Thompson Writing Program Faculty Database
Thompson Writing Program
Arts & Sciences
Duke University

 HOME > Arts & Sciences > TWP > Faculty    Search Help Login pdf version printable version 

Publications of Cary Moskovitz    :chronological  alphabetical  combined listing:

%% Books   
   Author = {Moskovitz, C and Smith-Lovin, L},
   Title = {Writing in Sociology: A Brief Guide},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
   Editor = {Deans, T and Poe, M},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {November},
   ISBN = {9780190203924},
   Abstract = {Writing in Sociology: A Brief Guide shows students how to
             write research reports, literature reviews, internship
             reports, and other genres often assigned in sociology
             classes with extensive real-world examples and attention to
             principles of audience, purpose, genre, and credibility. It
             is part of a series of brief, discipline-specific writing
             guides from Oxford University Press designed for today's
             writing-intensive college courses. The series is edited by
             Thomas Deans (University of Connecticut) and Mya Poe
             (Northeastern University).},
   Key = {fds304033}

%% Papers Published   
   Author = {Moskovitz, C and Hall, S and Pemberton, M},
   Title = {A model text recycling policy for publishers},
   Journal = {European Science Editing},
   Volume = {48},
   Year = {2022},
   Month = {January},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {Because science advances incrementally, scientists often
             need to repeat material included in their prior work when
             composing new texts. Such “text recycling” is a common
             but complex writing practice, so authors and editors need
             clear and consistent guidance about what constitutes
             appropriate practice. Unfortunately, publishers’ policies
             on text recycling to date have been incomplete, unclear, and
             sometimes internally inconsistent. Building on 4 years of
             research on text recycling in scientific writing, the Text
             Recycling Research Project has developed a model text
             recycling policy that should be widely applicable for
             research publications in scientific fields. This article
             lays out the challenges text recycling poses for editors and
             authors, describes key factors that were addressed in
             developing the policy, and explains the policy’s main
   Doi = {10.3897/ese.2022.e81677},
   Key = {fds363733}

   Author = {Anson, IG and Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {Text recycling in STEM: A text-analytic study of recently
             published research articles.},
   Journal = {Accountability in Research},
   Volume = {28},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {349-371},
   Year = {2021},
   Month = {August},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {Text recycling, sometimes called "self-plagiarism," is the
             reuse of material from one's own existing documents in a
             newly created work. Over the past decade, text recycling has
             become an increasingly debated practice in research ethics,
             especially in science and technology fields. Little is
             known, however, about researchers' actual text recycling
             practices. We report here on a computational analysis of
             text recycling in published research articles in STEM
             disciplines. Using a tool we created in R, we analyze a
             corpus of 400 published articles from 80 federally funded
             research projects across eight disciplinary clusters.
             According to our analysis, STEM research groups frequently
             recycle some material from their previously published
             articles. On average, papers in our corpus contained about
             three recycled sentences per article, though a minority of
             research teams (around 15%) recycled substantially more
             content. These findings were generally consistent across
             STEM disciplines. We also find evidence that researchers
             superficially alter recycled prose much more often than
             recycling it verbatim. Based on our findings, which suggest
             that recycling some amount of material is normative in STEM
             research writing, researchers and editors would benefit from
             more appropriate and explicit guidance about what
             constitutes legitimate practice and how authors should
             report the presence of recycled material.},
   Doi = {10.1080/08989621.2020.1850284},
   Key = {fds353537}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {Standardizing terminology for text recycling in research
   Journal = {Learned Publishing},
   Volume = {34},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {370-378},
   Year = {2021},
   Month = {July},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {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.},
   Doi = {10.1002/leap.1372},
   Key = {fds355212}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {There is no absolute expectation about text
   Journal = {Clinical Biochemistry},
   Volume = {86},
   Pages = {65-66},
   Year = {2020},
   Month = {December},
   url = {},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.10.004},
   Key = {fds352657}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C and Hall, S},
   Title = {Text Recycling in STEM Research: An Exploratory
             Investigation of Expert and Novice Beliefs and
   Journal = {Journal of Technical Writing and Communication},
   Volume = {51},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {004728162091543-004728162091543},
   Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
   Year = {2020},
   Month = {March},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {When writing journal articles, science, technology,
             engineering and mathematics (STEM) researchers produce a
             number of other genres such as grant proposals and
             conference posters, and their new articles routinely build
             directly on their own prior work. As a result, STEM authors
             often reuse material from their completed documents in
             producing new documents. While this practice, known as text
             recycling (or self-plagiarism), is a debated issue in
             publishing and research ethics, little is known about
             researchers’ beliefs about what constitutes appropriate
             practice. This article presents results of from an
             exploratory, survey-based study on beliefs and attitudes
             toward text recycling among STEM “experts” (faculty
             researchers) and “novices” (graduate students and post
             docs). While expert and novice researchers are fairly
             consistent in distinguishing between text recycling and
             plagiarism, there is considerable disagreement about
             appropriate text recycling practice.},
   Doi = {10.1177/0047281620915434},
   Key = {fds356868}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {Text Recycling in Scientific Writing},
   Volume = {25},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {813-851},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {June},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {Text recycling, often called "self-plagiarism", is the
             practice of reusing textual material from one's prior
             documents in a new work. The practice presents a complex set
             of ethical and practical challenges to the scientific
             community, many of which have not been addressed in prior
             discourse on the subject. This essay identifies and
             discusses these factors in a systematic fashion, concluding
             with a new definition of text recycling that takes these
             factors into account. Topics include terminology, what is
             not text recycling, factors affecting judgements about the
             appropriateness of text recycling, and visual
   Doi = {10.1007/s11948-017-0008-y},
   Key = {fds333715}

