Legalize text recycling

Lovers of poetry would disdain a poet who reused stanzas from one their previously published poems in new one. Movie lovers be stunned if favourite filmmaker the car chase scene previous thriller its sequel. But most us have no qualms about university committee chair or head government research lab copying and pasting some paragraphs last year's annual report into this as long that particular content was still accurate. The central questions text recycling, then, are not whether it is inherently right wrong, but when acceptable unacceptable, and—the topic essay—when legal. If we imagine spectrum written genres—with artistic works such at end purely informational documents software user manuals other—the scientific article sit somewhere middle. As an intellectually driven document, must offer something original valuable to field worthy publication. papers art; while can pleasing read occasionally even elegant, principally means advancing knowledge field. Unlike filmmaker, scientists often legitimate need repeat material prior ones. study uses same methods based on theoretical model, addresses practical problem, author will undoubtedly information for readers paper. Text recycling has been subject considerable debate over past two decades (see e.g., Scanlon, 2007; Bretag & Mahmud, 2009, Bonnell et al., 2012; Harriman Patel, 2014; Moskovitz, 2020), large part by digitization communication subsequent rise plagiarism detection software. To date, discourse acceptability focused ethical aspects. While differences remain regarding boundaries ethically appropriate practice, there growing consensus (see, Kharasch 2021). legal aspects however, largely ignored inaccurately represented. This surprising, given technical challenges interpreting copyright laws publishing contracts; but, explain below, resulting confusion makes task writing less effective efficient. We argue here professionally appropriate, should also clearly legal—and best way accomplish publishers science make simple alterations contracts allow within reasonable bounds. Recycling Research Project (TRRP) studying 5 years. Much our work complexities writing. A key step developing taxonomy order clarify different concerns—from reuse one's conference poster article, context-dependent adaptation paper journal unacceptable practice disguising (Moskovitz, 2021a). Here, address what contentious context—recycling another. Even editors believe specific instances acceptable, they may unsure mistaken legality. authors' knowledge, country precedents directly scholarly more generally. far law concerned, analysis suggests common likely permissible jurisdictions. In United States, typical seem allowed under doctrine fair use (Hansen across international jurisdictions vary considerably (Seng, n.d.), including rights modify own after transferred publisher (Piotraut, 2006); where permit application these cases straightforward. short, States (and other similar defences jurisdictions) partial solution obstacles does cleanly fully resolve problem. Contracts actually play much larger role governing recycle work: authors sign publication agreements, private agreements restrict how ways go beyond controls imposed law. These frequently unclear—sometimes explicitly sometimes indirectly addressing with little consistency agreement another 2021b). case open access publishing, which now accounts millions articles each year nearly third all output (Piowar 2018), impose significant restrictions apply outside permissive Creative Commons licences those made available under. Lacking sophisticated expertise, researchers rarely know any instance anxiety repercussions real consequences. Our shows editor unproblematic, instruct “rewrite” passages due worry infringement (Pemberton 2019). risk-averse approach editing lead inferior rewritten version clear. For closely following research, arbitrary changes wording harder precisely differs predecessors. And aside concerns, spending time mental effort thinking up synonyms rearrange clauses, just so flag duplicate (which is, let admit, fundamentally same)? Such rewriting especially challenging primarily speak languages than English—an inequality further burdens already face greater barriers English, lingua franca science. So why might want give appropriate? Those business side letting freely parts harm bottom line. shares really negatively impact publisher's ability profit earlier article? Probably not. After all, comes out, interested older it. Regardless, publishers' profits come subscriptions; kind could possibly affect those. increasingly converting model economic impact. Overall, do valid concerns. house include copyrighted publisher, risk lawsuit. Now, “new” merely disguised work, publication—legitimate grounds case. concerned only considered relevant community, publication, salami slicing, form duplicitous behaviour. Add fact long, rewards lawsuit trivial, resources bring suit reluctant so. then sued many certainly exist pages. fact, shown between (Anson unaware ever filed context. question, otherwise community. Getting single revise purpose extraordinarily challenging. Attempting obtain harmonization internationally issue futile. successful, matter contracts—which binding independent laws. Author–publisher contracts, hand, ideal mechanism. Because completely control individual publishers, barrier change willingness unlike laws, country, contract substantially uniform globally; thus, grants reuse, ambiguities rendered moot. When agree contract, terms become determining factor work. Given types requires considerations, highly impractical laid out itself. Instead, guidelines articulated externally policies. TRRP produced research-based useful purpose: Best Practices Researchers Model Policy. Both were thoroughly vetted Advisory Board, whose members leaders both Committee Publication Ethics (COPE) Council Science Editors (CSE) along experts ethics major houses, agencies, universities. Authors retain manner consistent Researchers. manuscript includes my/our works, shall Publishers prefer set explicit limits instead refer policy (we suggest policy) statements. encourage willing consider contractual learn through Resources page. recognize purpose. best, perhaps only, path establishing clear conditions recycling. Once legally allowable, decisions realms effectiveness—which belong. CM conceived project; CM, DH MY wrote edited article. None. declare conflict interest. Data sharing applicable datasets generated analysed.