The Chronicle of Higher Education isn’t a newspaper that you would normally associate with traditional investigative journalism. However, when it does investigate, it does a pretty good job; it’s just put up the report of an investigation into plagiarism where it names and shames four academics who look to be guilty on all charges. A cultural geographer who seems to have committed extensive serial plagiarism, including writing an article which had “several paragraphs that appear to be copied from a Web site on surf music.” A historian who was found guilty of plagiarism by the American Historical Association - but whose current employer seems to be unaware of the fact. Another historian who appears to have copied extensively from an obscure 1960’s book. And a British international relations scholar who copied five pages of the introduction to his book directly from an article in the well-known journal International Studies Quarterly. Another article (behind the Chronicle’s paywall) talks about a senior scientist (a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and member of the President’s Council on Science and Technology) who appears to have copied large chunks from an article written by one of his proteges without permission (something which I suspect is pretty common in many fields). As the Chronicle reporters suggest, this is almost certainly symptomatic of a wider problem.
While this article delves into a few cases we uncovered, our reporting suggests that what we found is not exceptional. Indeed, an editor at History News Network receives so many tips about purported plagiarism that he now investigates only those involving well-known scholars. A professor at Texas A&M International University was bombarded with hundreds of e-mail messages after writing about being plagiarized. Many of them were from graduate students and professors who believed that they, too, had been victims.
As the Chronicle suggests, there isn’t any very effective means of policing plagiarism given current structures in the academy. Professional associations are reluctant to take on plagiarism cases, or to publicize them when they do. Individual departments may punish plagiarists, but there’s no guarantee that they’ll take action - and if they do, very often, nobody outside the department in question knows about it. The reluctance to take serious action against plagiarists isn’t a conspiracy - it’s due to a combination of a lack of resources, a reluctance to get involved in controversy, and, perhaps, a feeling of ‘there but for the grace of God …” (it’s every academic’s nightmare to be accused of plagiarism because of carelessness or sloppy footnoting). Yet it means that in practice there’s an implicit tolerance for plagiarism. It isn’t an endemic problem, but it’s a real and persistent one - most working academics will know someone who has been plagiarized at one stage or another. Academics frequently hark back to the idea that they form a sort of guild. If this has any meaning at all, the academy should do better in carrying out the primary job of a guild; policing the behaviour of their members.
“I have a friend in Minsk…”
Great post title!
My own view is that plagiarism isn’t an endemic problem, but it’s a real and persistent one - most working academics will know someone who has been plagiarized at one stage or another.
there’s an implicit tolerance for plagiarism.
By colleagues, perhaps.
But by one’s students or graduate students?
If I had plagiarized (and been caught) on any of my undergraduate or graduate work, I’d have had my head handed to me on a platter.
It can’t but strike students/grad. students as grossly unfair when they see careers ended for such infractions, and compare it to what happens to teachers who are caught doing the same thing.
While not exactly plagiarism,a related problem is taking authorship credit for work not one’s own. I sat in a deposition as an expert where the graduate student of a highly regarded academic in the sciences said he placed his advisor’s name second on a publication of his “as a courtesy”. Meanwhile the academic was denying he did any work whatsoever on the paper at issue, stating that it was “customary” for advisors to get credit for their students work.
Technological solutions to moral problems and all that, but oughtn’t Google’s just-announced digitization project eventually make it very easy to check all manuscripts against existing works?
Surely someone will write software to take a passage and replace a significant fraction of the words with close synonyms (would probably require some contextual understanding, but not as much as reading requires), making the search ogged proposes difficult.
well, working in “hard sciences” one is also forced to deal with a somewhat more subtle aspect of this problem.
