I just read an article in a sub-field specialty journal, fairly highly ranked for my sub-field, that almost entirely plagiarizes two of my own published articles yet doesn't cite me once. it is entirely possible the authors haven't read my work (not so cocky to think everyone has, even though it's been published in top-10 soc journals). that said, i'm deeply uncomfortable with how much their arguments mirror mine, including, also, their citations of some of the exact same work i cite to make more or less identical arguments. what should i do, if anything?
plagiarism
-
what do you mean by plagiarism? Same question, same dataset, same analysis? Did you discover a new pattern/phenomenon, which they claim as theirs?
Problem is that many researchers are pursuing similar questions, so you really need something more specific to start talking about 'plagiarism.' In other words, was your paper that unique and is their analysis so similar to yours?You can run both papers using plagiarism software to check for similarities in wording.
-
OP here:
i wrote an empirical article based on a new interpretation of existing literature and then provided evidence for why my interpretation is correct. then i wrote another article expanding on how this interpretation contributes to a better understanding of the phenomenon at hand.
they wrote an essay arguing for the same thing (we should interpret this phenomenon in this way, not this other way in which it's typically been done) but used no empirical evidence to validate their argument.
so in short, it feels like they read my work, agreed with its major claims, wrote them up as their own, even used some of the same literature to validate their claims, and that's it.
-
I've been criticized by reviewers before for using the same citations used by some other scholar (who I happened to cite as well). Stopped just short of accusing me of plagiarism, barely. In my response to the editor/reviewers, I said what I will say now - this is one of the most ridiculous complaints imaginable. Same pattern of citations is exactly what we should be going for, actually. Presumably, if you are writing about topic X and so is some other scholar, you would both have read the pertinent literature on X and should/would cite the relevant pieces. So you would, very likely, end up with very, very similar, if not exactly the same, citations. Otherwise, someone is missing something and that is what should be seen as a problem.
-
OP:
Right. My concern is less that they're citing the same people in the same way as it is that they are using an argument I made, based on empirical evidence, that I then expanded on in a separate article, and claiming it as their own. Like I said, I don't expect them to have read my work, but I do feel uncomfortable about the fact that I published two variations of this same argument and here it is presented as an entirely novel and original idea. Anyway.
-
How much time is there between the publications? On multiple occasions, I've had a similar paper published within months of my own publication. There's no way that the other authors were plagiarizing--just different teams working on similar stuff. However, given the length of the publication process, it is impossible for these "parallel" projects to cite one another. If you're talking years, then by all means by upset and contact the editor. If you're talking months, I'd chalk it up to "great minds think alike."
-
That's very annoying...3 years and they should have seen it. But IMO they were probably lazy about reading instead of copying you.
If it were me, I'd send them a quick email saying, "hey, you should find these useful" with your articles attached
OP: 3 years between my publications and theirs.
2f53 - thank you. -
Thanks. Yeah. It's especially annoying because the sub-field journal is interdisciplinary and the authors say they are introducing a new sociological approach to thinking about X, yet my work was published (as mentioned before) in top-10 soc. journals. I believe it has more to do with laziness than anything, but it is frustrating. I was leaning towards contacting them directly to say something along the lines of what you wrote above. Thanks again.
-
Intellectual amnesia becomes more severe and takes less time with more and more researchers publishing at higher rates. Doing even a decent review on topics A and B would mean reading 200+ articles, depending on topic.
Think about how many times you’ve had a good idea and found out 100 articles later that someone already did it? N00b probably stopped at the 99th article.
Just email him/her your papers and don’t sweat it.
-
My articles were published in two of these journals (a list of 20, but you get the point): http://guides.lib.uw.edu/c.php?g=341375&p=2303554
W/RT subfield, it's very specific so would rather not say.
As for "dubious claims," as I mentioned, if there was even one cite for my work, I would feel much better about the whole thing. The authors literally organize their whole essay around an argument similar to: "We introduce a novel sociological approach to __ problem: to truly understand X, we should in fact consider it a Y, and we can use theories such as Y(a) to explain how Y happens."
My first empirical article says "X is more like Y than previously thought, and here is empirical evidence that supports my claim." My second article says "X is actually Y and here are three approaches, Y(a), Y(b), and Y(c), each of which provide a more accurate understanding of what we thought was X all along."
Again, there was not a single cite of my work. They claim to introduce a new sociological approach to the subfield. They copy my main argument (detailed in two highly-ranked sociology journals) and present it as their own. I'm fully comfortable believing they simply didn't read my work. But that doesn't make it less frustrating or annoying.
-
Is there any significant textual overlap that would suggest they did read your article? If not, I would let it go (possibly with a politely worded email to the authors letting them know about your work and their oversight).
Three years does seem like awhile to not notice an article. But it's possible they wrote their article prior to (or around) the time yours was published, and it took three years from their first submission to their article appearing in print. I know, personally, once I write an article and submit it for publication, I don't typically look to update/alter the front-end unless a reviewer requests it or a bombshell article is released that completely transforms my research question.
-
Is there any significant textual overlap that would suggest they did read your article? If not, I would let it go (possibly with a politely worded email to the authors letting them know about your work and their oversight).
Three years does seem like awhile to not notice an article. But it's possible they wrote their article prior to (or around) the time yours was published, and it took three years from their first submission to their article appearing in print. I know, personally, once I write an article and submit it for publication, I don't typically look to update/alter the front-end unless a reviewer requests it or a bombshell article is released that completely transforms my research question.This sounds like it might have happened. Especially for junior scholars who are learning to write, the time of first time they submit to a journal to the end result is a long time