• M. V. Dougherty
Part of the Research Ethics Forum book series (REFF, volume 6)


This chapter introduces a book-length study on post-publication responses to academic plagiarism in humanities disciplines. Academic plagiarism damages the integrity of the scholarly record, corrupts the surrounding academic enterprise, and creates inefficiencies across all levels of knowledge production. The correction of the scholarly record 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. The chapter identifies different senses of the expression ‘correcting the scholarly record,’ discusses the integrity of authorship, outlines the purpose of academic publishing, and distinguishes post-publication from pre-publication responses to plagiarism.


Scholarly record Plagiarism Science Post-publication review Meta-science 


  1. Anderson, John. 1946. News and notes: Title of journal. Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy 24 (3): 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, Mark. 2011. Telling the same story of Nietzsche’s life. Journal of Nietzsche Studies 42 (1): 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, Elizabeth, Leslie Francis, Heidi Grasswick, Miriam Solomon, and Lisa Tessman. 2017. Board of directors’ statement (May 18, 2017). Hypatia. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  4. Anonymous. 1990. Bad manners? Quadrant 34 (10): 65–69.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2017. Editors’ statement (July 20, 2017). Hypatia. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  6. ———. 2018. Announcement from Hypatia’s board of directors and task force co-chairs. Hypatia, February 23. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  7. Beckwith, Francis J. 2015. Or we can be philosophers: A response to Barbara Forrest. Synthese 192 (Supplement 1): 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biagioli, Mario. 2012. Recycling texts or stealing time? Plagiarism, authorship, and credit in science. International Journal of Cultural Property 19 (3): 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2016. Watch out for cheats in citation game. Nature 535: 201. Accessed 6 July 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bouyssou, Denis, Silvano Martello, and Fran Plastria. 2006. A case of plagiarism. 4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research 4 (1): 11–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2009. Plagiarism again. 4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research 7 (1): 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chambers, Chris. 2017. The seven deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox, Adam, Russell Craig, and Dennis Tourish. 2018. Retraction statements and research malpractice in economics. Research Policy 47 (5): 924–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crama, Yves et al. 2006. Plagiarism. 40R: Quarterly Journal of the Belgian, French and Italian Operations Research Societies. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  15. Davies, Benjamin, and Giulia Felappi. 2017. Publish or perish. Metaphilosophy 48 (5): 745–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Direction, La. 1997. Avis aux lecteurs. Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 64 (1): 1–2.Google Scholar
  17. Elliott, Teressa L., Linda M. Marquis, and Catherine S. Neal. 2013. Business ethics perspectives: Faculty plagiarism and fraud. Journal of Business Ethics 112 (1): 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fanelli, Daniele. 2013. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine 10 (12): e1001563. Accessed 6 July 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox, Mark, and Jeffrey Beall. 2014. Advice for plagiarism whistleblowers. Ethics and Behavior 24 (5): 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gipp, Bela. 2014. Citation-based plagiarism detection: Detecting disguised and cross-language plagiarism using citation pattern analysis. Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg.Google Scholar
  21. Hagen, Bill, and Tony VenGraitis. 2007. Appropriate use of the IEEE prohibited authors list. IEEE. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  22. Hansson, Sven Ove. 2008. Philosophical plagiarism. Theoria 74 (2): 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2017. The ethics of doing ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (1): 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harms, Dan. 2006. Plagiarism, publishing, and the academy. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 38 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heidegger, Martin. 1999. Contributions to philosophy (from enowning). Trans. Parvis Emad and Kenneth Maly. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2012. Contributions to philosophy (of the event). Trans. Richard Rojcewicz and Daniela Vallega-Neu. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hoover, Gary A. 2006. A game-theoretic model of plagiarism. Atlantic Economic Journal 34 (4): 449–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horbach, S.P.J.M., and W. Halffman. 2017. The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’. Research policy. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  29. Howard, Jennifer. 2011. After loss in court, scholar defends libel lawsuit over negative book review. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 11. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  30. Ioannidis, John P.A. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2 (8): e124. Accessed 6 July 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacobs, Jonathan D. 2012. History. Res Philosophica. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  32. Lewis, Bruce R., Jonathan E. Duchac, and S. Douglas Beets. 2011. An academic publisher’s response to plagiarism. Journal of Business Ethics 102 (3): 489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liptak, Adam. 2011. From a book review to a criminal trial in France. The New York Times, February 21. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  34. Lu, Susan Feng, Ginger Zhe Jin, Brian Uzzi, and Benjamin Jones. 2013. The retraction penalty: Evidence from the web of science. Scientific Reports 3 (3146): 1–5. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  35. Maddox, John. 2017. John Maddox prize. Sense About Science. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  36. 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
