Abstract
Text recycling is widely discussed in the research community. However, editors and authors may have contrasting opinions on this matter. What are the reasons for their disagreement, in what sections text recycling is appropriate and how to avoid self-plagiarism? In this editorial I am going to illuminate these issues. In the guidelines for editors the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines text recycling as the use of the same text in several publications of an author (Risser, 2020). According to Professor Cary Moskovitz from Duke University, this practice involves small text fragments that are amended to a slight extent between publications (ibid, 2020). Earlier policies on text recycling applied the term “self-plagiarism”, which was disused due to inaccurate implications. Lately, the definition was elaborated. Text recycling is currently perceived as the reuse of textual information in a new document where 1) material is identical or almost identical to the original work, 2) the material is not presented as a direct quote, 3) one author of the new document is also an author of the previous document (Hall et al., 2021).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