   Author = {Hall, S and Moskovitz, C and Pemberton, MA},
   Title = {Attitudes toward text recycling in academic writing across
   Journal = {Accountability in Research},
   Volume = {25},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {142-169},
   Year = {2018},
   Month = {January},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {Text recycling, the reuse of material from one's own
             previously published writing in a new text without
             attribution, is a common academic writing practice that is
             not yet well understood. While some studies of text
             recycling in academic writing have been published, no
             previous study has focused on scholars' attitudes toward
             text recycling. This article presents results from a survey
             of over 300 journal editors and editorial board members from
             86 top English-language journals in 16 different academic
             fields regarding text recycling in scholarly articles.
             Responses indicate that a large majority of academic
             gatekeepers believe text recycling is allowable in some
             circumstances; however, there is a lack of clear consensus
             about when text recycling is or is not appropriate. Opinions
             varied according to the source of the recycled material, its
             structural location and rhetorical purpose, and conditions
             of authorship conditions-as well as by the level of
             experience as a journal editor. Our study suggests the need
             for further research on text recycling utilizing focus
             groups and interviews.},
   Doi = {10.1080/08989621.2018.1434622},
   Key = {fds333716}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {Volunteer Expert Readers: Drawing on the University
             Community to Provide Professional Feedback for Engineering
             Student Writers},
   Journal = {Advances in Engineering Education},
   Volume = {6},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {1-31},
   Publisher = {American Society for Engineering Education},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {March},
   ISSN = {1941-1766},
   Abstract = {This paper reports on a 3-year study utilizing a novel
             approach to providing students in an introductory
             engineering course with feedback on drafts of course writing
             projects. In the Volunteer Expert Reader (VER) approach,
             students are matched with university alumni or employees who
             have the background to give feedback from the perspective of
             the target audience for their writing. Data suggest that VER
             can increase student engagement in engineering course
             writing assignments and may improve the quality of student
             writing. Factors most affecting successful implementation
             include whether student participation is required or
             optional and whether readers are matched with individual
             students or with a student team. Other factors may include
             the type of assignment, whether volunteers' backgrounds are
             a good fit for the type of writing, and whether readers can
             respond to student drafts in a timely fashion.},
   Key = {fds304035}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {Text recycling in health sciences research literature: a
             rhetorical perspective},
   Journal = {Research Integrity and Peer Review},
   Volume = {2},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {1},
   Publisher = {BioMed Central},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {February},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {The past few years have seen a steady rise in the number of
             health science journals using plagiarism detection software
             to screen submitted manuscripts. While there is widespread
             agreement about the need to guard against plagiarism and
             duplicate publication, the use of such tools has sparked
             debate about text recycling—the reuse of material from
             one’s prior publications in a new manuscript. Many who
             have published on the topic consider all uses of text
             recycling anathema. Others argue that some uses of recycling
             are unavoidable and sometimes even beneficial for readers.
             Unfortunately, much of this discourse now merely repeats
             dogmatic assertions. I argue that progress can be made by
             acknowledging three points: First, citation standards for
             research writing in the health sciences will not mirror
             those of the humanities. Second, while it is impossible to
             draw a definitive line between appropriate and inappropriate
             uses of text recycling, some uses of the practice lie
             clearly on the legitimate side. Third, the needs of editors
             for information regarding recycled text are different from
             those of readers. Ultimately, calls for rewording and
             citation as alternatives or fixes for text recycling are
             unlikely to prove satisfactory to either readers or
   Doi = {10.1186/s41073-017-0025-z},
   Key = {fds323962}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {Volunteer expert readers for STEM student
   Journal = {Across the Disciplines},
   Volume = {11},
   Number = {2},
   Publisher = {WAC Clearinghouse},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {December},
   ISSN = {1554-8244},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {This paper reports on a novel approach to providing
             undergraduates with feedback on STEM writing assignments via
             an otherwise untapped educational resource: university
             alumni and employees who normally play no role in the
             institution's educational mission. In the Volunteer Expert
             Reader (VER) approach, students are paired with volunteers
             whose backgrounds make them suitable readers for specific
             writing assignments. Given the realities of labor in STEM
             undergraduate teaching contexts, VER may be particularly
             valuable there, facilitating student interactions with
             experienced STEM professionals who have the time and
             inclination to give them substantive feedback on their
             writing based on real-world experience. Results from this
             3-year study suggest that (1) VER can be an effective means
             of increasing student engagement in STEM writing assignments
             and may also improve the quality of student writing and
             increase learning of course content; and (2) how well VER
             works for any STEM writing assignment is dependent on a
             number of factors including whether student participation is
             required, whether students write alone or as a team, how
             well readers' backgrounds fit the assignment, and reader
             engagement and availability to students. VER is also an
             effective faculty development tool: it offers faculty in
             STEM disciplines a compelling reason to collaborate with
             writing program administrators and necessitates the
             inclusion of best practices in writing assignment design,
             such as making explicit the rhetorical context and aims of
             the writing task and setting a reasonable pace for
             drafting/revision cycles.},
   Key = {fds259168}