  37. Martin, Ben R. 2007. Keeping plagiarism at bay—A salutary tale. Research Policy 36 (7): 905–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ———. 2012. Does peer review work as a self-policing mechanism in preventing misconduct: a case study of a serial plagiarist. In Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, ed. Tony Mayer and Nicholas Steneck, 97–114. Toh Tuck Link: World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2013. Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy 42 (5): 1005–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin, Brian. 2016. Plagiarism, misrepresentation, and exploitation by established professionals: Power and tactics. In Handbook of academic integrity, ed. Tracey Bretag, 913–927. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. McKenzie, Lindsay. 2017. Journal’s board disavows apology for ‘transracialism’ article, making retraction unlikely. The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 18. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  42. McKenzie, Lindsay, Adam Harris, and Fernanda Zamudio-Suaréz. 2017. A journal article provoked a schism in philosophy: Now the rifts are deepening. The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 6. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  43. Moosa, Imad A. 2018. Publish or perish: Perceived benefits versus unintended consequences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moran, Dermot. 1993. Editorial. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 1 (1): vii–vix.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Neale, Stephen. 2001. No plagiarism here. Times Literary Supplement, February 8.Google Scholar
  46. Nelson, Leif D., Joseph Simmons, and Uri Simonsohn. 2018. Psychology’s renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology 69: 511–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oppenheimer, Mark. 2011. Debate over intelligent design ensnares a journal. The New York Times, May 13. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  48. Oransky, Ivan. 2013. Doing the right thing: Scientists reward authors who report their own errors, says study. Retraction Watch. November 7. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  49. Pelikan, Jaroslov. 1992. The idea of the university: A reexamination. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Quintanam, Chris. 2017. Here’s what academics are saying. The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 5. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  51. RePEc Plagiarism Committee. 2011. RePEc plagiarism offenders. Research Papers in Economics. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  52. Rodes, Robert E., and Charles E. Rice. 1970. Foreward. American Journal of Jurisprudence 15 (1): vii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roig, Miguel. 2015. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. 2nd ed. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  54. Rosamond, Ben. 2002. Plagiarism, academic norms and the governance of the profession. Politics 22 (3): 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rougier, Nicolas, and John Timmer. 2017. Ten simple rules for scientific fraud & misconduct. HAL-Inria Archive Ouverte. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  56. Scharff, Robert C. 1997. Announcement. Man and World 30 (4): iii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scholz, S. J. 2017. Editor’s statement (May 6, 2017). Hypatia. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  58. Schrenk, Lawrence P. 1989. Minutes of the 1989 executive council. Proceedings of the ACPA 63: 277.Google Scholar
  59. Schuessler, Jennifer. 2017. A defense of ‘transracial’ identity roils philosophy world. The New York Times, May 19. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  60. Sher, Gila, Otávio Bueno, and Wiebe van der Hoek. 2016. Statement from Synthese editors. Daily Nous: News for and About the Philosophy Profession, January 20. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  61. Solomon, Miriam, Lisa Tessman, Leslie Francis, Heidi Grasswick, and Elizabeth Anderson. 2017. Board of directors’ statement (July 20, 2017). Hypatia. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  62. Spencer, J.R. 2011. Libel tourist ordered to pay 8,000 Euros. The Cambridge Law Journal 70 (2): 317–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Spoelstra, Sverre, Nick Butler, and Helen Delaney. 2016. Never let an academic crisis go to waste: Leadership studies in the wake of journal retractions. Leadership 12 (4): 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Taylor, A.E. 1916. IX.—Correspondence. Mind 25 (4): 550–551.Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Tudvad, Peter. 2007. SAK – an unscholarly biography of Kierkegaard. (Trans: M. G. Piety). The Torch. January. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  67. van Benthem, Johan, Vincent F. Hendricks, and John Symons. 2011. Statement from the editors-in-chief of Synthese. Synthese 178 (2): A7. Accessed 6 July 2018.Google Scholar
  68. Van Herck, Walter. 2013. Editorial note. International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 74 (1): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weber-Wulff, Debora. 2014. False feathers: A perspective on academic plagiarism. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weiler, Joseph. 2010. Book reviewing and academic freedom. The European Journal of International Law 20 (4): 967–976.Google Scholar
  71. ———. 2011. In the dock, in Paris – The judgment. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law.–-the-judgment-by-joseph-weiler-2. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  72. Wolters, Eugene. 2014. I nonetheless deeply regret the incident. Critical Theory, July 12. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  73. Zamudio-Suaréz, Fernanda. 2017. Months after ‘transracialism’ flap, controversy still rages at feminist philosophy journal. The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 21. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  74. Zhang, Yuehong (Helen). 2016. Against plagiarism: A guide for editors and authors. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. V. Dougherty
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyOhio Dominican UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations