yhromit 9/20/2016

An Academic Publisher’s Response

to Plagiarism

Bruce R. Lewis Jonathan E. Duchac

S. Douglas Beets

ABSTRACT. Plagiarism strikes at the heart of academe,

eroding the fundamental value of academic research.

Recent evidence suggests that acts of plagiarism and

awareness of these acts are on the rise in academia. To

address this issue, a vein of research has emerged in recent

years exploring plagiarism as an area of academic inquiry.

In this new academic subject, case studies and analysis

have been one of the most influential methodologies

employed. Case studies provide a venue where acts of

plagiarism can be discussed and analyzed in a constructive

manner, and that is the primary purpose of this article.

Unlike previous studies, however, we focus on the role of

the publisher, a key player in dealing with acts of pla-

giarism, but one who has received little attention in the

academic literature. Specifically, we examine how an

academic publisher addressed allegations of plagiarism and

how the publisher’s decision-making affected the out-

come. We analyze the case by applying the guidelines

from different frameworks and ethical theory and develop

recommendations from the lessons evidenced, the second

main objective of our article. This analysis advances the

dialog on academic plagiarism by exploring the role of the

publisher from a deontological perspective of ethical

absolutism.

KEY WORDS: plagiarism, publisher responsibilities, codes

of conduct, codes of ethics

Introduction

Allegations of plagiarism have plagued creative

works and scientific discoveries for centuries. More

than 400 years after Shakespeare’s death, questions

still remain as to whether he wrote his own plays,

and the originality of Oscar Wilde’s work in the

nineteenth century continues to be disputed. More

recently, historians Stephen Ambrose and Doris

Kearns Goodwin have fallen under suspicion of

plagiarism after they failed to adequately attribute

passages taken from the works of others; and New

York Times reporter Jayson Blair boldly combined

plagiarism with fabrication to sensationalize his

reporting for the New York Times (Gibelman and

Gelman, 2003; New York Times, 2003).

Plagiarism is a tricky concept, particularly in an

academic setting where researchers advance the body

of knowledge by building on the works of others.

The academic model relies on the ability of

researchers to leverage the prior work of others to

advance the discipline. This system, however, de-

pends on accurate and complete attribution when

the works of others are used. While plagiarism affects

the value of all original works, it is particularly

devastating in academic research, where the value of

the research effort is dependent on its rigor, objec-

tivity, and integrity. When academic researchers fail

to attribute the works of others, the integrity of

academic research is called into question, and the

value of all academic research is eroded. If, as some

argue, academic plagiarism is on the rise in recent

years, then the quality of empirical results, scholarly

argument, and the resulting academic theory may be

disputed, deteriorating the fundamental value of

academic research (Cokol, 2008; Martin, 2007).

Kock (1999) suggests that there is little to deter

academic plagiarizers and hold them accountable for

their actions. When plagiarism is detected, the

incentives in academe often seem to discourage the

victim from reporting and exposing the plagiarist

(Bartlett and Smallwood, 2004). One solution may be

to revise the academic climate by encouraging the

exposure and discussion of occurrences of plagiarism

in a public forum (Kock, 1999). This is one of the

primary purposes of this article. The case described

in this article examines the role that an academic

Journal of Business Ethics (2011) 102:489–506 � Springer 2011 DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-0827-8

publisher played in multiple incidents of plagiarism,

and how the publisher facilitated and profited from,

rather than exposed and deterred, acts of plagiarism.

Publishers are often the last line of defense before a

plagiarized work is published and play a critical role in

dealing with plagiarized material once it is discovered.

Yet examples of how academic publishers respond to

instances of plagiarism are rare in the literature.

Accordingly, this article advances the dialog con-

cerning plagiarism in academic research by expanding

the ethical domain to include the publisher. After

discussing this issue, we present recommendations for

the detection and abatement of academic plagiarism,

which is the second purpose of this article.

Defining plagiarism and examining

the related ethics theory

The verb, ‘‘plagiarize,’’ can be defined as the act of

stealing the ideas or words of another and presenting

them as one’s own without giving credit to the

original source (Merriam-Webster, 2003). Discus-

sion of the ethics and inappropriateness of plagiarism

begins, in many societies, at early stages of education

and becomes more formal as students in high school

and college learn how to appropriately cite the work

of others by using guidelines such as those explained

in the MLA Style Manual (2008). As individuals

successfully pass through the stages of academic

achievement; i.e., completion of high school, an

undergraduate degree, and a graduate degree; and

finally as a member of the academic research com-

munity, the individuals’ knowledge, acceptance, and

practice of the rules regarding plagiarism is often

assumed (Cabral-Cardoso, 2004).

This assumption, however, may be erroneous.

Depending on the educational institution, religion,

and culture of the individual, perceptions regarding

plagiarism and the related ethics may differ (Aman-

ullah, 2006; Gu and Brooks, 2008; Wheeler, 2009).

For example, one academic who had been accused

of plagiarism in a journal article, explained, in a

response published by the journal:

It’s inappropriate to single out my colleagues and

myself on this issue. For those of us whose mother

tongue is not English, using beautiful sentences from

other studies on the same subject in our introduction is

not unusual…Borrowing sentences in the part of a paper that simply helps to better introduce the prob-

lem should not be seen as plagiarism. Even if our

introductions are not entirely original, our results are –

and these are the most important part of any scientific

paper (Yilmaz, 2007, p. 658).

A professor or researcher’s rationale for plagia-

rizing may be understandable: the professor’s pro-

motion, tenure, annual evaluations, periodic pay

raises, funding, prestige, and job security often stem

from that individual’s success in writing manuscripts

and enabling their publication (Gibelman and

Gelman, 2003). If that professor perceives that such

success can be achieved through plagiarism with a

small probability of detection, the individual may be

tempted to plagiarize (Hoover, 2006).

In the academic community, plagiarism has tradi-

tionally been considered unacceptable with no excep-

tions. As such, a universal rule mandating strict

avoidance of plagiarism could be considered an appli-

cation of ethical absolutism, a deontological perspective

of ethics whereby rules are considered importantly

immutable, and departures from the rules cannot be

justified. This ethics theory may be contrasted with

exceptionism or rule-utilitarianism whereby rules are

considered valuable, but violations can often be justi-

fied. Refraining from killing other humans, for

example, is often a critically important rule in societies,

although circumstances such as self-defense and war

may be acceptable departures from adherence (Forsyth,

2006; Frederick, 2002; Pojman, 2004).

An important, foundational principle of ethical

absolutism, however, is the idea that the rules will be

observed and enforced (Forsyth, 2006; Frederick,

2002; Micewski and Troy, 2007). In a situation

involving student plagiarism related to a college course

assignment, the professor is critically important in the

enforcement of the related college rules. If that same

professor, however, plagiarizes in the construction of a

manuscript which is later submitted for publication, the

journal editor and publisher are critically important in

the enforcement of the journal’s policies.

The trend in academic plagiarism incidence

The incidence of plagiarism among academicians has

been considered relatively negligible (Cabral-Cardoso,

490 Bruce R. Lewis et al.

2004). Perhaps this perception is due, in part, to the

extensive education and research training that

individuals undergo to be qualified for a university

tenure-track position, as mentioned previously. This

perception may also stem from confidence in the

process of peer and editor scrutiny of research as it is

being considered for publication (Martin, 2007). These

perceptions may lead those in an academic community

to consider themselves professionals of moral superi-

ority; Cabral-Cordoso (2004, p. 76) referred to this

phenomenon as the traditional Mertonian view of the

scientist.

Evidence is accumulating, however, that indicates

that the incidence of plagiarism among academicians is

more extensive than previously thought and often

does not result in detection or sanctioning of the

plagiarist when discovered (Bartlett and Smallwood,

2004; Cokol, 2008; Gibelman and Gelman, 2003; Li,

2010; Martin, 2007; Titus et al., 2008). One possible

indication of the extent of plagiarism in the academic

community is an increase in the number of article

retractions published by academic journals (Cokol,

2008). Corbyn (2009), for example, reported that

retraction rates for scientific journals increased

approximately tenfold during the period between

1990 and 2009. Plagiarism, however, is only one of

several types of academic misconduct that could lead

to a journal’s decision to retract an article. To gain an

understanding of the extent of retractions which

are specifically related to plagiarism, the authors

conducted a review of published retractions across

disciplines since the year 2000.

Apparent from this examination is a lack of uni-

form process regarding article retractions and plagia-

rism by journal editors. Recent published retractions

in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

(Baume, 2008) and Alimentary Pharmacology &

Therapeutics (2008), for example, provided no ratio-

nale for the retraction of the article, leaving the reader

to wonder whether the issue involved was plagiarism,

falsification or misinterpretation of research data, an

error in the publishing process, or some other reason.

Even when plagiarism is the apparent reason for the

retraction, some editors refrain from the use of the

word ‘‘plagiarism’’ and, instead employ language that

may be considered less accusatory – sometimes indi-

cating inappropriate overlap or copying of other

articles. Other retractions, however, not only use the

term ‘‘plagiarism,’’ but also the journal editors mete

out a bit of punishment, prohibiting the offending

authors from publishing in the journal for a period of

time. Some editors even offer an apology, in the

retraction, to the authors of the original publica-

tion whose work was later plagiarized in the edi-

tors’ journal. Some retractions indicate that the

journal employs plagiarism detection software that

better enables the editors to detect plagiarism in

submitted manuscripts. Most of the retractions are

short, and many are only one paragraph. Some

journals, however, publish the entire retracted

article again, however, with the word ‘‘retracted’’

watermarked over each page (Journal of Molecular

Catalysis, 2008).

Table I provides a list of journals that have

retracted articles since 2000 because of plagiarism or

have published a notice of plagiarism regarding a

published article without a formal retraction. A re-

view of this journal list reveals that many of the

journals are in science and medical fields, although

there are a few from business, law, literature, and

engineering journals.

Why the predominance of science and medical

journals in Table I and the relative paucity of jour-

nals from business and other professions? Several

possible reasons could account for this difference.

First, the presence of several science and medical

journals on this list may be an indication of the

aggressiveness of the journals in those fields to detect

and deter plagiarism. Second and a corollary to the

first, the relative few retractions in the journals of

other fields, such as business, may be an indication of

inadequate plagiarism policing by journal editors.

Third, the incidence of plagiarism in science and

medical publishing may be larger than in other fields.

Fourth, journals in science and medicine may be

more transparent in their treatment of plagiarism and

other retraction causes than journals in other fields.

Fifth and a corollary to the fourth, journals in

business and other fields may be more likely to

handle plagiarism and retraction issues in a less

transparent manner, without issuing formal retrac-

tion notices. This possible reason is consistent with

the findings of Enders and Hoover (2004), whose

research is discussed later in this article. Whatever

the reason for the difference in article retraction rates

among the journals in different fields, journals, and

their editors may wish to consider the develop-

ment of standard publishing industry practices for

491An Academic Publisher’s Response to Plagiarism

plagiarism and article retractions. Business profes-

sions and their journals, for example, could suffer

from the perception that plagiarism is not taken

seriously by practitioners and academics in those

fields and their professional journals.

A possible contributing factor to the increase in

academic plagiarism is the ease of electronically

copying segments of text from the internet and

electronically pasting them into manuscripts under

construction. Many university libraries now sub-

scribe to multiple resource databases, giving profes-

sors access to many full-text journal articles, thereby

facilitating the extraction of text from publications to

insert in an uncompleted manuscript (Gibelman and

Gelman, 2003; Maurer and Kulathuramaiyer, 2007).

Research regarding academic plagiarism

Research on the issue of academic plagiarism has

been relatively scant, although several studies of

plagiarism have been published in recent years. The

research on academic plagiarism can be categorized

into three basic veins: (1) a series of empirical studies

of academic plagiarism, (2) conceptual efforts that

focus on developing a framework for defining and

Journal title

Accident Analysis and Prevention

American Heart Journal

American Journal of Hypertension

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Applied Mathematics and Computation

Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology

Biophysical Journal

British Accounting Review

British Journal of Sociology

Cancer Science

Catalysis Communications

Clinical Neurophysiology

Computers and Electronics in Agriculture

Computers & Operations Research

CPA Journal

Emory Law Journal

Engineering with Computers

European Journal of Neuroscience

European Journal of Surgical Oncology

FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology

Ground Water

Injury

Integrative Zoology

International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology

International Journal of Cardiology

International Advances in Economic Research

Journal of Agricultural Education

Journal of Animal Science

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

Journal of Basic Microbiology

TABLE I

Journals which have published article retractions due to plagiarism or notices of plagiarism since 2000

Journal title

Journal of Common Market Studies

Journal of Drugs in Dermatology

Journal of Ethnopharmacology

Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Journal of Hospital Infection

Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

Journal of Mechanics

Journal of Molecular Catalysis

Journal of Nutrition

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Research

Journal of Socio-Economics

Lancet

Landscape and Urban Planning

Literature & Theology

Medical Hypotheses

Metabolism

Modern Language Journal

New England Journal of Medicine

Occupational Therapy International

Pain Practice

Pathology International

Performance Improvement

Proteomics

Quality Engineering

Reviews in Medical Virology

Sensors and Actuators

Sociology of Health & Illness

Stem Cells and Development

Transport

Viral Immunology

492 Bruce R. Lewis et al.

understanding the act of plagiarism, and (3) case

studies that document and describe an actual

occurrence of plagiarism.

Much of the empirical research regarding aca-

demic plagiarism has been conducted by a small

group of academics in the field of economics. In

2004, Enders and Hoover (2004) reported on a

survey of journal editors regarding their perspectives

and experiences with plagiarism. The authors dis-

covered that the surveyed editors relied on copyright

law to protect their journal from plagiarism, resulting

in little protection of materials presented without

copyright protection such as conference papers and

papers submitted by students to complete assign-

ments. The authors also discovered that most editors

were not inclined to publicize plagiarism when it

occurred; only 30% believed that publishing a notice

of plagiarism in the journal was an appropriate ac-

tion. Last, a majority of the editors supported a code

of ethics for the economics profession in an effort to

stem academic plagiarism (Enders and Hoover,

2004).

Two years later, Enders and Hoover (2006) re-

ported on an internet survey of economists, approxi-

mately 80% of whom were academics. Of the

respondents, 24% indicated that their work had been

plagiarized, and approximately two-thirds believed

that a profession-wide code of ethics could result in

plagiarism abatement. The survey also indicated that

notable confusion existed among economists regard-

ing what actions constituted plagiarism (Enders and

Hoover, 2006).

Also in 2006, Hoover (2006) constructed an

economic model of plagiarism. From this model, he

concluded that, due to the costs to plagiarized

authors of proving that their work has been plagia-

rized, plagiarists may not be exposed or punished.

Depending on the level of incentives or disincen-

tives, Hoover found that some economists will

engage in plagiarism ‘‘with impunity’’ (Hoover,

2006, p. 453).

In a somewhat similar study published 2 years

later, Arce et al. (2008) also developed an economic

model of plagiarism. Analysis of their model indi-

cated that uncertainty regarding the response of

editors to plagiarism affects author behavior and,

ultimately, has a deleterious effect on the flow of

information in the profession. The model also sug-

gested that the converse was true: an increase in

certainty about editors’ responses to plagiarism

would increase the profession’s information flow.

The authors suggested that relatively inexpensive

options for plagiarism reduction, such as web-based

authenticity checks and codes of ethics, may be

helpful (Arce et al., 2008).

Conceptual studies exploring a framework of pla-

giarism often intertwine themselves with case studies.

These inquiries rely on the fact patterns in a case

to provide a context for developing a conceptual

framework for plagiarism. Clarke (2006), George et al.

(2003), and Gibelman and Gelman (2003) have pro-

vided excellent reviews of the literature and history of

academic plagiarism.

Regarding specific case studies of plagiarism, one

of the most thoroughly documented challenges in-

volved in pursuing a claim of plagiarism is provided

by Kock (1999). In this case study, the author pro-

vided a detailed description of how he discovered

that one of his manuscripts had been plagiarized by

another author, and the process that he went

through in confronting and dealing with the pla-

giarist. While the author unsuccessfully pursued a

number of avenues in dealing with the plagiarist, the

informal network within the plagiarist’s own insti-

tution and the academic community were the most

effective means for dealing with this plagiarist (Kock,

1999).

Kock and Davison (2003) used Kock’s (1999) case

study to frame several key issues related to plagia-

rism. Their analysis began by identifying three

general motives that individuals might have to pla-

giarize: (1) informal or formal pressures to publish,

(2) a lack of knowledge about what constitutes pla-

giarism, and (3) institutional factors that limit victims

of plagiarism from holding plagiarists accountable for

their actions. After identifying these motives, the

authors used Kock’s (1999) case study as an example

to discuss the role that each of the three previously

cited motives might have played in this case of pla-

giarism. Ultimately, the authors concluded that the

most effective means of plagiarism abatement and

enforcement is public disclosure and discussion of

cases of misconduct (Kock and Davison, 2003).

Clarke (2006) extended the work of Kock and

Davison (2003), and furthered the debate over what

constitutes plagiarism and how its form and nature

varies across disciplines. This case illustrated how a

claim of plagiarism was pursued in the case of

493An Academic Publisher’s Response to Plagiarism

textbook authorship. Following the accusation, the

administration of the plagiarist’s university devel-

oped a process for investigating the claim that relied

on an independent third party review, and as a result

of this review, the publisher of the textbook with-

drew it. Clarke (2006) then used this case study as his

basis to define plagiarism, to determine the charac-

teristics that define the seriousness of plagiarism, to

provide suggestions on how to proceed with an

investigation of plagiarism, and to tie this process to

the related professional code.

Another case study was presented by two chem-

istry academics, Levai and Toth (2002), who dis-

covered that one of their previously published

manuscripts had been plagiarized in its entirety.

Rather than contact the authors and pursue an

allegation of plagiarism through formal channels, the

authors performed a detailed content analysis of their

manuscript compared to the plagiarized paper, and

submitted the analysis to the journal that had pub-

lished the original article. This approach introduces a

unique approach to plagiarism. Rather than pursuing

the cumbersome process of allegations, retractions,

and civil litigation, authors who find that their work

has been plagiarized can be provided a venue by

academic journals, allowing the victims of plagiarism

to publish analyses that expose plagiarists (Levai and

Toth, 2002).

A key issue associated with plagiarism abatement

is the reticence of the academic community to ex-

pose academician plagiarists. Bartlett and Smallwood

(2004) describe circumstances associated with four

different plagiarists and how they were able to pla-

giarize, in some cases multiple times, with little harm

to their careers or reputations. The authors con-

clude:

…Academe appears conflicted about what to do about the plagiarist. While they preach against the sin, many

scholars seem wary of confronting the sinners…Cases are permitted to hide in the shadows, shielded under

the guise of ‘‘confidential personnel matters’’ (Bartlett

and Smallwood, 2004, p. A8).

Cabral-Cardoso (2004), Bouysson et al. (2006),

and Martin (2007) similarly reported case studies of

plagiarists and serial plagiarists in academia. Some of

the plagiarists discussed in these articles have pub-

lished multiple articles and books with very little

personal or professional consequence.

These several cases, collectively, illustrate the

difficulties involved in pursuing a claim of plagia-

rism, as well as some creative ideas on how to pro-

ceed once plagiarism is discovered. While the facts in

all of these cases are somewhat different, many

support Kock’s (1999, p. 104) suggestion that ‘‘the

best way to prevent cases of plagiarism from being

more common than they are is to publicize and

discuss them as widely as possible.’’

Responsibility and motivation

for the prevention, detection, and disclosure

of academic plagiarism

Clearly defining the responsibility for preventing,

detecting, and disclosing plagiarism is fundamental to

containing the spread of plagiarism and protecting

the integrity of academic research in business. Be-

cause of the communal nature of the academy and

the incremental and progressive nature of academic

research, these tasks are the shared responsibility of

the participants in and users of academic research.

The academy as a whole, the academic institution,

publishers, and editors all play a role in preventing

and dealing with plagiarism.

The academy

The first line of defense in preventing plagiarism lies

with the academic community as a whole. Academic

research is the product of individuals who are for-

mally trained in their academic discipline, and this

training includes foundational instruction in the

academic research of the discipline as well as ad-

vanced training in the research methods necessary to

contribute to the body of knowledge. If plagiarism is

to be prevented, this academic foundation must also

address the issue of academic plagiarism. As discussed

previously, the training that future researchers re-

ceive regarding appropriate methods of citation and

the use of prior work in manuscript development

provides critical ethical grounding to deter plagia-

rism. The level of instruction and discussion on the

topic of plagiarism across disciplines and institutions,

however, may vary significantly leading to consid-

erable diversity in the understanding and perception

of plagiarism among new researchers. In addition,

494 Bruce R. Lewis et al.

individuals’ attitudes and morals may make some

individuals more apt to plagiarize if they perceive the

rewards of plagiarizing outweigh the costs of being

detected.

The prevention of plagiarism is further compli-

cated by different perceptions of plagiarism among

nationalities and cultures, as discussed previously.

While students in some countries may receive

extensive education regarding the problems associ-

ated with plagiarism, students in other countries may

not receive similar instruction and, correspondingly,

have a very different perspective of the issue (Gu and

Brooks, 2008; Wheeler, 2009).

The academic institution and academic organization

The responsibility for plagiarism prevention and

detection may also extend to research-oriented

academic institutions. Some colleges and universities

have responded to this responsibility by constructing

codes of ethics that condemn plagiarism and make a

clear statement that plagiaristic practices will not be

tolerated by the institution. Similarly, academic

organizations and academies often have similar

strictures on the behavior of their members. While

these codes of conduct may clarify the organization’s

priorities, their effectiveness often depends on their

enforcement, and if that enforcement is based on

whistle-blowing; i.e., those who complain about

code violators, one must examine the incentives of

whistle-blowing and the effectiveness of a complaint-

based system of code enforcement (Cabral-Cardoso,

2004). Even in situations in which academics become

aware that their work has been plagiarized, they are

sometimes counseled by other academics not to

seek justice or expose the plagiarists (Bartlett and

Smallwood, 2004).

Publishers and editors of academic journals

Academic outlets such as journals and scholarly

books provide the conduit through which plagiarism

occurs. As such, the editors and publishers of these

outlets play a pivotal role in the prevention, detec-

tion, and disclosure of academic plagiarism. Their

approach to each of these activities provides the

foundation for the integrity of academic research.

Publishers and editors have several tools at their

disposal for preventing plagiarism. First, publishers

can devote journal space to the topic of plagiarism

in order to expose the issue, promote awareness,

and raise the level of academic discussion. Increas-

ing the prominence of academic research on the

topic leads to greater awareness across the academy,

and greater prominence within the academic liter-

ature. As the topic gains prominence, the likelihood

is increased that future researchers will be exposed

to the topic and the issues surrounding plagiarism

during their academic training. As discussed earlier,

this training provides the ethical and professional

grounding that is necessary to deter plagiarism and

maintain the integrity of academic research.

Publishers may also prevent plagiarism through

their disclosure efforts. Published disclosure of

plagiarists may be the most direct and effective

mechanism for disciplining plagiarists in academic

research. Intentional plagiarism may be considered a

cost–benefit decision whereby the individual weighs

the benefits of plagiarism against the probability of

being detected and the costs of being disclosed. If

publishers aggressively and publicly disclose plagia-

rism, they can raise the costs of plagiarizing because

of the detrimental effects that plagiarism can have on

an individual’s reputation which, in turn, can act as a

deterrent to future acts of plagiarism (Hoover, 2006).

Unfortunately, public disclosure of plagiarism can

create an awkward business problem for publishers as

discussed below.

The detection of plagiarism is also a significant

concern for publishers and editors of academic

journals. This concern is twofold. First, a published

article containing plagiarized material reflects poorly

on the quality of the journal and its manuscript

review process. While editors and reviewers of

submitted manuscripts may not be completely

familiar with all relevant publications, suspicion of

plagiarism may originate with them, and to a limited

degree, detection of plagiarism in submitted manu-

scripts is their responsibility (Martin, 2007). Second

and perhaps more seriously, plagiarism may involve

copyright infringement of intellectual property.

This could create expensive legal issues for the

publisher that could also result in negative publicity

and embarrassment (Maurer and Kulathuramaiyer,

2007).

495An Academic Publisher’s Response to Plagiarism

The pressure to detect plagiarism has led many

journals and publishers to utilize plagiarism detection

software, as mentioned previously. Such software

compares submitted manuscripts with databases of

text from a variety of sources, including published

journals and the internet. Many journals currently

require electronic manuscript submissions through

services such as Aries Systems (www.ariessys.com) or

Crosscheck which search submitted manuscripts for

plagiarized material. One British publisher that

adopted such a plagiarism detection service found

that 23% of the submissions to one of its journals

exhibited evidence of plagiarism (Li, 2010).

Disclosing and disciplining plagiarism, however,

may present the greatest challenge for publishers and

editors. Devising a process that reacts to plagiarism

fairly while avoiding costly conflicts and legal battles

is a delicate process for publishers. One approach

that publishers can take in dealing with plagiarism is

public disclosure of the act. For example, the editors

of the journals listed in Table I published retractions

and notices of plagiarism. This approach provides a

clear disciplinary treatment of the event. The penalty

to the offending plagiarist comes from the public

dissemination of their actions, ultimately damaging

their professional reputation.

The related potential for litigation, however, may

make even the most principled publisher cautious in

pursuing and disclosing plagiarism. The unwilling-

ness of publishers to publicly disclose plagiarism is

increasingly well-documented. For example, Foster

(2004) noted that science publisher Elsevier ‘‘has

quietly withdrawn dozens of journal articles from

ScienceDirect since at least January 2000, often cit-

ing no details as to its reasons.’’ Similarly, Monaghan

(2004) discussed the disposition of plagiarism charges

at small university presses and noted that ‘‘even

presses whose books have been victimized by

intellectual theft want to settle such allegations qui-

etly and without much fuss – let alone a lawsuit.’’

Finally, Harms (2006) highlighted how a publisher’s

concern with copyright laws, not academic integrity,

defined their actions in resolving a case of academic

plagiarism.

These examples highlight the uncertain and dif-

ficult business decision that publishers must face in

dealing with plagiarism. Publishers must weigh the

costs of disclosing the plagiarism, the most notable of

which is a potential lawsuit from the plagiarist,

against the indirect benefits of protecting the

integrity of academic research. If a publisher discloses

an act of plagiarism, and the plagiarist subsequently

takes legal action, the costs could be significant.

Even if the publisher ultimately prevails, the costs of

a lawsuit are often substantial enough to motivate

publishers’ actions. As a result, many publishers have

chosen to deal with cases of plagiarism quietly, rather

than face substantial additional costs that appear to

have little associated financial benefit.

The reputation effects of plagiarism disclosure and

its financial impact can also provide disincentives

for publishers to disclose plagiarism. As publishers

increasingly rely on subscription revenues for their

financial viability, the perception of plagiarism in

their journal could have a negative effect on the

journal’s brand. By publicly disclosing acts of pla-

giarism in their journals, publishers are admitting

that their journals are not free of error and mis-

conduct. If, however, they quietly and privately

dispose of acts of plagiarism, or if they ignore the acts

entirely, then the publisher avoids drawing attention

to the issue. This allows the publisher to avoid the

direct costs of dealing with the plagiaristic act while

at the same time protecting the public perception of

their journal’s brand image. The following case

illustrates this very issue, highlighting one publisher’s

response to a case of academic plagiarism.

A case of an academic publisher’s response

to plagiarism

To illustrate some of the institutional challenges in

responding to plagiarism, we present a sanitized

account of an actual plagiarism case. This case

focuses on the actions of an academic publisher in

response to allegations of plagiarism and is intended

to expand the limited academic coverage of this

narrow aspect of the topic of plagiarism. Following

the example of Kock and Davison (2003), we label

the principals in these events as follows: Vic (the

victim), Plag (the authors of the work containing

the plagiarized material), and Pub (the president of

the company that published the conference pro-

ceedings which contained the paper with the pla-

giarized material). Adding to the complexity of this

scenario, Pub was also the editor of the conference

proceedings containing the plagiarized paper, the

496 Bruce R. Lewis et al.

chairman of the annual conference that produced the

proceedings, and the president of the entity spon-

soring the conference. See Table II for a summa-

rized timeline of the events in this case.

The case begins in the fall of Year1 when Vic

came across a paper written by Plag, published in the

proceedings of a conference held in the spring of

Year1 by an international professional association,

which contained passages remarkably similar to those

in his own publication from several years prior. Vic’s

analysis of this article indicated that at least half of it

originated in his earlier publication. Thirteen of the

19 paragraphs in the paper contained some sentences

that were copied from Vic’s earlier work, including

three paragraphs in which every sentence was nearly

verbatim. Vic was neither cited in Plag’s Year1

proceedings paper nor listed in its references. The

copyright for Plag’s paper was held by the publishing

TABLE II

Timeline for the major events in the plagiarism case

Time period Event

May Year1 • Pub’s company publishes the proceedings of a Year1 annual conference containing a paper by Plag with material plagiarized from Vic’s original work published several

years earlier

August Year1 • Vic becomes aware of the plagiarism and determines that a large portion of the text in the Plag Year1 conference paper originated in his earlier work

September Year1 • Vic confronts Plag with the plagiarism in the Year1 paper January Year2 • Plag contacts Pub requesting that the plagiarized paper in the Year1 proceedings be

replaced in any of Pub’s company’s publications in which it appears; Pub agrees to do

so

• Plag submits a new paper to theYear2 version of the same conference February Year2 • Plag submits a revised version of the Year1 conference paper to Pub’s company March Year2 • Pub’s company announces the Year1 replacement paper in an e-mail to the

members of the professional association that sponsored the conference

April Year2 • Pub’s company refuses the request by Plag to accept a new version of their paper that has been accepted for the Year2 version of the same conference

May Year2 • Pub’s company publishes the proceedings from the Year2 edition of the conference, again with a paper by Plag containing material plagiarized from Vic’s earlier work

June Year2 • Vic becomes aware of the plagiarism in the Year2 paper and, through several e-mail communications with Pub, provides extensive documentation of the Year1 and

Year2 plagiarism by Plag; Vic issues a formal complaint to Pub and asks for redress

• Vic receives a letter from Pub’s lawyer informing him that Plag denied any pla- giarism in their Year2 conference paper; Pub’s lawyer’s letter also notes that Pub’s

company has now accepted a revised version of Plag’s Year2 paper and ‘‘will include

the revised paper in the next and all future rounds of distributing the… Year2 Conference Proceedings’’

• Pub’s company announces the Year2 replacement paper in an e-mail to the members of the professional association that sponsored the conference

December Year2 • Vic orders a copy of the Year1 conference proceedings from Pub’s company; the copy received contains the original plagiarized paper by Plag with no mention of a

replacement

December Year4 • Vic checks on Pub’s company’s web site and finds that the proceedings from the Year1 and Year2 conferences (which contain the plagiarized articles) are still being

advertised for sale

• As a result of an internet search, Vic locates a copy of the original plagiarized Year1 paper available online for download; the replacement version cannot be found

497An Academic Publisher’s Response to Plagiarism

company headed by Pub, as was prominently indi-

cated on the bottom of each page of the paper.

Vic confronted Plag with the evidence of pla-

giarism in the proceedings paper; wrong doing was

denied, and several excuses were offered. Ultimately,

however, Plag produced a replacement paper that

was submitted to the publisher in Year2. Later that

year, an e-mail was sent to members of the profes-

sional association by the publisher announcing the

replacement paper, which included a statement that

Plag had requested that their original article pub-

lished in the Year1 conference proceedings be re-

placed in any of the publisher’s venues in which it

appeared because attribution had not been provided

to Vic.

In Year2, Vic discovered a second paper by Plag

that also contained material plagiarized from his

earlier publication. This paper was published in

the proceedings of the Year2 version of the same

annual conference, again chaired by Pub and

sponsored by the same association that Pub led.

Likewise, Pub was the editor of these proceedings

and they were published by his company. Appar-

ently, Plag had submitted the Year2 paper (which

contained non-cited text from their Year1 paper

that was plagiarized from Vic’s earlier publication)

before they revised the Year1 paper to remove the

plagiarism. This time, Vic issued a formal com-

plaint, accompanied by thorough documentation of

the plagiarism from both years, directly to the

publishing company advising of this second instance

of plagiarism by Plag in one of the company’s

publications. He argued that since this text in the

Year2 publication was nearly indistinguishable from

that in the Year1 publication, which had been

completely rewritten in the replacement version

with cites to his earlier publication, and non-attri-

bution in the original Year1 publication had been

acknowledged, the plagiarism in Plag’s Year2

publication was obvious. Vic stated that because the

publisher had, for a second time in 2 years, pub-

lished and copyrighted plagiarized material, he felt

it was appropriate for him to take action to rectify

the situation. He inquired as to the policies of the

professional association and/or the publishing

company aimed at dealing with this type of situa-

tion.

A week later, Vic received a response from a

manager at Pub’s company that stated the following:

For your knowledge, before [the professional associa-

tion] accepts a paper to be printed in the Conference

proceedings, the authors must sign an Author War-

ranty and Transfer of Copyright form that states the

paper that was submitted is original, has not been

published elsewhere, and is not copyrighted by an-

other. Based on this signed form, [the professional

association] recommends to [the publishing company]

that the paper be printed in the published book.

According to our records, [the publishing company]

has followed standard protocol that is designed to put

the onus of copyright issues on the authors by

accepting and publishing the paper in question in the

Conference Proceedings.

This response from Pub’s company also noted:

According to the person from [the professional asso-

ciation] that coordinates the review process, the au-

thors did attempt to submit a revised paper but since

the proceedings had already gone to print… the au- thors were unable to be accommodated.

Three days later, Vic received a mass-mailing e-mail

from the professional association advertising the

availability of the publications from their Year2

conference, which included the Plag paper about

which Vic had issued the complaint 10 days earlier.

Vic sent a communication back to the manager at

the publishing company complaining that they were

‘‘still publishing [material plagiarized from Vic] and

mass publicizing it to boot.’’ Vic indicated that he

had thus far heard nothing from the publishing

company about addressing the situation except that

they placed the onus of copyright issues on the au-

thors via the Author Warranty and Transfer of

Copyright form, although it clearly did not seem to

be working as intended.

The response, this time directly from Pub, in-

cluded the following statements:

I am very disappointed to read that you are now

accusing [the publishing company], a corporation with

good standing and reputation, for wrong doing! This

can be interpreted as slander to the name and reputa-

tion of our business… Under no circumstance, will [the publishing company] publish anything where

498 Bruce R. Lewis et al.

[the publishing company] does not have the fully

executed Copyright Transfer and Warranty for the

manuscript, and this is the only legal protection that

we can secure… I am forwarding a copy of this message to our business council [sic]… for his review.

Three weeks later Vic received a letter from Pub’s

lawyer that also focused on the Author Warranty and

Transfer of Copyright form:

While I am not entirely familiar with the factual

background of your complaint of alleged copyright

infringement, I can assure you that [the publishing

company] takes every reasonable precaution to insure

that any work submitted for publication by the editors

and authors with whom it deals is a wholly original

work of such editors and authors or that appropriate

permission of the author has been secured. To this

end, each such person must execute an Author’s

Warranty and Transfer of Copyright Agreement cer-

tifying the originality of the work submitted and

agreeing to indemnify and hold [the publishing com-

pany] harmless from any and all liability that may arise

as a consequence of a copyright violation.

This letter also stated that Plag had earlier requested

that a revised version of their Year2 paper replace

the original submission in the publications from that

year’s conference but that the request was denied

because those proceedings had already been printed.

The lawyer went on to say:

It is my understanding that [Plag] notified [the pub-

lishing company] that, in their opinion, there was no

copyright infringement in the… work.

The lawyer noted, however, that the publisher had

now accepted a revised version of Plag’s Year2 paper

and that it would be ‘‘in the next and all future

rounds of distributing the [conference proceedings],

both in printed and CD-ROM versions.’’ He en-

closed a copy of the revised paper; the plagiarized

text had been completely rewritten without any text

from Vic’s earlier publication. Last, he warned Vic

that any further communications from him would be

dealt with ‘‘in whatever manner [the publishing

company] deems appropriate and necessary to the

nature and extent of the offense.’’

Since Vic had submitted extensive documentation

of the plagiarism with his complaint and request for

redress to Pub, it seemed obvious that Pub’s lawyer

had either ignored it or it had not been forwarded to

him by Pub. Had the lawyer investigated, he would

have seen that Plag’s claim that no plagiarism oc-

curred was false. Instead, Pub’s legal counsel had

made no attempt to ascertain the truth.

Vic took no action against Pub and had no further

communications with him or his company. Two

years later, Vic checked the web site of Pub’s

company and found that both the Year1 and Year2

conference proceedings, containing Plag’s original

papers with the plagiarized text, were still being

advertised for sale. At the same time, an internet

search on Plag for the years Year1 and Year2 located

a downloadable copy of the original Year1 article

that contained the plagiarized material, with no

reference to its replacement; neither the Year1 nor

Year2 replacement articles were found.

Analysis of the case

The act of plagiarism

Clarke (2006) provides a comprehensive framework

for analyzing plagiarism. In addition, as this case oc-

curred in the information systems field, application of

the guidance of the relevant professional organizations

and ethical theory seems appropriate. The Association

for Computing Machinery (ACM) has a formal policy

on plagiarism (Boisvert and Irwin, 2006), and the

Association for Information Systems (AIS) has a pub-

lished code of research conduct that addresses plagia-

rism (Davison et al., 2004a) and offers a set of guidelines

for the victims of plagiarism (Davison et al., 2004c). In

this section, we will employ these sources to classify the

situation in this case as plagiarism, to assess the severity

of this plagiarism, and to examine the actions of Vic and

Pub in response to this plagiarism.

While one definition of plagiarism was offered

previously in this article, the term has numerous

definitions in publishing. Clarke (2006, p. 97)

examined several of them and determined four ele-

ments that, taken together, indicate plagiarism: (1)

publication: the plagiarized material ‘‘is made avail-

able to others,’’ (2) content: the plagiarized material

‘‘is derived from someone else’s prior… work,’’ (3) appropriation: ‘‘the claim of originality of contri-

bution is either explicit or implied by the manner of

presentation’’ of the plagiarized material, and (4)

attribution: ‘‘the reader is not made aware of the

499An Academic Publisher’s Response to Plagiarism

identity of the originator, nor the location of the

original contribution’’ from which the plagiarized

material was taken. Based on these criteria, both of

the original Year1 and Year2 articles by Plag, which

were in outlets edited by Pub and published by his

company (and are still being distributed by Pub’s

company), contained material that qualifies as pla-

giarism. The fact that Plag requested that the pub-

lisher replace both of these published articles and

acknowledged that the reason was lack of attribution

to Vic in the cover note of the Year1 paper offers de

facto confirmation of this judgment.

Clarke (2006) makes the point that acts of pla-

giarism differ in their level of seriousness, which will

determine the harm that is done and thus the cor-

responding amount of redress and penalty that

should be applied. Likewise, both the ACM and AIS

policies take into account the severity of plagiarism

(Boisvert and Irwin, 2006; Davison et al., 2004a).

With this in mind, we apply Clarke’s (2006) five

dimensions of seriousness to demonstrate the gravity of

the plagiarism in our case. With respect to inten-

tionality, even if the plagiarism is not classified as

explicitly intentional (Clarke’s highest level of

intentionality) under the logic that there is no way to

know what Plag’s motives truly were, it certainly

appears to be reckless (Clarke’s second level of

intentionality) due to the sheer amount of plagia-

rized material and the fact that the plagiarized

material was nearly verbatim. As to the type of work,

both of Plag’s original Year1 and Year2 publications

were in a refereed venue, Clarke’s top level on this

factor. The extent of originality claimed by Plag also falls

into Clarke’s highest level of severity (explicit) on

this dimension. Not only were their names on these

papers, thus leading a reader to logically conclude

that they created this material, but Plag signed forms

stating that this was their work in submitting these

papers to the conferences. Regarding the nature of the

material used, Clarke’s top level of severity is ‘‘ver-

batim or near verbatim copying of… segments of substantial size (e.g., paragraphs)’’ (Clarke, 2006).

This is the case with both the papers by Plag. While

some sentences were copied word for word, only

the tense of the verb was changed from past to future

in other sentences, and the name of the concept

under study was switched from Vic’s to Plag’s. Five

out of six sentences in one paragraph were copied

nearly verbatim in the Year2 publication. The final

of Clarke’s seriousness factors is the form of the attri-

bution provided, and the highest level of severity here

is: ‘‘no attribution to the work, but attribution to the

sources cited in the work’’ (Clarke, 2006, p. 111).

Clarke notes that ‘‘this is the most serious of all,

because it not merely implies originality by the

plagiarizer, but actively seeks to deny originality by

the author of the uncited work’’ (Clarke, 2006,

p. 111). This is exactly the situation in the original

Plag Year1 and Year2 articles. No attribution to Vic

was provided nor was he listed in the papers’ refer-

ences; however, four citations used in Vic’s earlier

work were cited and referenced in Plag’s Year1

paper.

In his summary, Clarke (2006, p. 112) specifies the

following characteristics as the most serious form of

plagiarism: ‘‘reckless; occur[s] in a refereed or schol-

arly work; include[s] an express or implied claim of

originality; involve[s] appropriation of substantial and

significant parts of one or more works; and fail[s] to

provide attribution.’’ All of these indicators are found

in the Plag papers, thus classifying them as the most

serious type of plagiarism. Clarke (2006) notes that

other authors have labeled plagiarized works as ‘‘very

serious academic… offense[s]’’ (Davison et al., 2004b, p. 10), ‘‘grievous act[s]’’ and ‘‘fraud’’ (Davison et al.,

2004c, p. 17). He opines that these statements are

accurate for the most severe forms of plagiarism and

that transgressions of this magnitude warrant action by

a suitable authority. Following the assertion by

Davison et al. (2004c, p. 18) that ‘‘conference pro-

ceedings editors and publishers have a responsibility

to investigate impartially all allegations…, levy pen- alties [and] provide remedies’’ in cases of plagiarism,

Pub was the appropriate authority to deal with this

situation.

The publisher’s response

As discussed earlier, publishers face an uncertain and

difficult business decision when dealing with pla-

giarists. They have direct financial incentives to

quietly and privately dispose of acts of plagiarism, or

ignore the acts entirely, rather than incur the costs of

disclosing the act and the risk of a subsequent lawsuit

by the plagiarist. This may be the case for Pub, who

had built an extensive, profit-oriented business from

the publishing outlets that he managed.

500 Bruce R. Lewis et al.

Another unique aspect of this particular case is that

Pub acts as both the publisher and editor of the

journal in question. This business model may achieve

cost efficiencies as one person serves in both roles,

thereby increasing the profitability of the associated

journal which is sponsored by the professional

organization that he controls. While there is no ex-

press prohibition in the academy against a single

individual serving as both the publisher and editor of

a journal, this absence of segregation of duties raises

questions about the quality of the publishing process

when it comes to dealing with acts of plagiarism. As

discussed earlier, disclosing acts of plagiarism adds a

significant potential cost to the publishing process,

reducing the profitability of the journal. When the

editorial and publishing functions are segregated, the

editor will have a responsibility to deal with acts of

plagiarism that are not directly influenced by the

associated financial costs. When these duties are not

segregated, however, financial considerations, which

are distinctly relevant to the publisher, may take

precedence over the academic integrity issues that are

typically borne by the editor. One may appropriately

wonder, consequently, how combining the roles of

publisher and editor into a single person impacts the

resolution and disposition of cases of plagiarism.

Before we directly address Pub’s response, we will

examine Vic’s actions using the AIS Guidelines for

a Victim (Davison et al., 2004c) as a reference

framework. 1

Among other tasks, the AIS victim

guidelines stipulate that the victim should: (1) establish

the plagiarism by conducting and documenting a

meticulous comparison of the plagiarized material to

its source; (2) document his/her authorship prior to

the publication of the plagiarized material; and (3)

notify the editors of the publication containing the

plagiarized material, provide them with evidence of

the plagiarism, and seek redress. With respect to the

first guideline, Vic carefully documented each

occurrence of the plagiarism in both of the Plag

conference papers, including a table that showed a

side-by-side comparison and highlighted the plagia-

rized material in copies of those manuscripts to illus-

trate the extent. Vic’s prior authorship was easily

confirmed by the original source documents from

Vic’s earlier work, which was the primary source for

the material plagiarized by Plag.

With regard to the last guideline (notifying the

editor), after Vic approached Plag on the Year1

paper, Plag requested that it be replaced with the

revised version in all of the publisher’s venues. The

publisher gave the impression of compliance with

Plag’s request and announced this in an e-mail to

members of the professional association. For the

second occurrence of Plag’s plagiarism, the Year2

publication, Vic sought action directly from Pub

himself, since he was both the editor and the pub-

lisher. In accordance with the victim guidelines, Vic

provided his documentation of both instances of

plagiarism and his prior authorship of the material to

the publisher, and requested action.

Vic followed the three recommendations in the

AIS victim guidelines, but was stymied by the cor-

responding actions of the publisher. Apparently,

neither the publishing company nor the professional

association that sponsored the conference had a code

for dealing with plagiarism, and Vic’s request to Pub

for such was ignored. Since Pub held four positions

in the hierarchy of management where the plagia-

rized material was published (president of the

sponsoring professional association, chairman of the

conference, editor of the proceedings, and president

of the publishing company), Vic had little recourse,

other than the legal system, to pursue the matter

further with the entity that was continuing to hold

the copyright and sell the material plagiarized from

him.

Pub’s actions regarding Plag’s papers can be

judged with respect to published guidelines for

dealing with instances of plagiarism. The Clarke

(2006) framework, the AIS code (Davison et al.,

2004a), and ACM policy (Boisvert and Irwin, 2006)

all stipulate that the editor and/or publisher of the

article containing the plagiarized material has a

responsibility to investigate and provide remedy.

Clarke’s (2006) model calls for an investigation

which will address whether plagiarism occurred and

report the criteria for determining such. If the

investigation’s findings indicate plagiarism, the form

of attribution and the claim of originality should be

determined, and the acuteness of the plagiarism

ascertained. With respect to remedy, Clarke (2006)

makes the point that the severity of the punishment

should be related to the level of seriousness of the

plagiarism, and provides as an example disbarment of

the plagiarizers from the professional association.

The AIS code calls for the editor to ‘‘provide redress

in consultation with the victim’’ (Davison et al.,

501An Academic Publisher’s Response to Plagiarism

2004a, p. 7), which may include sanctions against the

plagiarizers. The ACM policy addresses remedy by

stipulating that the article containing the plagiarized

material is to be removed from the ACM library,

with a note that it was plagiarized put in its place,

and suggests that in the case of multiple offenses the

plagiarizers may be banned from publishing other

articles in ACM sources.

The plagiarism in the Year2 paper was brought

directly to Pub’s attention, yet he took no action

against Plag. Although Vic provided evidence of

the plagiarism from both years, Pub did not con-

duct an investigation, ignored the material provided

by Vic, and took the plagiarizers’ word that they

had not copied this material. Pub also ignored the

fact that the same plagiarized material in the Year2

paper had been replaced in the Year1 paper, with

the acknowledgment that attribution had not been

provided to Vic. Further, Pub refused to consider

that Plag had asked that the Year2 paper be re-

placed prior to the conference. Pub’s response was

to stand behind the Author Warranty and Transfer

of Copyright form signed by Plag and to allow his

lawyer to warn Vic against further action. Needless

to say, Pub and his representatives did not follow

any of the guidelines specified by Clarke (2006) or

in the AIS and ACM policies.

Ethical absolutism

Framed in the context of the ethics theory of ethical

absolutism, Plag was prohibited from the plagiaristic

actions taken but violated the rule of the profession

prohibiting such activities. In learning of the violation,

Vic directly asked Plag to amend the papers using the

immutable rule as the rationale. Plag ultimately agreed

to replace the plagiarized articles, and Pub, the editor

and publisher, was notified. As a critical enforcer of the

rule, Pub’s subsequent responsibility was, at mini-

mum, to substitute Plag’s revised papers in the pro-

ceedings. Through the explained series of actions and

inactions, however, Pub repeatedly failed to enforce

the rule regarding plagiarism, although that was Pub’s

role as editor and publisher.

Part of the value of an ethics theory is its pre-

dictive ability in a set of circumstances; i.e., a

certain action can be effectively predicted by a

given set of circumstances or other actions. If

a theory fails in its predictive ability, the theory

may be ineffective or the outcome may be a rare

aberrance. In the plagiarism case explained, all

parties, Vic, Plag, and Pub, indicated, by their

communications or actions, acceptance of ethical

absolutism; all three accepted as immutable the

stricture against plagiarism. While Plag apparently

violated the rule initially, Plag essentially admitted

rule violation and attempted redress. Pub’s actions

are less understandable from the perspective of

ethical absolutism. While Pub acknowledged the

value of rules prohibiting plagiarism, Pub exhibited

apparent aberrant behavior in failing to enforce the

rules. Accordingly, the predictive value of ethical

absolutism is mixed in this case: the actions of Vic

and Plag were mostly consistent with the theory,

but not those of Pub.

Conclusions

The deontological theory of ethical absolutism is

useful, albeit imperfect, in understanding plagiarism

and comprehending the events of this case. From an

absolutist perspective, the plagiarism by Plag in their

Year1 and Year2 publications constituted unac-

ceptable violations of the rules of academia. Plag’s

certifications on the publisher’s copyright transfer

form of the authenticity of the work and the false

claim to Pub’s lawyer that the material in Plag’s

Year2 paper was not plagiarized, are further evi-

dence of Plag’s failure to follow strictures prohibiting

plagiarism.

Even though Plag eventually provided replace-

ment manuscripts, however, the initial papers of Plag

that include their plagiarized work continued to be

available without any indication of the plagiarism

issue because of the behavior of Pub. As ethical

absolutism requires strict adherence to rules, it was

incumbent on Pub to investigate and provide redress

as the editor and publisher of the proceedings con-

taining the plagiarized papers, in addition to being

the entity that was holding the copyright on them

(Boisvert and Irwin, 2006; Clarke, 2006; Davison

et al., 2004a). Instead, Pub did not investigate and

did not take action against Plag. In fact, Pub actually

exacerbated the situation with the Year2 paper by

refusing to replace Plag’s initial paper which con-

tained plagiarized material. Had Pub replaced the

502 Bruce R. Lewis et al.

initial paper as requested, the plagiarized material

would not have been made public and nominally,

according to Clarke’s (2006) framework, plagiarism

would not have occurred. To compound this situ-

ation, Pub essentially attacked Vic and implied legal

action if Vic persisted. Pub took cover behind the

copyright form which he claimed put the onus on its

signatories and exonerated him. However, what if

authors misrepresent to Pub that the work is theirs

on this form, as Plag did twice in consecutive years,

and no sanctions are imposed? If there are no pen-

alties against plagiarizers who falsify the form, then

the form lacks credibility. At best, it might techni-

cally mitigate the legal liability of the publisher for

violation of copyright, although it by no means re-

duces the obligation of Pub to correct the situation

and fulfill his ethical responsibilities. Pub’s it’s-all-

their-fault defense does not justify inaction by a

publisher and is egregious in instances of plagiarism.

Why did Pub take the approach he did in this

case? One possibility is that Pub may have acted to

protect Plag, because they were authors who were

published in several outlets managed by Pub’s

company. Not only did Plag have papers in the

proceedings from Pub’s annual conference in each of

the 2 years prior to the incidents presented in this

case, but they also published articles in several

journals sponsored by his association, as well as

books published by Pub’s company. One might infer

that Pub did not want to risk alienating authors in

whom he had a vested interest.

The second potential reason for his actions is that

enforcing plagiarism rules would have resulted in

additional costs. In two communications from Pub’s

agents, Vic was told that Plag had requested their

Year2 publication be replaced before the proceed-

ings were made available to the conference attend-

ees, and that this request was denied because the

proceedings had already been printed. Reprinting

would have been costly. Further, although Pub

agreed to republish Plag’s Year1 publication, and his

lawyer stipulated the same for the Year2 manuscript,

it was later discovered that Pub was continuing to

make available for sale the original versions of both,

with no mention of the revised replacement papers.

Again, to do otherwise, Pub would have incurred

added expense. Of course, neither of these possible

reasons, both essentially cost avoidance, exonerates

Pub’s continuing to make the plagiarized works

available and holding a copyright on them. Repu-

table publishers would, at a minimum, remove

publications containing plagiarized material from

their offerings, as Clarke (2006) indicates was the

solution undertaken by the publisher in the case he

presented. Publishers of scholarly research in all fields

should be held to no lesser standards.

Recommendations

The case presented in this paper is essentially a

cautionary tale. Any professional association, or

other entity, that outsources its publishing to an-

other organization should take serious note of the

lessons inherent in this case. Clarke (2006) and

Kock and Davison (2003) clearly delineate the

difficulty to authors pursuing cases of academic

plagiarism via criminal and civil law. Due to the

infeasibility of this course and in order to thwart

other such cases, Kock (1999) encourages publi-

cizing and discussing occurrences of plagiarism.

Likewise, Davison et al. (2004c) emphasize the

need to sensitize editors to their responsibilities in

instances of plagiarism. Reiterating these messages is

one of the primary goals of this article.

In a broader sense, however, academia needs to

consider the possibility that the current self-policing

mechanism of research is somewhat anachronistic.

While some in academe may cherish nostalgic ideals

of a well-educated profession of a higher order with

inculpable ethical standards, the reality is that pro-

fessors and researchers may be very diverse in terms

of their perceptions of the rewards and penalties

associated with plagiarism in an environment where

the pressure to publish research is constant or, in

many cases, increasing (Martin, 2007). Considering

the current system of research, manuscript genera-

tion, review, and publication, some academicians

will choose to plagiarize to achieve personal success

(Hoover, 2006).

Since little has been published that provides

examples of publishers dealing with plagiarism, the

other goal of this article is to present recommenda-

tions derived from the circumstances exemplified in

this case vis-a-vis the publisher. We offer five such

recommendations. First, we repeat the call by Kock

(1999) and Clarke (2006) that professional associa-

tions that publish the works of others enact codes of

503An Academic Publisher’s Response to Plagiarism

ethics which specifically address plagiarism and

establish procedures for dealing with plagiarism

should it occur. These policies and practices should

clearly specify the responsibilities and authorities of

all who are responsible for the published work

sponsored by the association and enumerate defini-

tive punishments for those who violate the code.

Consideration should also be given to the develop-

ment of ethics codes by professions and by individual

universities. A profession-wide code could include

guidance regarding expected education of academi-

cians about issues such as plagiarism and provide a

baseline standard of plagiarism understanding for

all members of the profession and journal editors

(Enders and Hoover, 2004). Similarly, a university

ethics code could be helpful in assisting universities

articulate expectations regarding researchers’ possible

plagiarism and better enable universities to sanction

resident plagiarists. For legal and public embarrass-

ment reasons, however, universities may prefer to

leave ethics enforcement and plagiarism abatement

to other organizations, rather than taking on the task

of developing and enforcing a university code and

convincing constituents of its validity and necessity

(Cabral-Cardoso, 2004).

Second, the academic community must funda-

mentally evolve to encourage and support those who

report incidences of plagiarism; i.e., the whistle-

blowers. In some segments of academia and at some

universities, whistle-blowers have been discouraged by

colleagues and supervisors from reporting plagiarism.

This inaction sends a dysfunctional and inappropriate

message to the potential whistle-blower, the plagiarist,

and the community, especially when the whistle-

blower is punished and the plagiarist is not (Cabral-

Cardoso, 2004; Titus et al., 2008).

Third, we recommend that publishers put some

‘‘teeth’’ behind their use of the transfer of copyright

form as a vehicle for certifying that submitted

manuscripts are the original work of their authors.

Such sanctioning should take the form of clearly

articulated, enforced, and publicized penalties for

authors who make bogus claims via the form

regarding the originality of the submitted material.

Without such sanctions against plagiarizers who

falsify the form, this mechanism is meaningless. In

addition, publishers should consider adoption of an

industry standard protocol for exposing instances of

plagiarism and reasons for article retractions.

Fourth, we strongly encourage the development

and utilization of plagiarism detection software by

universities, professional organizations, and journals.

These technological tools and techniques are not

perfect, but are, at least, somewhat effective in dis-

covering probable plagiarism. If this software becomes

even more effective in time, it may consistently and

effectively expose plagiarists prior to manuscript

submission if used by universities, and prior to man-

uscript publication if used by professional organiza-

tions and journals (Butakov and Scherbinin, 2009;

Gibelman and Gelman, 2003; Li, 2010; Maurer and

Kulathuramaiyer, 2007).

Fifth, we suggest that professional associations

institute a checks-and-balances approach with respect

to the principal roles in their publishing hierarchy. A

major contributing factor to the unsatisfactory result

in our case was Pub’s manifest conflict of interest.

Since he held all four of the positions of authority in

the publishing chain of command, Pub’s decisions

involved little oversight or collaboration, and he was

not accountable to others. Segregation of duties is an

appropriate and effective method for alleviating such

conflicts of interest and enforcing accountability. In

many aspects of business, such segregation is common,

and the same practices of accountability should be

expected from professional associations. We believe

that implementing these recommendations will not

only enhance the protection of authors from plagia-

ristic practices but will preserve the reputation of the

organizations and journals that publish their work, as

well as the universities of authors and academia in

general.

Note

1 We use the AIS Guidelines because AIS is one of

the few academic professional associations in a business

discipline that provides a specific set of guidelines for

the victim of plagiarism.

References

Amanullah, M.: 2006, ‘Author’s Copyright: An Islamic

Perspective’, The Journal of World Intellectual Property

9(3), 301–315.

504 Bruce R. Lewis et al.

Arce, D. G., W. Enders and G. A. Hoover: 2008, ‘Pla-

giarism and Its Impact on the Economics Profession’,

Bulletin of Economic Research 60(3), 231–243.

Bartlett, T. and S. Smallwood: 2004, ‘Four Academic

Plagiarists You’ve Never Heard Of: How Many More

Are Out There?’, The Chronicle of Higher Education

15(17), A8.

Baume, G. L.: 2008, ‘Retraction: Unveiling the Galactic

Structure by Looking Through a Region of Puppis’,

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 390, 465.

Boisvert, R. F. and M. J. Irwin: 2006, ‘Plagiarism on the

Rise’, Communications of the Association for Computing

Machinery 49(6), 23–24.

Bouysson, D., S. Martello and F. Plastria: 2006, ‘A Case

of Plagiarism: Danut Marcu’, 4OR 4, 11–13.

Butakov, S. and V. Scherbinin: 2009, ‘The Toolbox for

Local and Global Plagiarism Detection’, Computers and

Education 52, 781–788.

Cabral-Cardoso, C.: 2004, ‘Ethical Misconduct in the

Business School: A Case of Plagiarism that Turned

Bitter’, Journal of Business Ethics 49, 75–89.

Clarke, R.: 2006, ‘Plagiarism by Academics: More

Complex Than It Seems’, Journal of the Association for

Information Systems 7(2), 91–121.

Cokol, M.: 2008, ‘Retraction Rates are on the Rise’,

EMBO Reports 9(1), 2.

Corbyn, Z.: 2009, ‘Retractions Up Tenfold’, Times

Higher Education Website, August 20, 2009.

Davison, R. M., M. C. Munro and D. W. Straub: 2004a,

‘Introduction to the AIS Code of Research Conduct’,

Communications of the Association for Information Systems

13, 1–8.

Davison, R. M., M. C. Munro and D. W. Straub: 2004b,

‘AIS Code of Research Conduct’, Communications of

the Association for Information Systems 13, 9–16.

Davison, R. M., M. C. Munro and D. W. Straub: 2004,

‘Guidelines for a Victim: Dealing with Plagiarism’,

Communications of the Association for Information Systems

13, 17–24.

Enders, W. and G. Hoover: 2004, ‘Whose Line Is It?

Plagiarism in Economics’, Journal of Economic Literature

42, 487–493.

Enders, W. and G. Hoover: 2006, ‘Plagiarism in the

Economics Profession: A Survey’, Challenge 49(5), 92–

107.

Forsyth, D. R.: 2006, ‘Judging the Morality of Business

Practices’, in K. Gibson (ed.), Business Ethics: People,

Profits, and the Planet (McGraw Hill, New York).

Foster, A. L.: 2004, ‘Elsevier’s Vanishing Act: To the

Dismay of Scholars, the Publishing Giant Quietly

Purges Articles From Its Database’, The Chronicle of

Higher Education 49(18), A27.

Frederick, R. E.: 2002, A Companion to Business Ethics

(Blackwell Publishing, Oxford).

George, J. F., C. Beath, R. M. Davison, J. Heales and M.

C. Munro: 2003, ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Committee

on Member Misconduct to the AIS Council’, Com-

munications of the Association for Information Systems 11,

54–78.

Gibelman, M. and S. R. Gelman: 2003, ‘Plagiarism in

Academia: Trends and Implications’, Accountability in

Research 10, 229–252.

Gu, Q. and J. Brooks: 2008, ‘Beyond the Accusation of

Plagiarism’, System 36, 337–352.

Harms, D.: 2006, ‘Plagiarism, Publishing, and the Acad-

emy’, Journal of Scholarly Publishing, October, 1–13.

Hoover, G. A.: 2006, ‘A Game-Theoretic Model of

Plagiarism’, Atlantic Economic Journal 34, 449–454.

Kock, N. F.: 1999, ‘A Case of Academic Plagiarism’,

Communications of the Association for Computing Ma-

chinery 42(7), 96–104.

Kock, N. F. and R. M. Davison: 2003, ‘Dealing with

Plagiarism in the IS Research Community: A Look at

Factors that Drive Plagiarism and Ways to Address

Them’, Management Information Systems Quarterly 27(4),

511–532.

Levai, A. and G. Toth: 2002, ‘How to Use Major Parts of

a Paper Previously Published by Others To Write a

New One. An Allegation of Plagiarism by Indian

Authors’, Synthetic Communications 31(10), 1625–1631.

Li, S.: 2010, ‘Journal Review Process Increasingly In-

cludes Check for Plagiarism’, The Chronicle of Higher

Education Website, July 9, 2010.

Martin, B. R.: 2007, ‘Keeping Plagiarism at Bay – A

Salutary Tale’, Research Policy 36, 905–911.

Maurer, H. and N. Kulathuramaiyer: 2007, ‘Addressing

Plagiarism and IPR Violation’, Information Services and

Use 27, 185–191.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: 2003 (Merriam-Webster,

New York).

Micewski, E. R. and C. Troy: 2007, ‘Business Ethics –

Deontologically Revisited’, Journal of Business Ethics

72, 17–25.

MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing: 2008

(Modern Language Association, New York).

Monaghan, P.: 2004, ‘University Presses Choose Caution

in Responding to Accusations of Plagiarism’, The

Chronicle of Higher Education 51(17), A23.

Pojman, L. P.: 2004, Moral Philosophy (Hackett Publish-

ing, Indianapolis).

‘Retracted: Kinetic Study on Photocatalytic Degradation

of Reactive Orange 5 Solution with Phosphotungstic

Acid’: 2008, Journal of Molecular Catalysis 283 (1–2),

93–98.

505An Academic Publisher’s Response to Plagiarism

‘Retraction’: 2008, Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutic

28(7), 942.

‘Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of

Deception’: 2003, New York Times, May 11, A1.

Titus, S. L., J. A. Wells and L. J. Rhoades: 2008,

‘Repairing Research Integrity’, Nature 453, 980–

982.

Wheeler, G.: 2009, ‘Plagiarism in the Japanese Univer-

sities: Truly a Cultural Matter?’, Journal of Second

Language Writing 18, 17–29.

Yilmaz, I.: 2007, ‘Plagiarism? No, We’re Just Borrowing

Better English’, Nature 449, 658.

Bruce R. Lewis, Jonathan E. Duchac

and S. Douglas Beets

Wake Forest University,

Winston-Salem, NC, U.S.A.

E-mail: [email protected]

Bruce R. Lewis,

E-mail: [email protected]

Jonathan E. Duchac

E-mail: [email protected]

506 Bruce R. Lewis et al.

Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.