Correcting the Scholarly Record for Research Integrity: In the Aftermath of Plagiarism

ISBN-13: 9783319994345 / Angielski / Twarda / 2018 / 248 str.

M. V. Dougherty

Opis

This volume is the first book-length study on post-publication responses to academic plagiarism in humanities disciplines. By providing case studies from the field of philosophy and related disciplines, the volume exhibits that current post-publication responses to academic plagiarism are insufficient.

Recenzje

"Dr. Michael Dougherty's recently published book provides useful frameworks for thinking about correcting the scholarly record once plagiarism has occurred. ... The focus on correcting the scholarly record from the perspective of an experienced whistleblower makes Dougherty's book particularly insightful and useful. ... I applaud Dougherty for this informative and courageous book." (Mark Fox, Publishing Research Quarterly, Vol. 35, 2019)
"This is a work of illuminating insights, historical depth, and moral clarity in the pursuit of correcting the record of scholarly research from plagiarism. ... This volume will stand up as one of the seminal works on plagiarism in the scholarship of academic research in the humanities ... ." (Sheldon Krimsky, Accountability in Research, February, 10, 2019)
"Correcting the Scholarly Record for Research Integrity is both a major contribution to publication ethics in general, and at the same time a path-breaking study of the ethics of philosophy publishing. It should be an obligatory item on reading lists for graduate students in philosophy." (Sven Ove Hansson, Theoria, Vol. 85 (2), 2019)