   Author = {Wood, KA and Moskovitz, C and Valiga, TM},
   Title = {Audio feedback for student writing in online nursing
             courses: exploring student and instructor
   Journal = {The Journal of Nursing Education},
   Volume = {50},
   Number = {9},
   Pages = {540-543},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {September},
   ISSN = {0148-4834},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {Because scientific writing is an essential skill for
             advanced practice nurses, it is an important component of
             graduate education. Faculty typically provide written
             feedback about student writing, but this may not be the most
             effective choice for the distance-learning environment. This
             exploratory pilot study's aim was to compare spoken,
             recorded feedback with written feedback in three areas:
             which approach do students perceive as providing more useful
             guidance; which approach helps students feel more connected
             to the course; and which approach do instructors prefer?
             Students enrolled in an evidence-based practice
             graduate-level course received asynchronous audio feedback
             on their written assignments instead of the written feedback
             they received in other courses. Results from a survey
             completed by 30 students at completion of the course suggest
             a strong preference for audio feedback. This pilot study
             suggests that audio feedback may be preferable to written
             comments for distance learning courses.},
   Doi = {10.3928/01484834-20110616-04},
   Key = {fds259176}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C and Kellogg, D},
   Title = {Inquiry-based writing in the laboratory course (Science
   Journal = {Science (New York, N.Y.)},
   Volume = {333},
   Number = {6039},
   Pages = {158},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {July},
   ISSN = {0036-8075},
   url = {},
   Doi = {10.1126/science.333.6039.158},
   Key = {fds259173}

