在STEM研究写作中重用

IF 1 Q2 LINGUISTICS
AILA Review Pub Date : 2020-10-07 DOI:10.1075/aila.00033.ans
Chris M. Anson, S. Hall, Michael Pemberton, Cary Moskovitz
{"title":"在STEM研究写作中重用","authors":"Chris M. Anson, S. Hall, Michael Pemberton, Cary Moskovitz","doi":"10.1075/aila.00033.ans","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract 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.","PeriodicalId":45044,"journal":{"name":"AILA Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reuse in STEM research writing\",\"authors\":\"Chris M. Anson, S. Hall, Michael Pemberton, Cary Moskovitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/aila.00033.ans\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45044,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AILA Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AILA Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.00033.ans\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AILA Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.00033.ans","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

文本循环(以下简称TR),有时被称为“自我抄袭”,涉及在新创建的文本中逐字重复使用自己现有文档中的文本,例如在新文章中复制已发表文章中的段落或部分。虽然剽窃在学术界和出版业被广泛回避,但TR的道德规范尚未达成一致,目前正在进行激烈的辩论。作为联邦政府资助的(美国)国家科学基金会拨款的一部分,我们一直在使用几种方法研究TR模式,包括采访编辑关于TR价值观和实践(Pemberton, Hall, Moskovitz, & Anson, 2019)和数字媒介文本分析过程,以确定TR在生物科学、工程、数学和物理科学以及社会、行为和经济科学的学术出版物中的程度(Anson, Moskovitz, & Anson,2019)。在这篇文章中,我们首先在学术写作的背景下描述和说明TR。然后,我们解释并记录了几个主题,这些主题来自对同行评议学术期刊出版商的采访。这些主题展示了TR作为学术写作和出版中的一种话语现象的烦恼和不稳定的本质。在此过程中,我们将重点放在科学出版的个人(基于角色)和社会(基于规范)方面之间的复杂关系上,使传统的写作过程模型复杂化,这些模型没有充分考虑作者对准确性、效率、自我表现、遵守现有或想象的规则和规范、对所有权和版权的看法以及对不当行为的恐惧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reuse in STEM research writing
Abstract 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AILA Review
AILA Review LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: AILA Review is a refereed publication of the Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée, an international federation of national associations for applied linguistics. All volumes are guest edited. As of volume 16, 2003, AILA Review is published with John Benjamins. This journal is peer reviewed and indexed in: Scopus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信