The issue of plagiarism is obvious (in moral categories) when it comes to the actual “original results” presented in the paper. However what about the “introduction”, “applications” & “prior work reviewed” sections? I have found myself frustrated more than once trying to come up with a completely original intro for a research paper given 2 or 3 other well-known (& also quoted in my work) expository papers on the subject. When writing a series of articles on some topic, it is even harder to avoid repeating my own prior wording in these “general audience targeted” sections. In my field, simply using somebody else’s choice of words does not really constitute an intellectual theft (as long as the research approaches, methods & results are original), but does indicate scholarly laziness not appreciated by the better informed readers.
The best disclaimers are usually along the lines of “in this section we follow closely the exposition in [xx]”. But it is much more common to see several phrases or even an entire paragraph lifted from your work without any acknowledgement and followed by “we refer readers to [xx]” for more details.
Ironically, authors’ attempts to rephrase a succinct description found in a prior paper often lead to an obfuscated & misleading explanations of something, which was crystal clear in the original. Personally, I prefer them to quote directly rather than mangle my phrases & formulations.
We need a more refined vocabulary of plagiarism, to distinguish the range from an inadequate paraphrase, to omitted citation, to outright theft. Being able to make these distinctions would alleviate the worry that the post discusses, that one’s own slip-up will become a case of “plagiarism.”
Every case of plagiarism that I saw as a grad student and instructor was unmistakably egregious. If you haven’t got time to do it yourself, you probably haven’t got time to fake it sufficiently to create any plausible doubt, either.
I’m hoping the Internet, which has made plagiarism so much easier, will also make detection that much easier as well.
What surprises me is that some of these people are plagiarizing in areas where they’re bound to be caught because the specialization is so narrow. D’oh!
What do you think an appropriate venue for denouncing plagiarists would be?
Hypothesis:
The current rash of stories on plagiarism is not simply a reflection of the fact that digital technology makes certain patterns easier to detect. Rather it is fanned and encouraged by the same media corporations that are behind perpetually lengthening copyright and the DMCA —- corporations whose larger goal is not simply to prevent you from copying a CD from your friend (and thereby avoiding paying them $15) but the construction of a system whereby everything non-material —- ideas, concepts, phrases on up, are owned.
You think I’m wrong —- go read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig.
Stories of plagiarism feed into the agenda of these companies by promulgating the myth that there is no acceptable way of ever utilizing another’s “intellectual property”.
While I am sympathetic to the idea that genuine plagiarism does exist (along with equivalents like copying entire class papers off the internet), what I have seen of the way these stories are reported strikes me as insane; the infractions seem absolutely trivial (a sentence of two copied), an unremarkable metaphor used in the same place, that sort of thing. As far as I can tell, most of the current carping about plagiarism is more a social phenomenon —- certain segments of the academic community feel (rightly or wrongly) that they don’t have the recognition they deserve, and they lash out by claiming that the success of others is the success that they deserve because of an idea they proposed at some seminar three years ago.
The larger issue is precisely the point of Free Culture. Surely a culture (and this includes the academic world) that is to remain vital operates by building on the past. This of course means reuse of ideas and concepts, which shades into reuse of metaphors and such; and if the cost of such reuse is that occasionally attribution is forgotten, or a sentence copied from a book is, when viewed a year later in one’s notes, imagined as being a sentence oneself wrote, that’s a price we all should pay.
Even during my limited time in academia, I encountered a number of real villains: lechers who couldn’t be left alone in the company of female students; bullies who took advantage of their power over younger members of staff; drunkards who failed to carry out their teaching duties (and, in one case, ruined the careers of several promising PhD students by failing to supervise them adequately). Some of these individuals are still in post; others were quietly encouraged to take early retirement to avoid public scandal. The plagiarists exposed in the Chronicle article strike me as fairly harmless creatures by comparison, and it makes me uncomfortable to see them publicly named and shamed, and their reputations destroyed, when greater rogues get off scot-free. Plagiarism is wrong, to be sure, but it is not the sin against the Holy Ghost. There are many worse crimes that an academic can commit.
