Is it naughty to double dip on conference papers?
A question for those in academia
Is there a problem with presenting substantially the same paper at two (or more) academic conferences with likely different audiences or should this be avoided at all costs? Obviously, when writing a CV, it ought to be made clear where there may be duplicate presentations, but is the practice itself problematic? Do you think that this piece gives a credible answer?
When commenting, please make clear the discipline(s) in which you have experience, as there may be different norms on this practice.
Posts
8 comments:
I've 'double dipped' on a conference paper over the last year, presenting the same paper at a national conference of theatre and performance scholars and at a smaller conference on regional theatre. Such double-dipping is not uncommon, I think, but largely relates to academics seeking to air their ideas to multiple audiences. The key issue - as the article you link to specifies - is whether this practice is being used to bulk out CV's. In that case it is an unacceptable misrepresentation if the same paper is being passed off as multiple and different conference presentations after the fact. That said, I would have though actual publications are what selection panels are really interested in.
My discipline is common sense.
Does paper X add something of substantial value that is worth becoming a part of the field the conference is in?
Is paper X, having been presented once, now in the public domain in some published form?
If the answers are Yes and Yes, then do something that builds on it, and refer people to it. Far more productive.
If Yes and No, then either self-publish and do something new, or refine it and get it out after representing it.
I can certainly tell you my practice in the field of homiletics...
Authority: a writer who succeeds in getting the same article (with the words slightly altered) published in several different newspapers over and over again.
British humourist J. B. Morton - "Dictionary For Today"
Anthony - Did you read the linked article? What do you think of the argument that it is a way of increasing the chances of getting good feedback and/or a way of refining a paper prior to publication?
I've now been rejected by the first conference, so the issue has been resolved for me. For now.
(First things first: Jeremy Kidwell, discipline = same as Byron)
Very relevant question Bryon... I've been pretty opposed to the conference double-dip, if primarily because of the scarcity in opportunities for fellow-scholars and inequities in writing facility. With that said, I might be open to an asymmetrical double submission, i.e. present (as Andrew mentions above) at a minor regional conference and then at a major subject-specific conference, assuming that they are two groups lacking significant overlap and that they will challenge and improve the scholarship you're bringing in ways that are unique from one another.
I suspect this will be less of an issue once we get classrooms where we can "repeat" content on an annual basis in hopes that the more unique strands can get hammered-out and perfected in the midst of scholars-in-the-making...
Incidentally, I'm in agreement with the article you linked to - that a second presentation should involve mention that it is a repeat in some form, for the sake of intellectual honesty...
Both fair calls.
As I said, the quandary was solved for me (this time) by a rejection letter from the first one I submitted to.
Post a Comment