Text recycling and self-plagiarism in research

This statement aims to provide guidance on acceptable and unacceptable uses of text recycling to protect the integrity of University research outputs, including graduate research theses.

At the core of this guidance is the principle that the purpose of disseminating a scholarly research output is to communicate a novel contribution to knowledge; appropriate attribution to existing works must therefore be clearly described to support fair assessment of contribution. This principle applies to both traditional and, where relevant, non-traditional research outputs.

Relevant University policies and guiding principles

1. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018) (the Code) provides high-level principles relating to a researcher’s responsibility for appropriate attribution of relevant work, including the researcher’s own work. The responsibility described in the Code is further explained in the supporting Guide on Publication and Dissemination of Research.
2. The University’s Research Integrity and Misconduct Policy (MPF1318) states at 5.4(b) that researchers must “appropriately cite and acknowledge previous work including their own, whether published or unpublished.” According to 5.4(c), they must also “take all reasonable steps to obtain permission from the original publisher or copyright owner before republishing their own or others’ research findings.”
3. The University’s Authorship Policy (MPF1181) requires all authors (including Graduate Researchers) of research outputs (including theses) to have made a significant intellectual or scholarly contribution to the work, and to verify the accuracy of the output including appropriate citations to existing and previous works. This requirement enables contributions to be accurately described and fairly assessed. The recycling of content (text, images, and so on) from an author’s previous work into a new document may therefore be permitted if appropriate attribution is given and permissions obtained.

To be clear, not all “previous work” (broadly conceived) generated by a researcher needs to be attributed when their own text is recycled: it depends on the nature of the source and destination works and the purpose of the dissemination. In this guidance, the term “previous work” referred to in both the Research Integrity and Misconduct Policy and the Authorship Policy is limited to research outputs that are either published or have been shared as pre-prints for the purpose of disseminating new contributions to knowledge.

A Graduate Research thesis is subject to the University’s Research Integrity and Misconduct Policy but we suggest Graduate Researchers also consider the University’s Academic Board policies for student assessment, which define plagiarism as “presenting work or ideas that are not your own for assessment. This applies to all written documents, interpretations, computer software, designs, music, sounds, images, photographs, and ideas that were created by someone else”. Unpublished (developmental) works created by a Graduate Researcher in the course of their candidature (such as annual progress reports or ethics applications) are not considered to be research outputs or assessment materials, and therefore are not “previous works” according to these policies.

In addition to the above policies, researchers should be aware of publisher guidelines, especially with regards to disclosure, citation or acknowledgement of previously shared versions of their work. Following definitions of text recycling and self-plagiarism, guidance is provided below about acceptable and unacceptable text recycling.

What is text recycling?

Following international guidelines and a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) statement, the University of Melbourne considers text recycling to be the re-use of textual material (including prose, illustrations, and equations) in a new document that is reproduced verbatim from (or is substantively similar to) an original source document and where the two documents share at least one author. Table 1 provides examples and guidance on determining the acceptability of different forms of text recycling, depending on the nature of the source and destination documents, and the attribution status. Text recycling, by definition, does not apply to non-textual material, such as music or dance, although it should be noted that inadequate attribution to non-traditional previous work may also constitute a breach of research integrity if new works claim contribution without appropriate attribution.

What is self-plagiarism?

Self-plagiarism refers to an author or creator re-using all, or parts of, their own previous work (published or shared), presenting it in a new work as if it were new or original contributions, without appropriately attributing the original source. When the source document or work has already been distributed for the purposes of communicating contributions to knowledge, it is a requirement that attributions are made in the new work to enable accurate assessment of novelty and contribution. The concept of self-plagiarism applies to both textual and non-textual work, with unacceptable text recycling constituting self-plagiarism in a textual work.

It is not considered to be self-plagiarism if text is recycled with appropriate attribution. Nor is it considered to be self-plagiarism if text is recycled from an unpublished and unshared work. Indeed, there is no need to cite the original source, since there has been no prior claim or assessment of contribution to knowledge, and the work is not publicly available to cite. This form of text recycling is known as developmental recycling and is acceptable, with example source documents including unpublished conference talk slides, unpublished theses, and other internal documents produced by a researcher or Graduate Researcher in the course of their candidature (eg, annual progress reports). While Graduate Researcher theses may be shared in institutional repositories (such as Minerva) and can be cited, most publishers accept unattributed text recycling from original theses (i.e., theses that do not consist of published works) without self-plagiarism concerns.

