Abstract Copy-pasting is harmless in many contexts, but in the field of journalism, it has transformed into a widely debated practice known as churnalism. Churnalism, or copy-and-paste journalism, refers to a journalistic practice in which journalists (heavily) rely on external third-party materials, leading to news stories that are (verbatim) reproductions of this material. Although the practice is accused of having become particularly widespread in digital journalism, theoretical approaches have examined the complex relationship between journalism and its sources for decades. This theoretically broad and well-established discussion is why research on churnalism not only reflects different understandings but also contains mixed findings and evaluations. Consequently, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of the research state on churnalism by qualitatively examining 46 papers from the last 25 years (1999–2024). Our findings confirm that churnalism is a multifaceted practice, understood as the recycling of both journalistic and non-journalistic material. The literature contains different indicators of churnalism and has produced mixed results on its prevalence. Influencing factors include a lack of journalistic resources and the characteristics of (non-)journalistic organizations, demonstrating that churnalism entails both benefits and risks for journalists. Further research should focus on countermeasures and the potential effects of churnalism.