skip to main content


Title: Standardizing terminology for text recycling in research writing
Abstract

Because research in science, engineering and medical fields advances incrementally, researchers routinely write papers that build directly on their prior work. While each new research article is expected to make a novel contribution, researchers often need to repeat some material—method details, background and so on—from their previous articles, a practice called ‘text recycling’. While increasing awareness of text recycling has led to the proliferation of policies, journal editorials and scholarly articles addressing the practice, these documents tend to employ inconsistent terminology—using different terms to name the same key ideas and, even more problematic, using the same terms with different meanings. These inconsistencies make it difficult for readers to know precisely how the ideas or expectations articulated in one document relate to those of others. This paper first clarifies the problems with current terminology, showing how key terms are used inconsistently across publisher policies for authors, guidelines for editors and textbooks on research ethics. It then offers a new taxonomy of text‐recycling practices with terms designed to align with the acceptability of these practices in common research writing and publishing contexts.

 
more » « less
Award ID(s):
1737093
NSF-PAR ID:
10450981
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Learned Publishing
Volume:
34
Issue:
3
ISSN:
0953-1513
Page Range / eLocation ID:
p. 370-378
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Background: Text recycling (hereafter TR)—the reuse of one’s own textual materials from one document in a new document—is a common but hotly debated and unsettled practice in many academic disciplines, especially in the context of peer-reviewed journal articles. Although several analytic systems have been used to determine replication of text—for example, for purposes of identifying plagiarism—they do not offer an optimal way to compare documents to determine the nature and extent of TR in order to study and theorize this as a practice in different disciplines. In this article, we first describe TR as a common phenomenon in academic publishing, then explore the challenges associated with trying to study the nature and extent of TR within STEM disciplines. We then describe in detail the complex processes we used to create a system for identifying TR across large corpora of texts, and the sentence-level string-distance lexical methods used to refine and test the system (White & Joy, 2004). The purpose of creating such a system is to identify legitimate cases of TR across large corpora of academic texts in different fields of study, allowing meaningful cross-disciplinary comparisons in future analyses of published work. The findings from such investigations will extend and refine our understanding of discourse practices in academic and scientific settings. Literature Review: Text-analytic methods have been widely developed and implemented to identify reused textual materials for detecting plagiarism, and there is considerable literature on such methods. (Instead of taking up space detailing this literature, we point readers to several recent reviews: Gupta, 2016; Hiremath & Otari, 2014; and Meuschke & Gipp, 2013). Such methods include fingerprinting, term occurrence analysis, citation analysis (identifying similarity in references and citations), and stylometry (statistically comparing authors’ writing styles; see Meuschke & Gipp, 2013). Although TR occurs in a wide range of situations, recent debate has focused on recycling from one published research paper to another—particularly in STEM fields (see, for example, Andreescu, 2013; Bouville, 2008; Bretag & Mahmud, 2009; Roig, 2008; Scanlon, 2007). An important step in better understanding the practice is seeing how authors actually recycle material in their published work. Standard methods for detecting plagiarism are not directly suitable for this task, as the objective is not to determine the presence or absence of reuse itself, but to study the types and patterns of reuse, including materials that are syntactically but not substantively distinct—such as “patchwriting” (Howard, 1999). In the present account of our efforts to create a text-analytic system for determining TR, we take a conventional alphabetic approach to text, in part because we did not aim at this stage of our project to analyze non-discursive text such as images or other media. However, although the project adheres to conventional definitions of text, with a focus on lexical replication, we also subscribe to context-sensitive approaches to text production. The results of applying the system to large corpora of published texts can potentially reveal varieties in the practice of TR as a function of different discourse communities and disciplines. Writers’ decisions within what appear to be canonical genres are contingent, based on adherence to or deviation from existing rules and procedures if and when these actually exist. Our goal is to create a system for analyzing TR in groups of texts produced by the same authors in order to determine the nature and extent of TR, especially across disciplinary areas, without judgment of scholars’ use of the practice. 
    more » « less
  2. Schelble, Susan M ; Elkins, Kelly M (Ed.)
