Advertisement

A Test Case for Published Corrections: The Discipline of Philosophy

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

Abstract

Individuals discovered to have engaged in wide-scale serial plagiarism in philosophy are relatively few, but the academic publishers falling victim to them are many. Some of the most respected publishing houses in philosophy have recently faced the issue of having published plagiarized material. The chapter uses a specific context of serial plagiarism involving 43 articles and book chapters by one author of record as a test case. The various responses by these publishers to this instance of serial plagiarism provide a real-time snapshot of the practices for correcting the scholarly record in the discipline of philosophy. I propose a new rubric for evaluating published corrections of the scholarly record for cases of demonstrated plagiarism. On this rubric, the highest-scoring corrections are those that: (1) unambiguously declare that a plagiarized work is plagiarized, (2) clearly credit the original source material misappropriated in the act of plagiarism, and (3) are easily accessible to the scholarly community without registration barriers or paywalls. This analysis yields a twofold conclusion: first, relatively little uniformity exists among publishers in philosophy for responding to plagiarism; and second, the discipline of philosophy often falls short of the accepted practices for correcting the scholarly record in contrast to the natural sciences. This chapter considers only public, documented cases of academic plagiarism in philosophy and makes no new allegations of plagiarism.

Keywords

Academic publishing Plagiarism Retractions Expressions of concern Philosophy 

References

  1. Allison, David B., Andrew W. Brown, Brandon J. George, and Kathryn A. Kaiser. 2016. A tragedy of errors. Nature 530: 27–29.  https://doi.org/10.1038/530027a. Accessed 6 July 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous. 1992. Erratum. Faith and Philosophy 9(3): 409.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2009. A note from the editorial board. Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 76(2): v–vi. http://www.peeters-leuven.be/pdf/RTPM7602009.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 4).
  4. ———. 2010a. Notification. Leuven: Leuven University Press. http://upers.kuleuven.be/en/book/9789058677761. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 39).
  5. ———. 2010b. Notification. Leuven: Leuven University Press. (Case 15).Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2010c. Notification. Leuven: Leuven University Press. (Case 24).Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2010d. Retraction. Renaissance Studies 24 (5): 620.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-4658.2010.00694.x. Accessed 6 July 2018 (Case 35).
  8. ———. 2010e. Cambridge Core. The Cambridge companion to Augustine. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-cambridge-companion-to-augustine/augustine-and-medieval-philosophy/210A2841B1D0E452F6B7D41557898A18. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 11).
  9. ———. 2010f. Table of contents. The Cambridge companion to early modern philosophy. http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/philosophy/early-modern-philosophy/cambridge-companion-early-modern-philosophy?format=HB. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 31).
  10. ———. 2010g. Cambridge Core. The Cambridge companion to early modern philosophy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-cambridge-companion-to-early-modern-philosophy/scholastic-schools-and-early-modern-philosophy/F8FC655C5880B4A1E956965836811D05. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 31).
  11. ———. 2011a. Hinweis. Hamburg: Meiner Verlag für Philosophie. https://meiner.de/departure-for-modern-europe-aufbruch-in-das-moderne-europa-9498.html. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 43).
  12. ———. 2011b. Notification. Aldershot: Ashgate. (Case 12).Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2011c. Retracted for plagiarism/Wegen Plagiatsvorwürfen zurückgezogen. Berlin: De Gruyter.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110204544.6.277. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 17).
  14. ———. 2011d. Plagiarized/geplagieerd. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40889945. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 29).
  15. ———. 2011e. Retraction. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 111 (3.3): 519.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2011.00322.x/epdf. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 10).
  16. ———. 2011f. Cambridge Core. The Cambridge history of medieval philosophy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-cambridge-history-of-medieval-philosophy/the-care-of-souls-and-practical-ethics/163AABF637061563F0F4E9E6BE8CD3A5. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 37).
  17. ———. 2011g. Cambridge Core. The Cambridge history of medieval philosophy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-cambridge-history-of-medieval-philosophy/philosophy-and-theology/5F444AD024722833B7D0B8DC1F6BF719. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 41).
  18. ———. 2012. We wish to inform our readership [...]. Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medieval 23: vi. (Case 32).Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2015a. It has been brought to our attention [...]. Leiden: Brill. https://brill.com/view/title/159. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  20. ———. 2015b. This chapter has been retracted. Wiley Online Library.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470998847.ch2. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 13).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 2015c. Retraction notice. Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3001-0_4. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 25).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ———. 2015d. Retraction note. Cham: Springer. (Case 34).Google Scholar
