Thompson Writing Program
Arts & Sciences
Duke University
| |
Faculty Database Thompson Writing Program Arts & Sciences Duke University |
|
| HOME > Arts & Sciences > TWP > Faculty | Search Help Login |
|
| Publications of Cary Moskovitz :recent first alphabetical combined listing:
%% Books
@book{fds304033,
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
@article{fds323968,
Author = {Rao, DM and Moskovitz, C and Murri, DG},
Title = {Forebody vortex management for yaw control at high angles of
attack},
Journal = {Journal of Aircraft},
Volume = {24},
Number = {4},
Pages = {248-254},
Publisher = {American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(AIAA)},
Year = {1987},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/3.45433},
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,
Inc.},
Doi = {10.2514/3.45433},
Key = {fds323968}
}
@article{fds323966,
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
(AIAA)},
Year = {1990},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/3.45956},
Doi = {10.2514/3.45956},
Key = {fds323966}
}
@article{fds323964,
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
(AIAA)},
Year = {1991},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/3.46049},
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
reserved.},
Doi = {10.2514/3.46049},
Key = {fds323964}
}
@article{fds259180,
Author = {Moskovitz, C and Kellogg, D},
Title = {Primary science communication in the first-year writing
course},
Journal = {College Composition and Communication},
Volume = {57},
Number = {2},
Pages = {307-334},
Year = {2005},
Month = {Spring},
ISSN = {0010-096X},
url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000234000000006&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
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}
}
@article{fds259181,
Author = {Gray, SS and Moskovitz, C},
Title = {"Some Insights about Students’ Interpretations of
Histograms”},
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
distribution.},
Key = {fds259181}
}
@article{fds259182,
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}
}
@article{fds259183,
Author = {Reynolds, JA and Moskovitz, C},
Title = {Calibrated Peer Review™ assignments in science courses:
Are they designed to promote critical thinking and writing
skills?},
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}
}
@article{fds259179,
Author = {Reynolds, JA and Smith, R and Moskovitz, C and Sayle,
A},
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 = {http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.11},
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
needs.},
Doi = {10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.11},
Key = {fds259179}
}
@article{fds259178,
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
work.},
Key = {fds259178}
}
@article{fds323962,
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 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0025-z},
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
editors.},
Doi = {10.1186/s41073-017-0025-z},
Key = {fds323962}
}
@article{fds304035,
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}
}
@article{fds333716,
Author = {Hall, S and Moskovitz, C and Pemberton, MA},
Title = {Attitudes toward text recycling in academic writing across
disciplines.},
Journal = {Accountability in research},
Volume = {25},
Number = {3},
Pages = {142-169},
Year = {2018},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1434622},
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}
}
@article{fds333715,
Author = {Moskovitz, C},
Title = {Text Recycling in Scientific Writing},
Volume = {25},
Number = {3},
Pages = {813-851},
Year = {2019},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-0008-y},
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
materials.},
Doi = {10.1007/s11948-017-0008-y},
Key = {fds333715}
}
@article{fds366612,
Author = {Pemberton, M and Moskovitz, C and Hall, S and Anson,
CM},
Title = {Reuse in STEM Research Writing: Rhetorical and Practical
Considerations and Challenges},
Journal = {AILA Review},
Volume = {33},
Number = {1},
Pages = {120-135},
Publisher = {John Benjamins Publishing Company},
Year = {2020},
Key = {fds366612}
}
@article{fds356868,
Author = {Moskovitz, C and Hall, S},
Title = {Text Recycling in STEM Research: An Exploratory
Investigation of Expert and Novice Beliefs and
Attitudes},
Journal = {Journal of Technical Writing and Communication},
Volume = {51},
Number = {3},
Pages = {004728162091543-004728162091543},
Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
Year = {2020},
Month = {March},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047281620915434},
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}
}
@article{fds352657,
Author = {Moskovitz, C},
Title = {There is no absolute expectation about text
recycling.},
Journal = {Clinical biochemistry},
Volume = {86},
Pages = {65-66},
Year = {2020},
Month = {December},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.10.004},
Doi = {10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.10.004},
Key = {fds352657}
}
@article{fds353537,
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 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1850284},
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}
}
@article{fds371513,
Author = {Moskovitz, C and Harmon, B and Saha, S},
Title = {The Structure of Scientific Writing: An Empirical Analysis
of Recent Research Articles in STEM},
Journal = {Journal of Technical Writing and Communication},
Year = {2023},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00472816231171851},
Abstract = {While the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and
Discussion) format is common in scientific writing, it may
not currently be as ubiquitous as often thought. We
undertook a systematic, corpus-based study of primary
section headings in research articles across a range of STEM
disciplines to investigate adherence to the IMRAD structure
in relation to type of study (computational, empirical, or
theoretical) and field. We identified four categories of
structure: IMRAD, IMRAD+ (IMRAD with additional sections
and/or different order), Nested IMRAD (multi-part studies),
and Non-IMRAD. Papers in biology mainly used an IMRAD
format, while less than half in engineering or social
sciences did so. While empirical papers tended to use IMRAD
formats, most computational papers did not. Thus, our
findings show that IMRAD is a common but not universal
