The Pernicious Effects of Compression Plagiarism on Scholarly Argumentation

  • M. V. DoughertyEmail author
Original Research


Despite an increased recognition that plagiarism in published research can take many forms, current typologies of plagiarism are far from complete. One under-recognized variety of plagiarism—designated here as compression plagiarism—consists of the distillation of a lengthy scholarly text into a short one, followed by the publication of the short one under a new name with inadequate credit to the original author. In typical cases, compression plagiarism is invisible to unsuspecting readers and immune to anti-plagiarism software. The persistence of uncorrected instances of plagiarism in all its forms—including compression plagiarism—in the body of published research literature has deleterious consequences for the reliability of scholarly communication. Not the least of these problems is that original authors are denied credit for their discoveries. When unsuspecting researchers read articles that are the products of plagiarism, they unwittingly engage the arguments of hidden original authors through the proxy of plagiarists. Furthermore, when these researchers later publish responses to the plagiarizing articles, not knowing they are engaging products of plagiarism, they create additional inefficiencies and redundancies in the body of published research. This article analyzes a suspected instance of compression plagiarism that appeared within the pages of this journal and considers the particular ways in which plagiarism of this variety weakens the quality of scholarly argumentation, with special attention paid to the field of philosophy.


Compression plagiarism Authorship Research misconduct Retractions Argumentation Scholarly communication 



This paper has been improved by comments from two anonymous reviewers for Argumentation, and to them I extend my thanks. I am grateful to Alkuin Schachenmayr, Pernille Harsting, Michelle Dougherty, Lawrence Masek, and Brian Besong for comments on earlier versions of this paper. I have also benefited from conversations with Bruce Gartner and Benedict Dougherty. The Galvin Family Foundation, which established the Sr. Ruth Caspar Chair in Philosophy at Ohio Dominican University, made work on this article possible.


