What should I write in the manuscript about data mining?

[Chicken Bone]

Hello, wise sdners, I recently reviewed the raw data from my labmate's newest publication and found something really interesting and is worth writing a new manuscript. But I was wondering what I should explain in the method section? Basically, he has used this set of data to publish topic A, but I found an interesting finding of topic B. Although this paper will use the same data set from his published work, they are no quite relevant. Anyone knows if I start a new manuscript, should I mention this set of data had already been used for another study? Will journal like this?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrJackRyan]

You don't have to cite the other study as long as you can adjust the methods section enough to not be considered plagiarism (self plagiarism is a real thing). If it cannot be edited enough, then you should cite the other study and state the methodology was derived from Chicken Bone, et al. I did this with one of my data sets and published two different manuscripts (was the same questionnaire) and did not cite the other study. Now, if the study objectives and results are similar, then you SHOULD cite the other study (or better yet, all results should have been compiled into one manuscript if they're this similar).

 

[Chicken Bone]

You don't have to cite the other study as long as you can adjust the methods section enough to not be considered plagiarism (self plagiarism is a real thing). If it cannot be edited enough, then you should cite the other study and state the methodology was derived from Chicken Bone, et al. I did this with one of my data sets and published two different manuscripts (was the same questionnaire) and did not cite the other study. Now, if the study objectives and results are similar, then you SHOULD cite the other study (or better yet, all results should have been compiled into one manuscript if they're this similar).

Ok thank you very much. The second study's objective is totally different from the first one even though they used the same set of raw data. Even the methodology (only how these data were collected were the same for sure) is not the same given different statistical operations. I guess in this case, I won't need to cite or mention anything about the other paper