Rotatable non-circular forebody flow controller

The invention is a rotatable, non-circular forebody flow controller. The apparatus comprises a small geometric device located at a nose of a forebody of an aircraft and a non-circular cross-sectional area that extends toward the apex of the aircraft. The device is symmetrical about a reference plane and preferably attaches to an axle which in turn attaches to a rotating motor. The motor rotates the device about an axis of rotation. Preferably, a control unit connected to an aircraft flight control computer signals to the rotating motor the proper rotational positioning of the geometric device

The complexities of text recycling in professional scientific discourse and implications for plagiarism prevention in higher education

Within higher education, guidelines for plagiarism almost always state that whenever a writer uses the exact words from a source, that material must be identified by quotation marks or block indentation, and the source of the reused material must be identified and attributed to the source. Nevertheless, text recycling--the unacknowledged reuse of previously published material—is common practice in STEM fields within the world of professional practice. Further complicating matters, the rise of online plagiarism detection tools by journals in recent years has spurred confusion and debate about the practice of text recycling even in the scientific community—as a quick web search for “text recycling” AND “self-plagiarism” reveals. Depending on what you happen to read, the practice is represented as unavoidable, shameful or useful. Although scholars of plagiarism have repeatedly made the case that plagiarism is a complex, contextually-situated matter, the practice of text recycling remains largely invisible--from writing textbooks to library research guides. The result is that students are left largely on their own to negotiate the complicated intersection of school and professional norms. This talk will (1) describe the conventions and debates related to text recycling, (2) explain the challenges faced by students, teachers and librarians, and (3) offer ideas for addressing text recycling in the academic setting

Biotap: A systematic approach to teaching scientific writing and evaluating undergraduate theses

Education F aculty-mentored research projects are a key component of the undergraduate curriculum at many colleges and universities, particularly in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). These projects give students the opportunity to synthesize content from prior courses, further develop communication and problem-solving skills, and see firsthand how knowledge is produced The educational benefits of writing a thesis, however, are not automatic. The extent to which these benefits are realized depends in large part on how effectively students are mentored throughout the writing process To address these issues, we created BioTAP, the Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol, a formative and summative assessment tool for undergraduate theses in biology. The central feature of BioTAP is a detailed rubric that delineates the categories by which theses will be assessed and defines the criteria for varying levels of success in each category. Although rubrics have been a mainstay of writing assessment for decades, little attention has been given to the particular context of undergraduate thesis writers in STEM disciplines, where a well-designed rubric could facilitate more effective teaching and evaluation. Rubrics are particularly appropriate as a teaching tool for undergraduate thesis writers because they can help students understand a genre of writing that is new to most of them, identify and explain the strengths and weaknesses of drafts, and serve as meaningful guides for improvemen

Text recycling: Views of North American journal editors from an interview-based study

Over the past decade, text recycling (TR; AKA ‘self‐plagiarism’) has become a visible and somewhat contentious practice, particularly in the realm of journal articles. While growing numbers of publishers are writing editorials and formulating guidelines on TR, little is known about how editors view the practice or how they respond to it. We present results from an interview‐based study of 21 North American journal editors from a broad range of academic disciplines. Our findings show that editors' beliefs and practices are quite individualized rather than being tied to disciplinary or other structural parameters. While none of our participants supported the use of large amounts of recycled material from one journal article to another, some editors were staunchly against any use of recycled material, while others were accepting of the practice in certain circumstances. Issues of originality, the challenges of rewriting text, the varied circulation of texts, and abiding by copyright law were prominent themes as editors discussed their approaches to TR. Overall, the interviews showed that many editors have not thought systematically about the practice of TR, and they sometimes have trouble aligning their beliefs and practices

Text Recycling (aka “Self-Plagiarism ) in Research Writing: Thorny Issues and Best Practices

Researchers often have reason to reuse content from their prior papers in their new ones (descriptions of methods, background material, theoretical frameworks, and so on). Some uses of text recycling are widely considered appropriate; others are universally condemned. Given the variety of ways that researchers might recycle text, they are often unsure about what is and isn\u27t ethical or legal. This talk will present the ethical and legal complexities of text recycling in research writing, present a new taxonomy of text recycling, and explain best practices for recycling material across a range of research contexts

A model text recycling policy for publishers

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 features

Understanding Text Recycling: A Guide for Researchers

As a researcher, you may have occasion to reuse material from your own previously written documents in new documents. You might, for example, want to recycle passages from your approved ethical review protocol in a grant proposal, reuse some of the literature review from your grant proposal in a research article, or reuse the description of a procedure from one of your published articles in a new article that used the same procedure. While less common, you may also have occasion to translate your published work into another language or to republish your journal article as a book chapter. All of these examples can be considered cases of text recycling. Unlike plagiarism, which is widely considered to be research misconduct1,2 , text recycling may or may not be appropriate depending on how and where it occurs. In some cases, especially when it facilitates clear communication, text recycling can be ethical, professionally appropriate, legal, and perhaps even desirable. In other situations, text recycling may be unacceptable because it infringes copyright, violates a publishing contract, inhibits communication, or misleads editors or readers. This document will help you understand these differences. This guide is a product of the Text Recycling Research Project (TRRP), a U.S.-based multi-institution initiative funded by the National Science Foundation. While some of the issues addressed here are not universally agreed upon, this document is based on published research conducted by the TRRP as well as guidelines from a number of leading organizations of editors and publishers. These are listed under References at the end of the document

Common Misconceptions about Text Recycling in Scientific Writing

Among the fundamental principles of scientific publishing, originality is one of the most important. Every manuscript is expected to offer a unique contribution, something clearly different from what has already been published. We typically think about originality in terms of a paper\u27s content: What does this manuscript add to the knowledge of the field? An article may offer some fundamentally new idea or evidence that substantially alters the field, but more often, advances are incremental. An example of such incremental advances is a series of articles investigating a new vaccine. Many papers are published before a promising vaccine gets to the stage of clinical trials. Then there will be many more studies: safety studies; pilot studies; studies on different populations, such as adults and children; studies about the efficacy of varying dosages; and so on. If done well, each new paper will offer important insights and inform future research. But from one study to the next, some things will stay the same: the essential problem being studied, the relevant prior research, the biochemistry of the vaccine, the method of vaccine delivery, and so on. This overlap in content raises a question about writing that has troubled both researchers and editors: When is it acceptable for researchers to repeat material from their own prior papers? Prior to the digitization of written communication, the duplication of material between scientific articles must often have gone unnoticed. It certainly wasn\u27t a topic of discussion in the realm of research ethics. But with the growth of digital communication came online plagiarism detection tools, and these identify overlapping material regardless of whether the prior work was written by the same authors or someone else. Concern over what came to be called self-plagiarism was amplified by the companies selling these tools. They could market the software to publishers to flag papers with overlapping text and then sell the same tool to universities for researchers to use to identify (and therefore change) overlapping material before submitting the manuscript so it wouldn\u27t get flagged (Moskovitz and Colton 2021)