Text recycling in research writing
April 2024 Lightning talk
In the second of our new series of Lightning Talks, Professor Cary Moskovitz (Director of the Text Recycling Research Project at Duke University, NC), shared the Project’s latest guidance for authors and editors on handling text recycling. In his talk Cary focused on two areas of legal concern surrounding text recycling: copyright law and contract law, and called for publishers to create clear and explicit contractual statements on re-use. The event was chaired by COPE Council Member, Itamar Ashkenazi.
Text recycling is defined by the Text Recycling Research Project (TRRP) as ‘the reuse of textual materials (prose, visuals, or equations) in a new document where:
- The material in the new document is identical to that of the source (or substantively equivalent in both form and content)
- The material is not presented in the new document as a quotation (via quotation marks or block indentation), and
- At least one author of the new document is also an author of the prior document.
As far as copyright law is concerned, the situation is complex, varies from country to country, and rarely explicitly addresses the types of reuse used by researchers. In the United States ‘fair use’ provision permits the most instances of recycling, for example, limited amounts of methods, background, literature review, and materials sections. However, this may differ in other locations, and authors still need to think about ethical considerations such as being transparent about what is being reused.
Contract law is usually more explicit but can vary widely in what types and extent of reuse are allowed. However, since publisher contracts take precedence over copyright law, clear and explicit statements (within an ethical framework) would be very helpful in promoting clarity. At the moment, different journals in the same publisher group sometimes have different contractual statements, and these may also differ from the publisher’s central guidelines. Some contracts state that authors must also adhere to the publisher’s ethical guidelines. Authors should read the terms carefully and should not assume that all contracts are the same.
Lack of clarity about the legal situation often leads to authors and editors being very risk averse and avoiding any reuse at all. Cary argues that this is misplaced caution because it focuses on avoiding detection by anti-plagiarism tools rather than on ethical considerations. Publishers also often worry that allowing reuse will harm their business. In fact, very little income comes from individual article sales so this is an unfounded concern.
The TRRP calls for author-publisher contracts as the ideal mechanism to address this complex situation because they are under the control of individual publishers and can apply across international contexts. These can be simple statements that authors retain the right to reuse material from the work in a manner consistent with the TRRP Best Practices for Researchers, or other guidelines. Authors could also be required to make attestations about any recycling on submission of a new manuscript, affirming that this is in keeping with the publisher’s preferred standard. For more information about these recommendations, see Moskovitz, A; Hansen, D, and Yelverton, M. Legalize Text Recycling. Learned Publishing, May 2023.
Questions from the audience
What impact do licensing arrangements have?
Standard licences (such as Creative Commons) generally state the rights that anyone has to reuse the material as long as the original is cited; they do not specify author rights in particular. Authors might still need to think about transparency with readers and editors even if they are meeting the legal requirements of the licence.
How does the advice relate to the use of plagiarism-detection software by editors or reviewers? Some fields of research require very specific descriptions of methods or equipment
Transparency is key when submitting recycled work. The TRRP Best Practice guidelines advise that authors present that information on submission so that any duplication is known in advance of receiving reports from plagiarism-detection tools. There are many cases where all authors are required to use specified descriptions of equipment or methods (known as ‘boilerplate’ text). Explicit guidance on how to handle boilerplate text would be useful.
Can authors reuse their own material from conference abstracts?
This type of recycling is defined by the TRRP as developmental recycling because it concerns work which is under development and is being brought to its final destination. The author owns the rights to this work and reusing it brings no legal problems and few ethical ones because it has not been in the public domain. For descriptions of other types of recycling, including from one published work to another published work, or reusing the whole of a previously published work, please refer to the TRRP’s Understanding text recycling: A guide for researchers.
If two publishers are involved which contract applies?
In most cases it is the publisher of the first publication because their contract sets the contractual obligations for future use. The only way the second publisher’s contract would affect reuse is if it explicitly stated that authors could not reuse material already published. This is not common.
Where should author declarations about recycling be placed?
Statements about reuse should be clear to readers. The TRRP’s best practice recommendation is that they are placed in a short, separate section at the end of the paper and before the references so that they are not conflated with research citations. However, different publishers may choose to make different stipulations; the important thing is that declarations are present and transparent.
Should self-plagiarism be a term that we still use?
No. This term is inherently problematic. The TRRP and COPE recommend “text recycling” instead as a neutral term. Text recycling can be ethically appropriate or inappropriate, legal or illegal.
Can you assume all publishers will require authors to sign a contract? Might a publisher have a contract which does not allow authors to reuse for their own use? How does an editor in chief know the contract that applies to the previously published work?
Most publishers require the signing of a contract that transfers at least some of the rights to the publisher. The only way for the EIC to know how a signed contract for a previously published work (the source of recycled material) would apply to the new work would be to read that contract in full, and even then it may be difficult to interpret. This is why the TRRP recommends that publishers make explicit statements about authors rights to recycle--as discussed in the paper “Legalize Text Recycling” in Learned Publishing.
*readers should ensure that advice is in line with local legal requirements if appropriate.
Related resources
- Text Recycling Research Project TRRP Model text recycling policy and Guide to developing text recycling policies
- Moskovitz, A; Hansen, D, and Yelverton, M. Legalize Text Recycling. Learned Publishing, May 2023.