After the authors and editors have crafted the best language to describe fundamental parts of study methods, why should one paraphrase that into language that is less precise and more awkward? There are many circumstances (that are not salami publication) where an author needs to describe key methods of one study in more than one report. I suggest that, if authors believe the best way to communicate their methods to readers is to use the same language they used in an earlier report, they simply explain this to the editor in their cover letter. Of course, the author should cite the original publication of these methods. This approach may be less appropriate for Introduction and Discussion sections of research reports. Transparency is more important than computer detection.
↧