Is reusing text from a protocol in the completed systematic review acceptable?

Systematic Reviews

Long Ge¹  Ahmed Abou-Setta²  Dawid Pieper³ 

[1]Evidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, GRADE Chinese Center, Lanzhou, China

[2]George & Fay Yee Center for Healthcare Innovation, University of Manitoba, 753 McDermot Avenue, R3E 0 T6, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

[3]Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

[4]Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany

关键词: Systematic review;    Meta-analysis;    Registration;    Protocol;    Plagiarism;    Publishing;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13643-021-01675-9

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

Published protocols have the potential to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews (SR). When reporting the results of a completed SR, the question might arise whether text used in the protocol can also be used in the completed SR? Does this constitute text recycling, plagiarism, or even copyright infringement? In theory, no major changes to the protocol will be expected for the introduction and methods sections if the SR is completed in time. The benefits of maintaining the introduction and methods section of a protocol in the published SR are straightforward. Authors will require less time for writing up the completed SR. Potential benefits can also be expected for peer reviewers and editors. However, reusing text can be described as self-plagiarism. The question to be answered is whether this type of self-plagiarism is acceptable when copying text used previously (as would be the case when copying text from the protocol and pasting it into the subsequent completed SR)? The “traditional answer” to this question is “yes” because authors should not get credit for one piece of work for more than one time unless the work is cited appropriately. In contrast, we propose that in this context, it seems to be fully acceptable from a scientific and ethical perspective. As such, authors should not be accused of plagiarism in this case, but rather be encouraged to be efficient. However, legal issues need to be taken into consideration (e.g., copyright). We hope to stimulate a discussion on this topic among authors, readers, editors, and publishers.

【 授权许可】

CC BY