ABSTRACT
The recycling of previous papers for the elaboration of a new one is a taboo practice among contemporary academics. The originality of sources, methodologies, and interpretations are elementary criteria for the evaluation of academic research in any field. Any scholar filling in the application for a grant needs to write about innovation, initiative, and creativity, and show the specificity of their research project, which needs to be carried out to explore new territories in the ever-expanding realm of knowledge. And yet, recycling seems to be a structural component of knowledge: forgotten ideas are given a new life, cultural transfers and belated translations enable us to discuss the same ideas at different times and in different contexts, old concepts are transformed and revisited with each new discovery. On a more individual level, recycling is the art of reusing the material we have gathered in libraries and archives, and adapting this material in storage for new conferences or book proposals. Just like chipped pots and make-do, however, academics feel this type of academic recycling needs to be hidden for added value, and we conceal what is considered a professional fault behind a new argumentative structure. The increased value attributed to originality is traditionally perceived as a romantic concept in literature. 1 In science, it is usually associated with nineteenth-century scientific journals, which promoted the circulation of scientific knowledge, and thus emphasised the originality of their contributions. 2 In these contexts, recycling practices— whether literary or scientific— became gradually associated with negligence and idleness.
