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.

中文翻译：

---

研究写作中文本回收的标准化术语

由于科学、工程和医学领域的研究不断进步，研究人员通常会直接在他们先前的工作基础上撰写论文。虽然每篇新的研究文章都有望做出新的贡献，但研究人员通常需要从他们之前的文章中重复一些材料——方法细节、背景等，这种做法称为“文本回收”。虽然人们对文本回收的认识不断提高，导致处理这种做法的政策、期刊社论和学术文章激增，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思想，甚至更成问题的是，使用相同的术语具有不同的含义。这些不一致使读者难以准确了解一份文件中阐述的想法或期望与其他文件的关系。本文首先澄清了当前术语的问题，展示了在出版商的作者政策、编辑指南和研究伦理教科书中如何不一致地使用关键术语。然后，它提供了一种新的文本回收实践分类法，其术语旨在与这些实践在常见研究写作和出版环境中的可接受性保持一致。