Retraction Watch interviewed Willem Halffman and Serge Horbach, who conducted a study of scientific researchers regarding their reuse of their own papers as they write new papers. I thought this part interesting:
RW: In another surprise, you thought junior, less experienced researchers would recycle more text, but again, the results found it was more common among senior scientists. Why do you think that was?
WH and SH: Questionable research practices are often presented as a problem of inadequate socialization: of young researchers who have not yet fully absorbed the conventions of academic work. Hence commentators suggest integrity training as a solution. Some suggest young researchers have grown up in a cut-and-paste internet culture, or have a harder time writing. But if this were the full story, then you would not find more text recycling among the most productive, established researchers. An alternative interpretation is that some individuals go off the tracks during their research careers, which then needs to be addressed with clear rules and some policing. However, text recycling clearly is not only a matter of just individuals. We now suspect some degree of cynicism might be at work too, as more jaded researchers respond more quickly to publication opportunities. Rules and information about rules can only be part of the answer.
And senior researchers simply have more of their own papers to steal from, of course. Add in the publish or perish culture, and it’s not surprising that productivity is pumped up in many ways. RW also asked whether reuse is appropriate:
RW: You mention the debate over text recycling, and how many researchers disagree over how much is okay —something we’ve explored, as well. What’s your personal opinion? Is text recycling ever okay, and if so, how much and in what circumstances?
WH and SH: In principle, academics should have intellectual ownership of what they write and should be able to re-use the fruits of their labor as they see fit, as long as they add a simple reference to the original. The problem arises when recycling starts to affect research resources: when recycling burdens peer review with previously checked material, or when recycled text is used to claim funds and rewards. If we stopped our over-reliance on mechanistic performance indicators, a major driver for text recycling would simply disappear. Why would any scientist invest time in copy/pasting text that was published earlier, if that time could also be invested in the excitement of new research? Therefore more, and more specific, rules about what researchers are allowed to do can only be part of the solution. We really need to consider also how reward and publication institutions provoke problematic behavior.
Not having a single such paper to my name, no doubt it’s brash of me to suggest properly referenced is OK, but not referenced is not. And to ask whether such recycling is damaging to science research in general?