    Like most scientists, chemists frequently have reason to reuse some materials from their own published articles in new ones, especially when producing a series of closely related papers. Text recycling, the reuse of material from one’s own works, has become a source of considerable confusion and frustration for researchers and editors alike. While text recycling does not pose the same level of ethical concern as matters such as data fabrication or plagiarism, it is much more common and complicated. Much of the confusion stems from a lack of clarity and consistency in publisher guidelines and publishing contracts. Matters are even more complicated when manuscripts are coauthored by researchers residing in different countries. This chapter demonstrates the nature of these problems through an analysis of a set of documents from a single publisher, the American Chemical Society (ACS). The ACS was chosen because it is a leading publisher of chemistry research and because its guidelines and publishing contracts address text recycling in unusual detail. The present analysis takes advantage of this detail to show both the importance of clear, thoughtfully designed text recycling policies and the problems that can arise when publishers fail to bring their various documents into close alignment. 
    more » « less
  3. Researchers, evaluators and designers from an array of academic disciplines and industry sectors are turning to participatory approaches as they seek to understand and address complex social problems. We refer to participatory approaches that collaboratively engage/ partner with stakeholders in knowledge creation/problem solving for action/social change outcomes as collaborative change research, evaluation and design (CCRED). We further frame CCRED practitioners by their desire to move beyond knowledge creation for its own sake to implementation of new knowledge as a tool for social change. In March and May of 2018, we conducted a literature search of multiple discipline-specific databases seeking collaborative, change-oriented scholarly publications. The search was limited to include peerreviewed journal articles, with English language abstracts available, published in the last five years. The search resulted in 526 citations, 236 of which met inclusion criteria. Though the search was limited to English abstracts, all major geographic regions (North America, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, APAC, Africa and the Middle East) were represented within the results, although many articles did not state a specific region. Of those identified, most studies were located in North America, with the Middle East having only one identified study. We followed a qualitative thematic synthesis process to examine the abstracts of peer-reviewed articles to identify practices that transcend individual disciplines, sectors and contexts to achieve collaborative change. We surveyed the terminology used to describe CCRED, setting, content/topic of study, type of collaboration, and related benefits/outcomes in order to discern the words used to designate collaboration, the frameworks, tools and methods employed, and the presence of action, evaluation or outcomes. Forty-three percent of the reviewed articles fell broadly within the social sciences, followed by 26 percent in education and 25 percent in health/medicine. In terms of participants and/ or collaborators in the articles reviewed, the vast majority of the 236 articles (86%) described participants, that is, those who the research was about or from whom data was collected. In contrast to participants, partners/collaborators (n=32; 14%) were individuals or groups who participated in the design or implementation of the collaborative change effort described. In terms of the goal for collaboration and/or for doing the work, the most frequently used terminology related to some aspect of engagement and empowerment. Common descriptors for the work itself were ‘social change’ (n=74; 31%), ‘action’ (n=33; 14%), ‘collaborative or participatory research/practice’ (n=13; 6%), ‘transformation’ (n=13; 6%) and ‘community engagement’ (n=10; 4%). Of the 236 articles that mentioned a specific framework or approach, the three most common were some variation of Participatory Action Research (n=30; 50%), Action Research (n=40; 16.9%) or Community-Based Participatory Research (n=17; 7.2%). Approximately a third of the 236 articles did not mention a specific method or tool in the abstract. The most commonly cited method/tool (n=30; 12.7%) was some variation of an arts-based method followed by interviews (n=18; 7.6%), case study (n=16; 6.7%), or an ethnographic-related method (n=14; 5.9%). While some articles implied action or change, only 14 of the 236 articles (6%) stated a specific action or outcome. Most often, the changes described were: the creation or modification of a model, method, process, framework or protocol (n=9; 4%), quality improvement, policy change and social change (n=8; 3%), or modifications to education/training methods and materials (n=5; 2%). The infrequent use of collaboration as a descriptor of partner engagement, coupled with few reported findings of measurable change, raises questions about the nature of CCRED. It appears that conducting CCRED is as complex an undertaking as the problems that the work is attempting to address. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract  
    more » « less
  5. When writing journal articles, STEM researchers produce a number of other genres such as grant proposals and conference posters, and their articles routinely build directly on their own prior work. As a result, STEM authors often reuse material from their completed documents in producing new documents. While this practice, known as text recycling (or self-plagiarism), is a debated issue in publishing and research ethics, little is known about researchers’ beliefs about what constitutes appropriate practice. This article presents results of from an exploratory, survey-based study on beliefs and attitudes toward text recycling among STEM “experts” (faculty researchers) and “novices” (graduate students and post docs). While expert and novice researchers are fairly consistent in distinguishing between text recycling and plagiarism, there is considerable disagreement about appropriate text recycling practice. 
    more » « less