Unacceptable use of text recycling, or self-plagiarism

The University regards duplication of previous work without attributing the original published or shared source (and thereby misleading the reader with regards to the novelty or contribution of the work) as a departure from acceptable research conduct. Such practice is inconsistent with section 5.4(b) of the Research Integrity and Misconduct Policy, and may constitute a breach of the Code. Where this is done intentionally, recklessly, or negligently, it may also amount to research misconduct. Examples of unacceptable text recycling or self-plagiarism are provided in Table 1.

Guidance on acceptable recycling of text

Any text recycling should be approached with caution, consistent with relevant academic and publishing practices, and in accordance with University policies.

When recycling verbatim, or substantively similar, published or shared text in new publications, including in a thesis, the original source should be appropriately attributed. There are three main ways to attribute the original source:

i) as a direct quotation with quotation marks or indented text, and referenced as per the relevant referencing style of the publisher;

ii) a paraphrase of the original text with appropriate reference to the original output; or

iii) if the use of quotation marks or paraphrasing is considered inappropriate for long passages of recycled text (e.g., an entire methods section that provides background information, standard definitions, and so on) that are not making claims of new contribution to knowledge, the source of the original text should be acknowledged with a sentence to identify the text and indicate where the text was first published, for transparency about the original contribution of the text.

Suitable sentences include:

• “The following section contains text first presented in [reference].”
• “The methodology has previously been proposed in [reference], and is reproduced here for completeness.”
• “The method was performed essentially as described previously [reference]. Briefly, ….”

Some disciplinary practices may not expect authors to attribute their own recycled text in sections where it is clear to the reader that the novelty or contribution lies in a different section. For example, some disciplines may accept recycled text for definition, methods or background sections without attribution when it is clear to all readers that the novelty lies in the analysis section. While the University acknowledges this discipline-specific practice, it is still recommended to attribute any recycled text to avoid ambiguity. This ensures all readers (including readers outside the academic discipline of the author) have a shared understanding of the novel contributions of the work.

For recycled text from published works, researchers should be aware of publisher guidelines if using the above forms of text recycling with appropriate attribution, and must ensure they are not breaching copyright laws. Attribution may not be sufficient where permission to reproduce is required.

If a researcher has shared their previous work as a pre-print or thesis, the University encourages them to acknowledge the pre-print or thesis in their disclosure to the journal/publisher when submitting a new work with recycled text. If the publisher requires in-text attribution to a pre-print or thesis, authors are encouraged to follow publisher guidelines. Researchers should be vigilant to ensure that pre-prints and published versions of the same work are not considered multiple (or duplicate) publications at any time. Once the shared work has been published, the corresponding or coordinating author should update the repository (e.g., arXiv, ResearchGate) hosting the pre-print to acknowledge that the pre-print version has been superseded by a published version of the work, and include bibliographic reference details on the shared version. For theses shared in repositories, generally no further action is required upon recycling text from the thesis in a subsequent published work.

For Graduate Researchers wishing to include their own published material (previous work) in a thesis, please consult the University’s published guidance. It may also be helpful to consult the University’s advice on copyright and research.

Text matching software, which is often used by journal editors and publishers, can detect recycled sections of text and register them as potential plagiarism. Graduate Researchers are required to use iThenticate and share reports with their supervisor at both confirmation and thesis submission. This helps ensure that Graduate Researchers develop a good understanding of scholarly norms and citation requirements early in their candidature. Supervisors can help interpret the iThenticate report and provide guidance on referencing.

Accessing support and advice

• For any doubts and queries, please discuss first with a senior academic colleague or research supervisors and other local research contacts
• Research Integrity Advisors can provide general or discipline-specific advice about responsible research practices
• Research Liaison Librarians can provide advice about discipline-specific citation and referencing practices
• The Office of Research Ethics and Integrity
• Academic Skills Unit at the University to improve writing and communication skills
• Re:Cite for resources to help manage citations and references
• The University has published guidance on the responsible use of digital assistance tools (including AI) in research