  23. Ballor, Jordan J. 2014. Plagiarism in a digital age. Journal of Markets and Morality 17 (2): 349–352.Google Scholar
  24. Bilbrey, Emma, Natalie O’Dell, and Jonathan Creamer. 2014. A novel rubric for rating the quality of retraction notices. Publications 2 (1): 14–26.  https://doi.org/10.3390/publications2010014. Accessed 6 July 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Blair, Ann. 2007. Errata lists and the reader as corrector. In Agent of change: Print culture studies after Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, ed. Sabrina Alcorn Baron, Eric N. Lindquist, and Eleanor F. Shevlin, 21–41. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  26. Braun, Harald E., and Edward Vallance, eds. 2011. The Renaissance conscience. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Dougherty, M.V. 2017. Correcting the scholarly record in the aftermath of plagiarism: A snapshot of current-day publishing practices in philosophy. Metaphilosophy 48 (3): 258–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dougherty, M.V., Pernille Harsting, and Russell L. Friedman. 2009. 40 cases of plagiarism. Bulletin de Philosophie médiévale 51: 350–391.Google Scholar
  29. Editorial Board of ETL. 2010. Note from the editorial board/Note de la redaction. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 86 (1): iii. http://www.peeters-leuven.be/pdf/ETL8601EditNote.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 3).Google Scholar
  30. Esposito, Costantino, and Pasquale Porro. 2009. A note from the editors. Quaestio 9: 453–454.  https://doi.org/10.5555/J.QUAESTIO.6.78018881010204000008030507080778. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 30).
  31. Faesen, Rob, Bernard Deprez, and Leo Kenis. 2011. Plagiarism. Jesuitica, November 3. https://www.jesuitica.be/info-item/30. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 42).
  32. Flaherty, Colleen. 2017. Hypatia disavows the Hypatia disavowal. Inside Higher Ed, May 19. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/05/19/journals-board-directors-offers-its-support-editors-decision-publish-article. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  33. Fox, Mark, and Jeffrey Beall. 2014. Advice for plagiarism whistleblowers. Ethics and Behavior 24 (5): 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goodin, Robert E., Lea Ypi, Nicholas Southwood, and Christian Barry. 2017. Open letter from the editors of the Journal of Political Philosophy. Philosopher. May 25. https://politicalphilosopher.net/2017/05/25/open-letter-from-the-editors-of-the-journal-of-political-philosophy. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  35. Gunsalus, C.K. 1998. How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards. Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1): 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haldane, John. 2011. Editor and publisher’s note. University of Notre Dame Press. http://undpress.nd.edu/books/P00799#description. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 14).
  37. Hames, Irene. 2007. Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Höffken, K., and H. Gabbert. 2009. Plagiarism and other scientific misconducts. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 135 (3): 327–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hu, Guangwei. 2017. Authorship of retraction notices: ‘If names are not rectified, then language will not be in accord with truth’. Publications 5 (2): 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.3390/publications5020010. Accessed 6 July 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hussinger, Katrin, and Maikel Pellens. 2017. Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators. Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung Discussion Papers 17–051. http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp17051.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  41. ICMJE. 2016. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  42. King, Peter. 2012. Review of The Cambridge history of medieval philosophy, rev. ed. Journal of the History of Philosophy 50(4): 612–613.Google Scholar
  43. Kramer, Bernd. 2018. Universität Göttingen: Aufstieg und Fall des Dr. M. Die Zeit. January 5. http://www.zeit.de/campus/2018/01/universitaet-goettingen-betrug-dozent-professor. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  44. Marcus, Adam, and Ivan Oransky. 2012. Bring on the transparency index. Scientist. August 1. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32427/title/Bring-On-the-Transparency-Index. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  45. ———. 2014. What studies of retractions tell us. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education 15 (2): 151–154.  https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.855. Accessed 6 July 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marion, Mathieu. 2012. Dialogue co-editor apologizes. Feminist Philosophers. November 4. https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/dialogue-co-editor-apologizes. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  47. Miller, Fred D., Jr., and Carrie-Ann Biondi. 2015. Preface to volume 6 (second edition). In A history of the philosophy of law from the ancient Greeks to the scholastics, ed. Fred D. Miller Jr. and Carrie-Ann Biondi, 2nd ed., xix. Dordrecht: Springer. (Case 34).Google Scholar