   Author = {Cary Moskovitz},
   Title = {The Duke Reader Project: Engaging the University Community
             in Undergraduate Writing Instruction},
   Journal = {Liberal Education Washington Dc},
   Volume = {94},
   Number = {3/4},
   Pages = {48-53},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {Summer},
   ISSN = {0024-1822},
   Abstract = {Duke University is experimenting with a new approach to
             writing in the disciplines that matches undergraduates with
             alumni and employee volunteers who serve as members of the
             target audience for particular writing assignments.},
   Key = {fds259175}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C and Kellogg, D},
   Title = {Inquiry-Based Writing in the Laboratory Course},
   Journal = {Science (New York, N.Y.)},
   Volume = {332},
   Number = {6032},
   Pages = {919-920},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {May},
   ISSN = {0036-8075},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {Scientific writing is increasingly recognized as a key
             component of an undergraduate scientific education. As an
             integral part of scientific practice, scientific writing is
             best learned in the context of doing science (1, 2). Because
             students “do” science (as opposed to “learn about”
             science) almost exclusively in laboratory courses (3, 4),
             they need to learn the skills of scientific writing there.
   Doi = {10.1126/science.1200353},
   Key = {fds259177}

   Author = {Cary Moskovitz},
   Title = {“Not (Entirely) in Their Own Words:Plagiarism, Process,
             and the Complicated Ethics of School Writing”},
   Journal = {Writing & Pedagogy},
   Volume = {2},
   Number = {2},
   Year = {2010},
   Abstract = {Professionals routinely ask colleagues for feedback on
             drafts of their written work, and the feedback they receive
             frequently includes suggestions for changes in wording. By
             convention, professionals are free to appropriate these
             suggestions without citation; the suggested words or phrases
             become, in effect, the author’s own in a transaction this
             essay terms a textual gift. In contrast, guidelines and
             policies on plagiarism for student writers are typically
             phrased in ways that would appear to forbid students from
             accepting textual gifts or to require that they use citation
             in doing so — both of which interfere with teaching
             students how to solicit and make use of feedback in a
             professional manner. Centered on a case from the author’s
             own experience, this essay explores the complexities of
             textual gifts in academic settings through a look at the
             language of institutional policies, handbooks on writing,
             and online guides to citation practices, as well as existing
             scholarship on plagiarism. The essay argues that new
             scholarship is needed to guide both instructors and
             institutions, and maps out some potential avenues for this
   Key = {fds259178}

   Author = {Reynolds, JA and Smith, R and Moskovitz, C and Sayle,
   Title = {BioTAP, the Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol: A Systematic
             Approach to Teaching Scientific Writing and Evaluating
             Undergraduate Theses},
   Journal = {Bioscience},
   Volume = {59},
   Number = {10},
   Pages = {896-903},
   Publisher = {OXFORD UNIV PRESS},
   Year = {2009},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {Undergraduate theses and other capstone research projects
             are standard features of many science curricula, but
             participation has typically been limited to only the most
             advanced and highly motivated students. With the recent push
             to engage more undergraduates in research, some faculty are
             finding that their typical approach to working with thesis
             writers is less effective, given the wider diversity of
             students, or is inefficient, given the higher participation
             rates. In these situations, a more formal process may be
             needed to ensure that all students are adequately supported
             and to establish consistency in how student writers are
             mentored and assessed. To address this need, we created
             BioTAP, the Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol, a teaching
             and assessment tool. BioTAP includes a rubric that
             articulates departmental expectations for the thesis and a
             guide to the drafting-feedback-revision process that is
             modeled after the structure of professional scientific peer
             review. In this article we (a) describe BioTAP’s parts and
             the rationale behind them, (b) present the results of a
             study of the rubric’s interrater reliability, (c) describe
             how the development of BioTAP helped us create a faculty
             learning community, and (d) suggest how other departments
             and institutions can adapt BioTAP to suit their
   Doi = {10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.11},
   Key = {fds259179}

   Author = {Reynolds, JA and Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {Calibrated Peer Review™ assignments in science courses:
             Are they designed to promote critical thinking and writing
   Journal = {Journal of College Science Teaching},
   Volume = {38},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {60-66},
   Year = {2008},
   Abstract = {Calibrated Peer Review (CPR), an online program that
             purportedly helps students develop as writers and critical
             thinkers, is being increasingly used by science educators.
             CPR is an enticing tool since it does not require
             instructors to grade student writing, and instructors can
             adopt assignments directly from a library. Given that
             library assignments are of unknown quality, we analyzed the
             underlying pedagogies of a representative sample. We found
             that between 47-67 % of assignments are designed to promote
             critical thinking and less than a third promote the
             development of higher-order writing skills. While we support
             the CPR concept, we recommend that the current library be
             used with caution, a CPR users manual be written (with
             detailed instructions for creating high-quality writing
             assignments), and, in the future, that the CPR library be
             limited to peer-reviewed assignments.},
   Key = {fds259183}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C and Petit, M},
   Title = {"Insiders and Outsiders: Redrawing the Boundaries of the
             Writing Program”},
   Journal = {Writing Program Administration},
   Volume = {31},
   Number = {1},
   Year = {2007},
   Month = {Fall},
   Key = {fds259182}

   Author = {Gray, SS and Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {"Some Insights about Students’ Interpretations of
   Journal = {Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics},
   Volume = {29},
   Number = {1},
   Year = {2007},
   Month = {January},
   Abstract = {The interpretation of histograms is a complex process
             requiring the integration of understanding about how graphs
             convey information with knowledge about how statistical
             constructs are displayed graphically. For this study,
             students in an introductory statistics class completed three
             histogram comparison tasks at the end of the course to
             assess their abilities to identify similar means and
             standard deviations and to evaluate skewness as represented
             in histograms. Fewer than 50% of the students completed all
             three tasks successfully. Common errors included inferring
             the relative value of the mean according to the center of
             the x-axis rather than the center of the distribution of
             data, identifying histograms with greater heights as those
             having the greater standard deviations, and interpreting
             skewness as a shift of the center of the distribution along
             the x-axis rather than an asymmetry of the
   Key = {fds259181}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C and Kellogg, D},
   Title = {Primary science communication in the first-year writing
   Journal = {College Composition and Communication},
   Volume = {57},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {307-334},
   Year = {2005},
   Month = {Spring},
   ISSN = {0010-096X},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {Despite the widespread acceptance of many kinds of
             nonliterary texts for first-year writing courses, primary
             scientific communication (PSC) remains largely absent.
             Objections to including PSC, especially that it is not
             rhetorically appropriate or sufficiently rich, do not hold.
             We argue for including PSC and give some practical
             suggestions for developing courses and designing assignments
             using PSC.},
   Key = {fds259180}