Spis treści

Preface

Introduction

Correcting the Scholarly Record

The Integrity of Authorship

Pre-Publication and Post-Publication Responses to Plagiarism

The Purpose of Academic Publishing

A Précis of Chapters

References

1. Defining the Scholarly Record

1.1 The Limits of the Scholarly Record

1.1.1 The Knowledge Condition

1.1.2 The Authorship Condition

1.1.3 The Publication Condition

1.1.4 The Library and the Database Conditions

1.1.5 The Discipline Condition

1.2 Works at the Margin of the Scholarly Record

1.3 The Scholarly Record in Transition

1.4 The Identity of Items of the Scholarly Record

1.5 A Definable Scholarly Record

References

2. What is Academic Plagiarism?

2.1 2.1. Identifying Academic Plagiarism

2.1.1 Appropriation

2.1.2 Non-Triviality

2.1.3 Inadequate Credit

2.1.4 An Appearance of Original Authorship

2.1.5 A Discrete Item of the Scholarly Record

2.2 The Intent to Plagiarize

2.3 Self-Plagiarism

2.4 Euphemisms for Academic Plagiarism

2.5 Plagiarism vs. Copyright Infringement

2.6 Statutes of Limitation for Plagiarism

2.7 In Sum

References

3. A Test Case for Published Corrections: The Discipline of Philosophy

3.1 Classifying Responses to Plagiarism

3.2 Issuing a Statement of Concern

3.3 Issuing a Statement of Retraction (SR)

3.3.1 Maximal and Minimal Statements of Retraction

3.3.2 Paywalled SRs and Untethered SRs

3.3.3 SRs with University Support

3.3.4 Academic Editors and Independent SRs

3.3.5 Problems with Minimal and Medial SRs

3.4 Reprinting a Volume After the Removal of Plagiarized Material

3.5 Halting the Sale of the Plagiarized Material

3.6 Taking No Public Action

3.7 Conclusion

3.7.1 Table 1

3.7.2 Table 2

3.7.3 Table 3

References

4. Academic Whistleblowing

4.1 The Whistleblowing Dilemma

4.2 To Whom Can One Blow the Academic Whistle?

4.2.1 Whistleblowing Directly to the Suspected Plagiarist

4.2.2 Whistleblowing in a Post-Publication Review Venue

4.2.3 Whistleblowing to a Journal or Volume Editor

4.2.4 Whistleblowing to a Publisher

4.2.5 Whistleblowing to a University Research Integrity Office

4.2.6 Whistleblowing to a Grant Agency

4.2.7 Whistleblowing to a Journalist or News Agency

4.2.8 Whistleblowing to the Genuine Authors

4.3 Multi-Targeted Whistleblowing

4.4 How will the Whistleblowing Impact the Academic Whistleblower?

4.5 What Might Whistleblower Harassment and Academic Witness Intimidation Look Like?

4.5.1 The National Grant Agency

4.5.2 Journal Editors

4.5.3 Research Integrity Offices

4.6 Conclusion

4.7 Appendix: Sample Letters for Requesting Corrections of the Scholarly Record

4.7.1 Sample of Letter Requesting a Retraction

4.7.2 Sample of Letter Requesting a Corrigendum

4.7.3 Sample of Letter Requesting a Clarification of Authorship

References

5. Publishing Corrections of the Scholarly Record: Some Test Cases

5.1 Disambiguating Retractions, Errata, and Corrigenda

5.2 Case 1: Proceedings from the International Semiotics Institute

5.3 Case 2: Subject Matters: A Journal of Communications and the Self

5.4 Case 3: John Benjamins Publishing Company

5.5 Case 4: The Catholic University of America Press

5.6 Cases 5 and 6: Argumentation

5.7 Case 7: Swiss Medical Weekly

5.8 Cases 8 and 9: Brill Publishing

5.9 Cases 10 and 11: Studies in Communication Sciences

5.10 Case 12: Patient Education and Counseling

5.11 Case 13: Science | Environment | Health

5.12 Case 14: Journal of Communication in Healthcare

5.13 Ten Corrections of the Scholarly Record

5.14 Using the Correct Tools for Correction

5.15 Responsibility for the Scholarly Record

References

6. Contested Authorship, Self-Plagiarism, and the Scholarly Record

6.1 A Discredited Technique

6.2 Disability Studies Quarterly

6.2.1 The First Request for a Statement of Retraction

6.2.2 The Second Request for a Statement of Retraction

6.2.3 The Retraction

6.3 Cambridge University Press

6.3.1 The Request for Retraction

6.4 An Analogy

References

Conclusion: Beyond the Published Retraction

The Database Problem

The Anthology Problem

The Platform Problem

The Repository Problem

The Pretend-It-Didn’t-Happen Problem

A Partial Answer

Informal Corrections of the Scholarly Record

Additional Disclosures of Corrections of the Scholarly Record

Solutions

The Future of the Scholarly Record

References

Index

O autorze

M. V. Dougherty is the Sr. Ruth Caspar Chair in Philosophy at Ohio Dominican University (USA). He is author of Moral Dilemmas in Medieval Thought: From Gratian to Aquinas (Cambridge University Press, 2011) and has edited Aquinas’s ‘Disputed Questions on Evil’: A Critical Guide (Cambridge University Press, 2016) and Pico della Mirandola: New Essays (Cambridge University Press, 2008). He has authored and co-authored articles on academic plagiarism, and his research interests include the history of ethics and research ethics. Since 2009, he has been involved in securing dozens of retractions, errata, and corrigenda for published articles in the discipline of philosophy and in related fields. His work in generating corrections for academic plagiarism and other authorship violations has been featured on Retraction Watch and on other academic news outlets.

Blurb

This volume is the first book-length study on post-publication responses to academic plagiarism in humanities disciplines. It demonstrates that the correction of the scholarly literature for plagiarism is not a task for editors and publishers alone; each member of the research community has an indispensable role in maintaining the integrity of the published literature in the aftermath of plagiarism. If untreated, academic plagiarism damages the integrity of the scholarly record, corrupts the surrounding academic enterprise, and creates inefficiencies across all levels of knowledge production. By providing case studies from the field of philosophy and related disciplines, the volume exhibits that current post-publication responses to academic plagiarism are insufficient. It catalogues how humanities disciplines fall short in comparison with the natural and biomedical sciences for ensuring the integrity of the body of published research. This volume provides clarity about how to conceptualize the scholarly record, surveys the traditional methods for correcting it, and argues for new interventions to improve the reliability of the body of published research. The book is valuable not only to those in the field of philosophy and other humanities disciplines, but also to those interested in research ethics, meta-science, and the sociology of research.