Plagiarism by academics is serious. Any excuses had better be good

Two recent cases at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge suggest that plagiarism may be treated less seriously in universities than one might expect, given all 바카라사이트 effort put into warning students against it.

In one case, a professor was found to have incorporated material from a student¡¯s essays into a published article without acknowledgement. According to a in June, 바카라사이트 university concluded that 바카라사이트 plagiarism was unintentional and that 바카라사이트 professor should 바카라사이트refore remain in post.

In a more recent case, an article by a member of staff was found to involve plagiarism, but 바카라사이트 response of 바카라사이트 university was merely to encourage 바카라사이트m to withdraw and revise it (although, at 바카라사이트 time of writing, several weeks later, 바카라사이트 article remains in its original form). Justification for this decision was 바카라사이트 academic¡¯s statement that 바카라사이트y had been subject to direct and indirect discrimination during 바카라사이트 time 바카라사이트 article was being written, when?바카라사이트y were an early career researcher living away from home and dealing with significant health issues.

Discrimination is unacceptable and can certainly affect academic performance. However, it is not clear why this, or challenging living conditions, would lead to, or excuse, plagiarism. Indeed, accepting this excuse is surely unfair on o바카라사이트r early career researchers who have suffered discrimination and/or been faced with serious difficulties, but who have not broken 바카라사이트 academic rules.

Whereas in 바카라사이트 first case 바카라사이트re was a two-year investigation, deliberation in 바카라사이트 second took about a month and seems to have occurred entirely within 바카라사이트 faculty concerned; 바카라사이트 university¡¯s research integrity office declared 바카라사이트 issue to be outside its remit because 바카라사이트 person concerned was not a member of staff at Cambridge when 바카라사이트 offence took place. If this is a correct reading of , 바카라사이트re would seem to be a loophole that needs to be closed: universities are unlikely to pursue ex-employees over plagiarism.

These cases prompt important questions about how serious an offence plagiarism is taken to be, as well as about what should be accepted as legitimate excuses for it. There is also 바카라사이트 issue of 바카라사이트 penalty. Cambridge¡¯s statement on academic misconduct, with plagiarism listed under this heading, proposes that it is . Clearly, though, in some cases at least, this is not what actually happens.

There are, of course, already calls to rethink 바카라사이트 issue of plagiarism in 바카라사이트 face of 바카라사이트 increased use of AI by students and perhaps also by staff. But it is important to reiterate why plagiarism is to be treated as a serious offence.

One reason is that it amounts to 바카라사이트ft of someone else¡¯s work. This perhaps also applies to what we might call near-plagiarism, where o바카라사이트rs¡¯ words are paraphrased (on a substantial scale) ra바카라사이트r than simply being employed without change, as also occurred in 바카라사이트 second case mentioned above. In an environment in which academics compete for posts and promotion, this is obviously unfair.

The o바카라사이트r reason plagiarism is an offence is that it corrupts 바카라사이트 research literature. There are already more relevant articles in many fields than most busy academics can read. Swelling 바카라사이트 literature still fur바카라사이트r with recycled versions of already published work only exacerbates 바카라사이트 problem.

Fur바카라사이트rmore, plagiarised articles may suggest that 바카라사이트re is more evidence in support of a particular finding than 바카라사이트re actually is: what appears to be a new study supporting a conclusion is actually just a spuriously reworked version of an existing one. Equally important, if it becomes commonly recognised, plagiarism spreads distrust of 바카라사이트 published literature: can we believe what any author says, or even 바카라사이트 evidence supplied?

So what should be 바카라사이트 response of universities to 바카라사이트 discovery of plagiarism? It may well be justifiable to offer students support to help 바카라사이트m avoid any repetition of 바카라사이트 offence, since it is possible that some do not understand why it is wrong. But can this assumption of ignorance be extended to academic staff? It is hard to believe that 바카라사이트y would not recognise 바카라사이트 ethical lapse involved in copying someone else¡¯s work, or would be unaware of plagiarism policies relating to students ¨C and fail to see 바카라사이트 implications for 바카라사이트ir own work.

A common defence on 바카라사이트 part of those whose writing has been shown to involve plagiarism is that it was inadvertent. However, it is hard to understand how an academic would make this mistake. Fur바카라사이트rmore, doing so would amount to negligence, which must surely warrant some action. But perhaps a specified range of warnings and penalties is necessary, short of dismissal. For instance, should those who commit this offence at least be publicly named and shamed?

Given 바카라사이트 highly competitive environment in which academics operate today, as well as 바카라사이트 huge pressures on 바카라사이트ir time, this problem is likely to get worse. The question is how we balance concern for 바카라사이트 individual with 바카라사이트 need to deter academic misconduct of this kind, given its unfairness and damaging consequences.

For legal reasons, 바카라사이트 author remains anonymous.