   Author = {Moskovitz, CA and Hall, RM and DeJarnette, FR},
   Title = {New device for controlling asymmetric flowfields on
             forebodies at large alpha},
   Journal = {Journal of Aircraft},
   Volume = {28},
   Number = {7},
   Pages = {456-462},
   Publisher = {American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
   Year = {1991},
   Month = {January},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {An exploratory experimental investigation of a new device to
             control the asymmetric flowfield on forebodies at large
             angles of attack has been conducted. The device is a
             rotatable forebody tip, which varies in cross section from
             circular at its base to elliptic at its tip. The device
             itself extends over a small portion of the aircraft or
             missile forebody. The device provides two important
             improvements. First, it replaces the normally random
             behavior of the nose side force as a function of nose tip
             orientation with a predictable and generally sinusoidal
             distribution; second, the device shows promise for use as
             part of a vehicle control system to be deflected in a
             prescribed manner to provide additional directional control
             for the vehicle. The device was tested on a cone/cylinder
             model having a 10-deg semiapex angle and on a 3.0-caliber
             tangent ogive model. Data were taken with each model at a
             Reynolds number of 8.4 × 104 based on cylinder diameter and
             by a helium-bubble flow visualization technique at a
             Reynolds number of 2.4 × 104. © 1990 by the American
             Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights
   Doi = {10.2514/3.46049},
   Key = {fds323964}

   Author = {Moskowitz, CA and Hall, RM and Dejarnette, FR},
   Title = {Combined effects of nose bluntness and surface perturbations
             on asymmetric flow past slender bodies},
   Journal = {Journal of Aircraft},
   Volume = {27},
   Number = {10},
   Pages = {909-910},
   Publisher = {American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
   Year = {1990},
   Month = {January},
   url = {},
   Doi = {10.2514/3.45956},
   Key = {fds323966}

   Author = {Rao, DM and Moskovitz, C and Murri, DG},
   Title = {Forebody vortex management for yaw control at high angles of
   Journal = {Journal of Aircraft},
   Volume = {24},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {248-254},
   Publisher = {American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
   Year = {1987},
   Month = {January},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {The yaw control potential of deploy able forebody strakes at
             angles of attack above the effectiveness range of
             conventional rudder has been investigated. The strakes are
             conformally stored in the forebody and, when deployed, force
             asymmetric vortex shedding from the forebody, thereby
             generating a controlled yawing moment. The concept was
             explored through low-speed wind-tunnel tests on a conical
             forebody in isolation as well as in generic fighter
             configurations. Force and moment measurements, supplemented
             with circumferential pressure and flow visualization surveys
             on an isolated forebody model, provided insights into the
             vortex mechanisms generated by forced asymmetrical
             separations and their yaw control potential at angles of
             attack up to 80. © 1987 by Dhanvada M. Rao. Published by
             the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
   Doi = {10.2514/3.45433},
   Key = {fds323968}

%% Book Reviews   
   Author = {Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {Introducing Students to College Writing},
   Journal = {Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature,
             Language, Composition and Culture},
   Volume = {11},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {211-218},
   Publisher = {Duke University Press},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {Winter},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {First-year writing (FYW) courses can play a pivotal role in
             helping students move from high school to college-level
             writing. Yet at my institution, about a fourth of our
             students take required "first-year seminars" — courses
             with substantive writing assignments taught by faculty from
             across the college — before FYW, and even more take them
             simultaneously. Regardless of our curricular intentions,
             many of our students first face the transition to college
             writing not in FYW but in other courses. Unfortunately, in
             contrast to the rich variety of instructional materials
             designed for FYW, there is not much suited to students in
             these kinds of courses. So I was excited to see Keith
             Hjortshoj’s newly revised and expanded Transition to
             College Writing; the concept of the book suggested a good
             fit for students in these courses, and I admire The Elements
             of Teaching Writing (2004), the guide for teachers of
             Writing in the Disciplines (WID) courses that Hjortshoj
             coauthored with Katherine Gottschalk. A combination
             self-help guide and didactic "rhetoric," Transition begins
             with matters of process — note taking, reading, drafting,
             and so on — before moving to specifics of focus,
             organization, claim making, and citation. I particularly
             like the way Transition is built around discussions of
             common but generally unproductive writing and reading
             practices. Yet, despite the publisher’s claims on the
             jacket that the book addresses "the essential reading and
             writing strategies students need to succeed in courses
             across the curriculum," much of the advice and most of the
             examples do not adequately represent scholarly practices
             beyond humanities and qualitative social science
   Doi = {10.1215/15314200-2010-025},
   Key = {fds259170}

