Standardizing terminology for text recycling in research writing
Standardizing terminology for text recycling in research writing
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/leap.1372
复制
发表时间：
2021-02-02
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Moskovitz, Cary
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Moskovitz, Cary
由于科学、工程和医学领域的研究是循序渐进的，研究人员通常会直接在之前的工作基础上撰写论文。虽然每一篇新的研究文章都有望做出新的贡献，但研究人员往往需要重复以前文章中的一些材料--方法细节、背景等等--这一做法被称为“文本回收”。虽然人们对文本回收的认识日益提高，导致了针对这一做法的政策、期刊社论和学术文章的激增，但这些文件往往使用不一致的术语--使用不同的术语来命名相同的关键概念，更有问题的是，使用相同的术语具有不同的含义。这些不一致之处使读者很难准确地了解一份文件中阐述的想法或期望与其他文件中的想法或期望之间的关系。本文首先澄清了当前术语的问题，显示了关键术语在出版商的作者政策、编辑指南和研究伦理教科书中的使用是如何不一致的。然后，它提供了文本回收做法的新分类，其术语旨在与这些做法在常见的研究、写作和出版上下文中的可接受性保持一致。
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.