  48. Montgomery, Kathleen, and Amalya L. Oliver. 2017. Conceptualizing fraudulent studies as viruses: New models for handling retractions. Minerva 55 (1): 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Newhauser, Richard, and Bill Harnum. 2010. With deep regret [...]. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. (Case 27).Google Scholar
  50. Newman, Melanie. 2010. Plagiarism probe sees UK scholar quit Belgian post. Times Higher Education, March 11. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/410670.article. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  51. Nylenna, Magne, and Sigmund Simonsen. 2006. Scientific misconduct: A new approach to prevention. The Lancet 367 (9526): 1882–1884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Paganini, Gianni. 2016. Thomas Hobbes against the Aristotelian account of the virtues and his Renaissance source Lorenzo Valla. In Early modern philosophers and the Renaissance legacy, ed. Cecilia Muratori and Gianni Paganini, 221–237. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Paglieri, Fabio. 2015. Reflections on plagiarism. Topoi 34 (1): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Palus, Shannon. 2016. Philosopher earns 14th retraction for plagiarism. Retraction Watch, June 8. http://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/08/philosopher-earns-13th-retraction-for-plagiarism. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  55. Pasnau, Robert. 2018. Pasnau in print. http://spot.colorado.edu/~pasnau/inprint. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 37, Case 41).
  56. Patil, Madhuri. 2015. Retraction: Retraction. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences: 187.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.170594. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  57. Pattaro, Enrico, Fred Miller Jr., and Carrie-Ann Biondi. 2010a. Plagiarism. Ratio Juris 23 (3): 435–436. (Case 34).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. ———. 2010b. Plagiarism. Dordrecht: Springer. http://www.goo.gl/1kjfXy. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 34).Google Scholar
  59. Rist, John. 2015. Review of The Cambridge companion to Augustine, 2nd ed. Journal of Theological Studies 66 (1): 443–446.Google Scholar
  60. Salles, Ricardo. 2010. Chapter 20. In Metaphysics, soul, and ethics in ancient thought: Themes from the work of Richard Sorabji, ed. Ricardo Salles, 517–543. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Case 26).Google Scholar
  61. Shelomi, Matan. 2014. Editorial misconduct—definition, cases, and causes. Publications 2: 51–60.  https://doi.org/10.3390/publications2020051. Accessed 6 July 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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. http://dailynous.com/2016/01/27/statement-from-synthese-editors-moratorium-on-special-issues. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  63. Sinnema, Donald. 2012. Article is plagiarism. Amazon.com. November 5. http://www.amazon.com/Humanism-Modern-Philosophy-Studies-History/dp/0415186161. Accessed 6 July 2018. (Case 7).
  64. Souder, Lawrence. 2010. A rhetorical analysis of apologies for scientific misconduct: Do they really mean it? Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1): 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Spodenkiewicz, Paweł. 2004. Przykra afera plagiatowa na Uniwersytecie Łódzkim. Naszemiasto, December 18. http://lodz.naszemiasto.pl/archiwum/przykra-afera-plagiatowa-na-uniwersytecie-lodzkim,428478,art,t,id,tm.html. Accesssed 6 July 2018.
  66. Stern, Victoria. 2018. University defends researcher accused of plagiarizing former Pope. Retraction Watch, January 31. https://retractionwatch.com/2018/01/31/university-defends-researcher-accused-plagiarizing-former-pope. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  67. Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A. 2016. An error is an error… is an erratum: The ethics of not correcting errors in the science literature. Publishing Research Quarterly 32 (3): 220–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A., and Judit Dobránszki. 2017. Notices and policies for retractions, expressions of concern, errata and corrigenda: Their importance, content, and context. Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (2): 521–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thomas, Robert. 2016. Pronouns and Philosophia Mathematica. Phlox, March 6. https://phloxgroup.wordpress.com/2016/03/06/pronouns-and-philosophia-mathematica. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  70. Verweijj, Michiel. 2010. The article [...]. Brussels: Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België. (Case 39).Google Scholar
  71. Visker, R. 2010. Note from the editorial board/Mededeling van de redactie. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 72 (1): 5–6. (Case 29).Google Scholar
  72. Wager, Elizabeth, Virginia Barbour, Steven Yentis, Sabine Kleinert. 2009. Retraction guidelines. Committee on Publication Ethics. http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction guidelines.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2018.
  73. Weber-Wulff, Debora. 2014. False feathers: A perspective on academic plagiarism. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weinberg, Justin. 2014. A case of extensive plagiarism. Daily Nous: News for and About the Philosophy Profession, November 5. http://dailynous.com/2014/11/05/a-case-of-extensive-plagiarism-guest-post. Accessed 6 July 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations