Common Misconceptions about Text Recycling in Scientific Writing
Common Misconceptions about Text Recycling in Scientific Writing
复制标题
关于科学写作中文本回收的常见误解
DOI：
10.1093/biosci/biac090
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
10.1
通讯作者：
Pemberton, Michael
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Moskovitz, Cary;Hall, Susanne;Pemberton, Michael
在科学出版的基本原则中，原创性是最重要的原则之一。每一份手稿都被期望提供独特的贡献，一些明显不同于已经发表的东西。我们通常从论文内容的角度来考虑原创性：这篇手稿为该领域的知识增加了什么？一篇文章可能会提出一些根本性的新观点或证据，从而实质性地改变这个领域，但更多的时候，进步是渐进的。这种渐进式进展的一个例子是研究一种新疫苗的一系列文章。在一种有前景的疫苗进入临床试验阶段之前，许多论文已经发表。然后会有更多的研究：安全性研究；试验研究;对不同人群的研究，如成人和儿童；不同剂量的疗效研究；等等......。如果做得好，每一篇新论文都将提供重要的见解，并为未来的研究提供信息。但从一项研究到下一项研究，有些事情将保持不变：正在研究的基本问题，相关的先前研究，疫苗的生物化学，疫苗递送方法，等等。这种内容的重叠提出了一个困扰研究人员和编辑的写作问题：研究人员什么时候可以接受重复自己以前论文中的材料？在书面交流数字化之前，科学文章之间的材料复制通常不会被注意到。这当然不是研究伦理领域的一个讨论话题。但是随着数字通信的发展，出现了在线剽窃检测工具，这些工具可以识别重叠的材料，而不管之前的作品是由同一作者还是其他人写的。销售这些工具的公司加剧了人们对所谓“自我抄袭”的担忧。他们可以向出版商推销该软件，以标记有重叠文本的论文，然后向大学出售相同的工具，供研究人员在提交手稿之前使用它来识别（并因此更改）重叠的材料，这样它就不会被标记（Moskovitz和Colton 2021）。
Among the fundamental principles of scientific publishing, originality is one of the most important. Every manuscript is expected to offer a unique contribution, something clearly different from what has already been published. We typically think about originality in terms of a paper's content: What does this manuscript add to the knowledge of the field? An article may offer some fundamentally new idea or evidence that substantially alters the field, but more often, advances are incremental. An example of such incremental advances is a series of articles investigating a new vaccine. Many papers are published before a promising vaccine gets to the stage of clinical trials. Then there will be many more studies: safety studies; pilot studies; studies on different populations, such as adults and children; studies about the efficacy of varying dosages; and so on. If done well, each new paper will offer important insights and inform future research. But from one study to the next, some things will stay the same: the essential problem being studied, the relevant prior research, the biochemistry of the vaccine, the method of vaccine delivery, and so on. This overlap in content raises a question about writing that has troubled both researchers and editors: When is it acceptable for researchers to repeat material from their own prior papers? Prior to the digitization of written communication, the duplication of material between scientific articles must often have gone unnoticed. It certainly wasn't a topic of discussion in the realm of research ethics. But with the growth of digital communication came online plagiarism detection tools, and these identify overlapping material regardless of whether the prior work was written by the same authors or someone else. Concern over what came to be called selfplagiarism was amplified by the companies selling these tools. They could market the software to publishers to flag papers with overlapping text and then sell the same tool to universities for researchers to use to identify (and therefore change) overlapping material before submitting the manuscript so it wouldn't get flagged (Moskovitz and Colton 2021).
登录
查看更多内容
文本回收：基于访谈的研究中北美期刊编辑的观点
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Pemberton, Michael;Hall, Susanne;Moskovitz, Cary;Anson, Chris M.
通讯作者：
Anson, Chris M.
DOI：
10.1080/08989621.2020.1850284
发表时间：
2020-11-27
期刊：
ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
影响因子：
--
作者：
Anson, Ian G.;Moskovitz, Cary
通讯作者：
Moskovitz, Cary
DOI：
10.1080/08989621.2018.1434622
发表时间：
2018-01-01
期刊：
ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
影响因子：
--
作者：
Hall, Susanne;Moskovitz, Cary;Pemberton, Michael A.
通讯作者：
Pemberton, Michael A.
STEM 研究写作中的重用
影响因子：
0.4
作者：
Chris M. Anson;S. Hall;Michael Pemberton;Cary Moskovitz
通讯作者：
Cary Moskovitz
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Moskovitz, Cary
通讯作者：
Moskovitz, Cary