Abstract
The question of covert text recycling from previous publications is discussed. It is argued that, consistent with current guidance, authors may be allowed to covertly recycle a limited amount of their previously published material but mainly at the phrase level and only when it is composed of very complex descriptions laden with technical terms for which there are no suitable substitutes. Authors may recycle longer segments of text using standard scholarly conventions of quotation and attribution or via some other informal means that alerts readers as to the scope of the recycling, thereby ensuring transparency. The use of percent similarity scores as thresholds for acceptable amounts of reuse should be discouraged. Instead, editors should be given the flexibility to evaluate each instance of recycling by taking into account factors such as the technical nature of the recycled text and the language proficiency of the authors.This article is a response to the following commentary: http://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-017-0025-z.
Highlights
In discussing the problem of text recycling, Moskovitz [1] identifies two issues that he feels ought to be taken into consideration: That citation and attribution practices differ across disciplines and that the different needs of editors and readers should be acknowledged and taken into account
Rather than suggesting arbitrary thresholds for covert text recycling, I prefer to emphasize the spirit of transparency advocated by the reader-writer contract but I encourage editors to be flexible in determining the appropriateness of each instance of recycled text by considering each case based on its unique circumstances
In sum, at a time when the public trust in science seems to be steadily eroding with each article that is retracted for research misconduct or for other egregious ethical research and writing lapses, a message to authors that fails to convey the need for full transparency is not in anyone’s best interests
Summary
In discussing the problem of text recycling (i.e., authors’ covert reuse of their previously disseminated text), Moskovitz [1] identifies two issues that he feels ought to be taken into consideration: That citation and attribution practices differ across disciplines and that the different needs of editors and readers should be acknowledged and taken into account. Main text In discussing the problem of text recycling (i.e., authors’ covert reuse of their previously disseminated text), Moskovitz [1] identifies two issues that he feels ought to be taken into consideration: That citation and attribution practices differ across disciplines and that the different needs of editors and readers should be acknowledged and taken into account.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
