tenured_feminist]

Regardless of where one comes down on the question of re-presenting work that's already been presented, I would guess that we all agree that republishing without any mention of the earlier publication is well over the line.

(And while we're on the topic, you are quite the operator. I sure hope someone reads your whole file when you come up for review and notices that your chapter in that anthology is basically torn out of your previously published book with only minor word changes sprinkled around here and there. And no, there's nothing on the copyright page.)

[verbena]

Regardless of where one comes down on the question of re-presenting work that's already been presented, I would guess that we all agree that republishing without any mention of the earlier publication is well over the line.

(And while we're on the topic, you are quite the operator. I sure hope someone reads your whole file when you come up for review and notices that your chapter in that anthology is basically torn out of your previously published book with only minor word changes sprinkled around here and there. And no, there's nothing on the copyright page.)

I agree, but sometimes it's not actually the author's fault. I've had to fight, fight, fight with a publisher for them to acknowledge, on the copyright page, previous publication of material. A few times all I've managed to get is a little note included at the end of the first footnote, buried somewhere where no one will ever see it.