structure for contemporary scientific writing. Awareness of
these differences should encourage teachers of scientific
and technical writing and scholars of writing studies to pay
closer attention to the actual structural forms used in
different STEM disciplines and with different methodological
types of research studies.},
Doi = {10.1177/00472816231171851},
Key = {fds371513}
}
@article{fds369176,
Author = {Moskovitz, C},
Title = {Beyond “See Figure 1”: A Heuristic for Writing About
Figures and Tables},
Journal = {Journal of College Science Teaching},
Volume = {52},
Number = {3},
Pages = {67-74},
Publisher = {NSTA},
Year = {2023},
Month = {February},
Abstract = {Visual elements such as graphs, tables, and diagrams are
essential components of scientific writing. Although
scientific writing textbooks and guides often contain
information on how to design such visuals, little has been
written on how to effectively discuss those visuals within
the text. This article offers a novel heuristic for teaching
students how to effectively execute these “passages about
visuals” in a way that is both conceptually simple enough
to be understood by novices yet rich enough to accommodate
the complexity of expert scientific writing. The heuristic
consists of a set of “moves”: announce, orient, observe,
and explain. Following an explanation of the moves, readers
are walked through a variety of examples showing the moves
in context and noting the different ways the moves are
arranged and executed in published scientific research
articles. Pedagogical implications and approaches for using
the heuristic in the classroom are then discussed.},
Key = {fds369176}
}
@article{fds371300,
Author = {Moskovitz, C and Hansen, DR and Yelverton, M},
Title = {Legalize text recycling},
Journal = {Learned Publishing},
Volume = {36},
Number = {3},
Pages = {473-476},
Year = {2023},
Month = {July},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/leap.1550},
Abstract = {Text recycling is the reuse of material from an author's own
prior work in a new document. While the ethical aspects of
text recycling have received considerable attention, the
legal aspects have been largely ignored or inaccurately
portrayed. Copyright laws and publisher contracts are
difficult to interpret and highly variable, making it
difficult for authors or editors to know when text recycling
in research writing is legal or illegal. We argue that
publishers should revise their author contracts to make text
recycling explicitly legal as long as authors follow
ethics-based guidelines.},
Doi = {10.1002/leap.1550},
Key = {fds371300}
}
%% Book Reviews
@article{fds259170,
Author = {Moskovitz, C},
Title = {Introducing Students to College Writing},
Journal = {Pedagogy},
Volume = {11},
Number = {1},
Pages = {211-218},
Publisher = {Duke University Press},
Year = {2011},
Month = {Winter},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2010-025},
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
disciplines.},
Doi = {10.1215/15314200-2010-025},
Key = {fds259170}
}
%% Chapters in Books
@misc{fds360763,
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
@misc{fds259173,
Author = {Moskovitz, C and Kellogg, D},
Title = {Inquiry-based writing in the laboratory course (vol 332, pg
922, 2011)},
Journal = {SCIENCE},
Volume = {333},
Number = {6039},
Pages = {158-158},
Publisher = {AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE},
Year = {2011},
ISSN = {0036-8075},
url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000292502700024&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
Doi = {10.1126/science.333.6039.158},
Key = {fds259173}
}
@misc{fds259169,
Author = {Moskovitz, C},
Title = {Reader Experts Help Students Bring the Write
Stuff},
Journal = {The Chronicle of Higher Education},
Year = {2011},
Month = {May},
ISSN = {0009-5982},
Key = {fds259169}
}
@misc{fds259172,
Author = {Moskovitz, C and Kellogg, D},
Title = {Lab course goals: Science or writing? Response},
Journal = {Science},
Volume = {333},
Number = {6042},
Pages = {524},
Publisher = {American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS)},
Year = {2011},
Month = {July},
ISSN = {0036-8075},
url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000293222400022&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
Doi = {10.1126/science.333.6042.524-b},
Key = {fds259172}
}
@misc{fds224080,
Author = {C. Moskovitz and Lynn Smith-Lovin},
Title = {Book contract: A Very Short Guide to Writing in
Sociology},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
Year = {2014},
Key = {fds224080}
}
@misc{fds323963,
Author = {Moskovitz, C},
Title = {Plagiarism or text recycling? It depends on the
context.},
Journal = {OUPblog},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
Year = {2015},
Month = {December},
Key = {fds323963}
}
@misc{fds304036,
Author = {Moskovitz, C},
Title = {Self-Plagiarism, Text Recycling and Science
Education},
Journal = {Bioscience},
Volume = {66},
Number = {1},
Pages = {5-6},
Publisher = {American Institute of Biological Sciences},
Year = {2016},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0006-3568},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv160},
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
practices.},
Doi = {10.1093/biosci/biv160},
Key = {fds304036}
}
@misc{fds367282,
Author = {Moskovitz, C and Hall, S and Pemberton, M},
Title = {Common Misconceptions about Text Recycling in Scientific
Writing},
Journal = {Bioscience},
Publisher = {American Institute of Biological Sciences},
Year = {2022},
Month = {October},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac090},
Abstract = {Experienced scientists know there is often a need to repeat
some content from their papers, especially when the same
methodological approach, experimental apparatus, or
statistical analyses are used in related studies. Reusing
material from one's published article in a new article is
one kind of text recycling. Others include reusing material
from a published article in one's dissertation, reworking a
conference paper into a journal article, and translating
one's work into a different language. Given the wide variety
of ways that scientists might recycle text, it isn't
surprising that they are often unsure about what is and
isn't appropriate. This essay explains common misconceptions
about text recycling in scientific writing.},
Doi = {10.1093/biosci/biac090},
Key = {fds367282}
}
| |
Duke University * Arts & Sciences * TWP * Faculty * Staff * Reload * Login | ||