  1. Anderson, Mark. 2011. Telling the same story of Nietzsche’s life. Journal of Nietzsche Studies 42(1): 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous. 1990. Bad manners? Quadrant 34(10): 65–69.Google Scholar
  3. Ballor, Jordan J. 2014. Plagiarism in a digital age. Journal of Markets and Morality 17(2): 349–352.Google Scholar
  4. Bar-Ilan, Judit, and Gali Halevi. 2017. Post retraction citations in context: A case study. Scientometrics 113(1): 547–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collodel, Matteo. 2016. Was Feyerabend a Popperian? Methodological issues in the history of the philosophy of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 57: 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dougherty, M.V. 2018. Correcting the scholarly record for research integrity: In the aftermath of plagiarism. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dougherty, M.V., Pernille Harsting, and Russell L. Friedman. 2009. 40 cases of plagiarism. Bulletin de Philosophie médiévale 51: 350–391.Google Scholar
  8. Fahnestock, Jeanne. 2009. Quid Pro Nobis: Rhetorical stylistics for argument analysis. In Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, 191–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fox, Mark, and Jeffrey Beall. 2014. Advice for plagiarism whistleblowers. Ethics and Behavior 24(5): 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gipp, Bela. 2014. Citation-based plagiarism detection: Detecting disguised and cross-language plagiarism using citation pattern analysis. Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gosepath, Stefan. 1992. Aufgeklärtes eigeninteresse: Eine theorie theoretischer und praktischer rationalität. Frankfurt am main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  12. Hansson, Sven Ove. 2008. Philosophical plagiarism. Theoria 74(2): 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansson, Sven Ove. 2017. The ethics of doing ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 23(1): 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansson, Sven Ove. 2018. Anonymous philosophical communication. Theoria 84(2): 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Illarietti, Davide. 2018. Il docente dell’Usi ha copiato anche il Papa. Ticino Online, January 18. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  16. Kramer, Bernd. 2018. Universität Göttingen: Aufstieg und Fall des Dr. M. Die Zeit, January 5. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  17. Madlock-Brown, Charisse R., and David Eichmann. 2015. The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks. Science and Engineering Ethics 21(1): 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marcus, Adam, and Ivan Oransky. 2017. Is there a retraction problem? And, if so, what can we do about it? In Oxford handbook of the science of science communication, ed. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dan M. Kahan, and Dietram A. Scheufele, 119–126. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Martinelli, Dario. 2018a. Statement of retraction. International Semiotics Institute, January 8. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  20. Martinelli, Dario. 2018b. Concerning our statement of retraction. International Semiotics Institute, January 18. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  21. [N.]. 2001. Rationality as a condition for intercultural understanding. Studies in Communication Sciences 1: 81–99.Google Scholar
  22. [N.]. 2006. Comment on ‘Constrained maneuvering: Rhetoric as a rational enterprise’. Argumentation 20(4): 467–471.Google Scholar
  23. Neale, Stephen. 2001. No plagiarism here. Times Literary Supplement, February 8, 12–13.Google Scholar
  24. Newman, Melanie. 2010. Plagiarism probe sees UK scholar quit Belgian post. Times Higher Education, March 11. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  25. Paglieri, Fabio. 2015. Reflections on plagiarism. Topoi 34(1): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palus, Shannon. 2015. Two retractions cost economic historian book chapter and journal article. Retraction Watch, July 20. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  27. Palus, Shannon. 2016. Philosopher earns 14th retraction for plagiarism. Retraction Watch, June 8. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  28. Quintanam, Chris. 2017. Here’s what academics are saying. The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 5. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  29. Roig, Miguel. 2014. Journal editorials on plagiarism: What is the message? European Science Editing 40(3): 58–59. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  30. Spodenkiewicz, Paweł. 2004. Przykra afera plagiatowa na Uniwersytecie Łódzkim. Naszemiasto, December 18.,428478,art,t,id,tm.html. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  31. Stern, David. 2007. Wittgenstein, the Vienna Circle, and physicalism: A reassessment. In The Cambridge companion to logical empiricism, ed. Alan Richardson and Thomas Uebel, 305–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stern, Victoria. 2018a. A cardinal sin? Communications researcher accused of plagiarizing former Pope. Retraction Watch, January 12. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  33. Stern, Victoria. 2018b. University defends researcher accused of plagiarizing former Pope. Retraction Watch, January 31. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  34. Taylor, A.E. 1916. IX.—Correspondence. Mind 25(4): 550–551.Google Scholar
  35. Teixeira da Silva Jaime, A., and Judit Dobránszki. 2017. Compounding error: The afterlife of bad science. Academic Questions 30(1): 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Timmins, Adam. 2013. Why was Kuhn’s Structure more successful than Polanyi’s Personal Knowledge? HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 3(2): 306–317.Google Scholar
  37. Tindale, Christopher W. 2006. Constrained maneuvering: rhetoric as a rational enterprise. Argumentation 20(4): 447–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tindale, Christopher W. 2009. Constrained maneuvering: Rhetoric as a rational enterprise. In Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, 41–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tudvad, Peter. 2007. SAK—An unscholarly biography of Kierkegaard (trans: Piety, M.G.). The Torch, January. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  40. van Eemeren, Frans H. 2015a. Retraction note. Argumentation 29(4): 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Eemeren, Frans H. 2015b. Erratum. Argumentation 29(4): 481–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, C.W. Erik, A.Francisca Krabbe, Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, and Jean H.M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2006. Preface. Argumentation 20(4): 377–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weber-Wulff, Debora. 2014. False feathers: A perspective on academic plagiarism. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weinberg, Justin. 2014. A case of extensive plagiarism. Daily Nous: News for and About the Philosophy Profession, November 5. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  46. Weinberg, Justin. 2018a. Plagiarizes again—And is caught by philosophy prof.’s class (updated). Daily Nous: News for and about the Philosophy Profession, January 15. Accessed 3 Feb 2019.
  47. Weinberg, Justin. 2118b. Plagiarist’s university issues criticism …of the whistleblower. Daily Nous: News for and about the Philosophy Profession, February 1. Accessed 3 Feb 2019.
  48. Wolters, Eugene. 2014. I nonetheless deeply regret the incident. Critical Theory, July 12. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
  49. Zhang, Yuehong. 2016. Against plagiarism: A guide for editors and authors. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentOhio Dominican UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations