Academic Whistleblowing

Abstract

Despite the essential role that academic whistleblowers serve in initiating the oftentimes lengthy process of correcting the scholarly record, individuals who disclose evidence of suspected plagiarism are often subject to considerable backlash. To be sure, the evidence they provide, even when impeccable, can create a significant workload of verification for editors and publishers, as well as for research integrity officers at the institutional homes of the suspected plagiarists. I examine the benefits and hazards of multi-targeted whistleblowing and discuss the harassment and witness intimidation typically experienced by those who blow the academic whistle in good faith. The increasing awareness among researchers and institutional authorities that to harass whistleblowers is itself a form of misconduct reflects an important recent shift in academic culture. On the other hand, academic whistleblowers in recent times have been described as post-publication vigilantes for their efforts in securing corrections of the scholarly record, so the professional dangers of academic whistleblowing should not be understated.

Appendix: Sample Letters for Requesting Corrections of the Scholarly Record

Requests for corrections of the scholarly record can take many forms. Four sample letters are offered here. The first (Fig. 5.1) seeks a retraction on the basis of suspected duplicate publication. The second (Fig. 5.2) concerns suspected plagiarism and is signed by several parties. The third (Fig. 5.3) is a request for a corrigendum for the use of an undisclosed pseudonym, and the fourth (Fig. 5.4) seeks a published clarification of authorship.

Fig. 5.1

Sample letter requesting a retraction for suspected duplicate publication

Fig. 5.2

Sample letter requesting a retraction for suspected plagiarism

Fig. 5.3

Sample letter requesting a corrigendum for an undisclosed pseudonym

Fig. 5.4

Sample letter requesting a clarification of authorship