1887
Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1461-0213
  • E-ISSN: 1570-5595

Abstract

Abstract

Text recycling (hereafter TR), sometimes problematically called “self-plagiarism,” involves the verbatim reuse of text from one’s own existing documents in a newly created text – such as the duplication of a paragraph or section from a published article in a new article. Although plagiarism is widely eschewed across academia and the publishing industry, the ethics of TR are not agreed upon and are currently being vigorously debated. As part of a federally funded (US) National Science Foundation grant, we have been studying TR patterns using several methodologies, including interviews with editors about TR values and practices (Pemberton, Hall, Moskovitz, & Anson, 2019) and digitally mediated text-analytic processes to determine the extent of TR in academic publications in the biological sciences, engineering, mathematical and physical sciences, and social, behavioral, and economic sciences (Anson, Moskovitz, & Anson, 2019). In this article, we first describe and illustrate TR in the context of academic writing. We then explain and document several themes that emerged from interviews with publishers of peer-reviewed academic journals. These themes demonstrate the vexed and unsettled nature of TR as a discursive phenomenon in academic writing and publishing. In doing so, we focus on the complex relationships between personal (role-based) and social (norm-based) aspects of scientific publication, complicating conventional models of the writing process that have inadequately accounted for authorial decisions about accuracy, efficiency, self-representation, adherence to existing or imagined rules and norms, perceptions of ownership and copyright, and fears of impropriety.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aila.00033.ans
2020-10-07
2021-05-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aila.00033.ans.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/aila.00033.ans&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. American Chemical Society
    American Chemical Society (1986) ACS ethical guidelines to publication of chemical research. InThe ACS Style Guide (pp.217–222). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. https://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1218054468605/ethics.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  2. American Chemical Society
    American Chemical Society. (n.d.). American Chemical Society Journal publishing agreement, Form A: Authors who hold copyright and works-for-hire. pubsapp.acs.org/paragonplus/copyright/jpa_form_a.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anson, C. M., & Anson, I. G.
    (2019) Text recycling in STEM disciplines: Results from a text-analytic study. Paper delivered at the8th International Conference on Writing Analytics, Winterthur, Switzerland.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anson, C. M., & Schwegler, R. A.
    (2012) Tracking the mind’s eye: A new technology for researching 21st century writing and reading processes. College Composition and Communication, 64(1), 151–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anson, I. G., Moskovitz, C., & Anson, C. M.
    (2019) A text-analytic method for identifying text recycling in STEM research reports. Journal of Writing Analytics, 3, 125–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bazerman, C.
    (1994) Systems of genre and the enactment of social intentions. InA. Freedman, & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp.79–99). London: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Committee on Publication Ethics
    Committee on Publication Ethics (2013) Text recycling guidelines. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/text-recycling-guidelines (13 May, 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cooke, S., & Donaldson, M.
    (2014) Self-citation by researchers: Narcissism or an inevitable outcome of a cohesive and sustained research program?Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 1–2. doi:  10.4033/iee.2014.7.1.e
    https://doi.org/10.4033/iee.2014.7.1.e [Google Scholar]
  9. COPE Council
    COPE Council. COPE discussion document: Citation manipulation. July 2019 doi:  10.24318/cope.2019.3.1
    https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.1 [Google Scholar]
  10. Devitt, A. J.
    (1991) Intertextuality in tax accounting: Generic, referential, and functional. InC. Bazerman & J. G. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp.336–355). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Erickson, T.
    (2000) Making sense of computer-mediated communication (CMC): Conversations as genres, CMC systems as genre ecologies. InR. H. Sprague Jr. (Ed.), 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Maui: IEEE Computer Society Press. 10.1109/HICSS.2000.926694
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2000.926694 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gilliver, S.
    (2012) Forgive me for repeating myself: Self-plagiarism in the medical literature. Medical Writing, 21(2), 150–153. 10.1179/2047480612Z.00000000031
    https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480612Z.00000000031 [Google Scholar]
  13. Howard, R. M.
    (1992) A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(2), 233–246.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kostouli, T.
    (2009) A sociocultural framework: Writing as social practice. InR. Beard, D. Myhill, M. Nystrand, & J. Riley (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp.98–116). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9780857021069.n7
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021069.n7 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lander, E. S.
    (2016) The Heroes of CRISPR. Cell, 164(1–2), 18–28. doi:  10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.041
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.041 [Google Scholar]
  16. Moskovitz, C.
    (2019) Text recycling in scientific writing. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(3), 813–851. doi:  10.1007/s11948‑017‑0008‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-0008-y [Google Scholar]
  17. Pemberton, M., Hall, S., Moskovitz, C., & Anson, C. M.
    (2019) Journal editors’ views on text recycling: An interview-based study. Learned Publishing, 32(4), 355–366. 10.1002/leap.1259
    https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1259 [Google Scholar]
  18. Smidt, J.
    (2002) Double histories in multivocal classrooms: Notes toward an ecological account of writing. Written Communication, 19(3): 414–443. 10.1177/074108802237753
    https://doi.org/10.1177/074108802237753 [Google Scholar]
  19. Swales, J. M.
    (2004) Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524827
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aila.00033.ans
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): citation; quotation; self-plagiarism; source use; STEM writing; text recycling
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error