Reuse in STEM research writing
Rhetorical and practical considerations and challenges
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The repetitive nature of STEM writing
- 3.To recycle or not to recycle
- 3.1Professional integrity
- 3.2Efficiency
- 3.3Nature of the recycled material
- 3.4Copyright
- 4.Challenges of composing texts in STEM fields – with and without TR
- 5.Composing STEM articles with TR
- 5.1Citation
- 5.2Notes or other annotations for readers
- 6.Composing STEM articles that avoid TR
- 6.1Rewording and patchwriting
- 6.2Omit and point back to previous work
- 6.3Consult the guidelines
- 7.Discussion and conclusions
- Notes
-
References
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
References
American Chemical Society
(
1986)
ACS ethical guidelines to publication of chemical research. In
The ACS Style Guide (pp. 217–222). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
[URL]
American Chemical Society
n.d.).
American Chemical Society Journal publishing agreement, Form A: Authors who hold copyright and works-for-hire.
[URL]
Anson, C. M., & Anson, I. G.
(
2019)
Text recycling in STEM disciplines: Results from a text-analytic study. Paper delivered at the 8th International Conference on Writing Analytics, Winterthur, Switzerland.
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.

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, 31, 125–150.


Bazerman, C.
(
1994)
Systems of genre and the enactment of social intentions. In
A. Freedman, &
P. Medway (Eds.),
Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–99). London: Taylor & Francis.

Committee on Publication Ethics
(
2013)
Text recycling guidelines. Retrieved from
[URL] (13 May, 2020).
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, 71, 1–2.


COPE Council
.
COPE discussion document: Citation manipulation.
July 2019 doi:


Devitt, A. J.
(
1991)
Intertextuality in tax accounting: Generic, referential, and functional. In
C. 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.

Erickson, T.
(
2000)
Making sense of computer-mediated communication (CMC): Conversations as genres, CMC systems as genre ecologies. In
R. H. Sprague Jr. (Ed.),
33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Maui: IEEE Computer Society Press.


Gilliver, S.
(
2012)
Forgive me for repeating myself: Self-plagiarism in the medical literature.
Medical Writing, 21(2), 150–153.


Howard, R. M.
(
1992)
A plagiarism pentimento.
Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(2), 233–246.

Kostouli, T.
(
2009)
A sociocultural framework: Writing as social practice. In
R. Beard,
D. Myhill,
M. Nystrand, &
J. Riley (Eds.),
The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 98–116). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


Lander, E. S.
(
2016)
The Heroes of CRISPR.
Cell, 164(1–2), 18–28.


Moskovitz, C.
(
2019)
Text recycling in scientific writing.
Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(3), 813–851.


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.


Smidt, J.
(
2002)
Double histories in multivocal classrooms: Notes toward an ecological account of writing.
Written Communication, 19(3): 414–443.


Swales, J. M.
(
2004)
Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Kharasch, Evan D., Michael J. Avram, Brian T. Bateman, J. David Clark, Deborah J. Culley, Andrew J. Davidson, Timothy T. Houle, Yandong Jiang, Jerrold H. Levy, Martin J. London, Jamie W. Sleigh & Laszlo Vutskits
2021.
Authorship and Publication Matters: Credit and Credibility.
Anesthesiology 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.