To follow up anderson: it is too rarely acknowledged that there is a distinction between intentional and negligent plagiarism. Turning in a term paper copied from the encyclopedia is one thing; inadvertently lifting a sentence is another. The abuse heaped on Doris Kearns Goodwin is wildly disproportionate to her fault; the idea that she can appropriately be classed with Michael Bellesiles is just silly. Slapping the likes of her on the wrist is not tantamount to condoing academic fraud.
I think Maynard Handley’s point is very perceptive. If some of the language used by the Chronicle was being used in relation to IP, “theft” “stole” “her ideas”, we’d be outraged.
Take this:
“[Mr. Tong] cited Ms. Wu’s dissertation multiple times. Those citations, however, don’t tell the whole story.”
“Ms. Wu went through Mr. Tong’s chapter word by word. She highlighted in yellow those portions of the text that were borrowed directly or altered slightly. She highlighted in green those sections that were paraphrased versions of her arguments and research. When she was finished, only one paragraph of the 15-page essay had escaped the highlighter.”
This may not be a worthy piece of research (and misrepresenting the archival research he did may be fraud). But reworking someone elses research (and citing them for it) is surely legitimate?
Frankly, I think the problem is with academic quality control. If people publishing stuff don’t realise that it’s not an original contibution to knowledge and isn’t worthy of publication, and so publish it where they shouldn’t, that’s the problem. Not a minority of people cuting and pasting others work. The quality control issue is much broader and goes much further than just plagiarism.
I don’t know that anyone has ever claimed that plagiarism is the only problem. To my knowledge, Michael Bellesiles didn’t do any plagiarizing. And, yet, the use of other people’s words and ideas without attribution is theft. I don’t see how you can avoid or excuse it. How it can be policed is more difficult. About the only thing that the AHA could threaten to do to the most egregious thief was to bar him from membership in the organization. What kind of penalty is that? It isn’t as if membership in the organization is a license to practice.
I edited a Canadian academic journal in the 1970’s. Two cases of plagiarism by prominent academics were brought to our attention, by the victims. Lawyers for the journal’s publisher insisted that we could not expose the plagiarism; Canadian law at the time was so weak that we were likely to be subjected to successful lawsuits by the plagiarists. My view of academics, and the law, was never quite the same after that.
Is there a case for academic police - paid for out of general tax revenues?
It’s this post that got me wondering about it, but of course the main benefit would be not for plagarism but more outright scientific fraud that is likely to result in bad public policy (or judge’s decisions or buildings falling down, etc). E.g someone who checks that a scientist actually did the study they said they did and didn’t just make the figures up from thin air, someone who goes back and asks any human subjects what they answered (I’m thinking of that case with the boy brought up as a girl), someone who checks the citations to see that the sources cited say what they do say?
Sheer plagarism doesn’t strike me as that big a deal, but the problems of lack of time and energy in tracking it down do seem to also reduce investigation of academic fraud with more serious consequences.
Richard Ellickson’s marvellous book, Order Without Law, notes that the first and usually most effective sanction against violators of a community norm is, “truthful malicious gossip.” In my experience, this is quite common with regard to plagiarists - and the worst plagiarism is not copying off some web-site but stealing other scholars’ ideas and/or empirical material before they publish it - and quite appropriate and quite effective. The only problem is the equally large circulation of untruthful malicious gossip.
The problem with plagiarism isn’t so much theft in the sense of depriving someone of goods or property (e.g., royalties); it’s the fraudulent claim of having originated the stuff.
Even the Creative Commons type licenses generally make a point of saying “Share and enjoy, but give due credit”. Stealing “property” is a thing, but usurping kudos is surely far, far worse in the eyes of those of us with negligible commercial value.
Des - funnily enough you’ve anticipated the basic argument of a post I’m about to write.
Henry: Oh good! My arguments generally improve a lot when someone else makes them. (Mr Nietzsche is particularly good.)
Count me as another person who liked the title of the post.
“Remember why the good Lord made your eyes . . .”
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review