%% Chapters in Books   
   Author = {Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {Text Recycling in Chemistry Research: The Need for Clear and
             Consistent Guidelines},
   Booktitle = {International Ethics in Chemistry: Developing Common Values
             across Cultures},
   Publisher = {American Chemical Society},
   Editor = {Schelble, SM and Elkins, K},
   Year = {2021},
   Month = {November},
   ISBN = {9780841297982},
   Abstract = {Like most scientists, chemists frequently have reason to
             reuse some materials from their own published articles in
             new ones, especially when producing a series of closely
             related papers. Text recycling, the reuse of material from
             one’s own works, has become a source of considerable
             confusion and frustration for researchers and editors alike.
             While text recycling does not pose the same level of ethical
             concern as matters such as data fabrication or plagiarism,
             it is much more common and complicated. Much of the
             confusion stems from a lack of clarity and consistency in
             publisher guidelines and publishing contracts. Matters are
             even more complicated when manuscripts are coauthored by
             researchers residing in different countries. This chapter
             demonstrates the nature of these problems through an
             analysis of a set of documents from a single publisher, the
             American Chemical Society (ACS). The ACS was chosen because
             it is a leading publisher of chemistry research and because
             its guidelines and publishing contracts address text
             recycling in unusual detail. The present analysis takes
             advantage of this detail to show both the importance of
             clear, thoughtfully designed text recycling policies and the
             problems that can arise when publishers fail to bring their
             various documents into close alignment.},
   Key = {fds360763}

%% Other   
   Author = {Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {Self-Plagiarism, Text Recycling and Science
   Journal = {Bioscience},
   Volume = {66},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {5-6},
   Publisher = {American Institute of Biological Sciences},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0006-3568},
   url = {},
   Abstract = {Academicians generally consider it unethical to reuse text
             from published work without explicit attribution. However,
             in practice, the conventions and ethics associated with
             reusing text vary considerably across academic domains and
             genres. Although it may be anathema in the humanities,
             certain types of reuse are both common and acceptable in
             contemporary scientific discourse. The boundaries of
             acceptable practice are complex, however, so there is a
             strong temptation to ignore the topic in educational
             settings. Because the fallout from innocent errors can be
             damaging, scientists must assume responsibility for
             determining what constitutes acceptable reuse in their
             domain and for instructing future scientists in these
   Doi = {10.1093/biosci/biv160},
   Key = {fds304036}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {Plagiarism or text recycling? It depends on the
   Journal = {Oupblog},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {December},
   Key = {fds323963}

   Author = {C. Moskovitz and Lynn Smith-Lovin},
   Title = {Book contract: A Very Short Guide to Writing in
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
   Year = {2014},
   Key = {fds224080}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C and Kellogg, D},
   Title = {Lab course goals: Science or writing? Response},
   Journal = {Science (New York, N.Y.)},
   Volume = {333},
   Number = {6042},
   Pages = {524},
   Publisher = {American Association for the Advancement of Science
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {July},
   ISSN = {0036-8075},
   url = {},
   Doi = {10.1126/science.333.6042.524-b},
   Key = {fds259172}

   Author = {Moskovitz, C},
   Title = {Reader Experts Help Students Bring the Write
   Journal = {Chronicle of Higher Education},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {May},
   ISSN = {0009-5982},
   Key = {fds259169}

Duke University * Arts & Sciences * TWP * Faculty * Staff * Reload * Login