Text recycling in STEM: A text-analytic study of recently published research articles

A large dataset of scientific text reuse in Open-Access publications

We present the Webis-STEREO-21 dataset, a massive collection of Scientific Text Reuse in Open-access publications. It contains 91 million cases of reused text passages found in 4.2 million unique open-access publications. Cases range from overlap of as few as eight words to near-duplicate publications and include a variety of reuse types, ranging from boilerplate text to verbatim copying to quotations and paraphrases. Featuring a high coverage of scientific disciplines and varieties of reuse, as well as comprehensive metadata to contextualize each case, our dataset addresses the most salient shortcomings of previous ones on scientific writing. The Webis-STEREO-21 does not indicate if a reuse case is legitimate or not, as its focus is on the general study of text reuse in science, which is legitimate in the vast majority of cases. It allows for tackling a wide range of research questions from different scientific backgrounds, facilitating both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the phenomenon as well as a first-time grounding on the base rate of text reuse in scientific publications.

An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication

This article explores the impact of an Increase in the average Number of Authors per Publication (INAP) on known ethical issues of authorship. For this purpose, the ten most common ethical issues associated with scholarly authorship are used to set up a taxonomy of existing issues and raise awareness among the community to take precautionary measures and adopt best practices to minimize the negative impact of INAP. We confirm that intense international, interdisciplinary and complex collaborations are necessary, and INAP is an expression of this trend. However, perverse incentives aimed to increase institutional and personal publication counts and egregious instances of guest or honorary authorship are problematic. We argue that whether INAP is due to increased complexity and scale of science, perverse incentives or undeserved authorship, it could negatively affect known ethical issues of authorship at some level. In the long run, INAP depreciates the value of authorship status and may disproportionately impact junior researchers and those who contribute to technical and routine tasks. We provide two suggestions that could reduce the long-term impact of INAP on the reward system of science. First, we suggest further refinement of the CRediT taxonomy including better integration into current systems of attribution and acknowledgement, and better harmony with major authorship guidelines such as those suggested by the ICMJE. Second, we propose adjustments to the academic recognition and promotion systems at an institutional level as well as the introduction of best practices.