[virgilp]

> Publish the Same Result Several Times

Is this not frowned upon? Serious question. Serious journals and conferences ask you to certify that you didn't publish that work elsewhere. Yes, you can work around that by doing some extra experiments/ minor tweaks/etc. so that it is "different" .. but I thought that's a sort of "tolerated cheating", not something you'd actively/publicly advise others to do.

[pdpi]

What TFA actually says is that you publish your early ideas on the result in a lower-tier journal, then both things progress side by side——as you refine your ideas, you submit to progressively more prestigious publications.

[NotOscarWilde]

The thing is, you cannot submit to a "lower-tier journal"; once you get accepted to one journal, no other journal will allow you to resubmit the same results (even with readability improvements).

The way I've seen things done in CS these days is not so bad, though:

Iteration 1: When you are done, you submit to arXiv and simultaneously to a conference. Conferences usually have as strict page limit, so many things get swept into the appendix.

Iteration 2: You get review comments from the conference; depending on the rigor of the reviewers, these may or may not be ideas how to improve the text. You submit the camera-ready version of the conference paper.

Iteration 3: If the paper was more extensive, you start preparing a journal version, where you can move things back from the appendix make the text cohesive again. You probably also have feedback from the conference participants, which is often extremely useful.

Iteration 4: You submit to a journal, you get a (usually quite thorough) reviews and you integrate them to the final version of the paper.

---

Bottom line: I'm saying it's not so bad (compared to just a single iteration) but I hate this system. First, it does not allow community contributions from outsiders (such as PhD students who read your paper and notice something small that can be improved) and second, after Iteration 4 it is nigh-impossible to make small improvements to the paper unless it was spectacularly wrong.

[emmelaich]

I'd compare to code that you refine over time. Every release is worth mentioning.

[jimhefferon]

I have a colleague who is very concerned about self-plagarism. Seriously.

An excellent example of forgetting what we are about.

[adrianN]

Rightly so. I once had to review a paper from a guy who only had half a dozen publications that were all but identical. Whole pages were copied between the papers and it wasn't at all clear what the novel contribution of each paper was supposed to be.

You can publish the same result multiple times, but please reference the previous publication and explain exactly what has changed that warrants another paper.

[perl4ever]

Is your implication that self-plagiarism is or is not a serious problem?