Content uploaded by Mark Alexander Fox
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark Alexander Fox on May 21, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [76.186.146.148]
On: 09 November 2014, At: 15:36
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Ethics & Behavior
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20
Advice for Plagiarism Whistleblowers
Mark Foxa & Jeffrey Beallb
a Judd Leighton School of Business & Economics, Indiana University
South Bend
b Auraria Library, University of Colorado Denver
Accepted author version posted online: 22 Nov 2013.Published
online: 18 Jun 2014.
To cite this article: Mark Fox & Jeffrey Beall (2014) Advice for Plagiarism Whistleblowers, Ethics &
Behavior, 24:5, 341-349, DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2013.866047
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.866047
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 24(5), 341–349
Copyright © 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 online
DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2013.866047
Advice for Plagiarism Whistleblowers
Mark Fox
Judd Leighton School of Business & Economics
Indiana University South Bend
Jeffrey Beall
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
Scholarly open-access publishing has made it easier for researchers to discover and report academic
misconduct such as plagiarism. However, as the website Retraction Watch shows, plagiarism is
by no means limited to open-access journals. Moreover, various web-based services provide pla-
giarism detection software, facilitating one’s ability to detect pirated content. Upon discovering
plagiarism, some are compelled to report it, but being a plagiarism whistleblower is inherently stress-
ful and can leave one vulnerable to criticism and retaliation by colleagues and others (Anderson,
1993; Cabral-Cardoso, 2004). Reporting plagiarism can also draw the threat of legal action. This
article draws upon our experiences as plagiarism whistleblowers with several goals in mind: to
help would-be whistleblowers be better prepared for making well-founded allegations, to give
whistleblowers some idea of what they can expect when reporting plagiarism, and to give suggestions
for reducing whistleblowers’ vulnerability to threats and stress.
Keywords: plagiarism, whistleblowing, retaliation, academic misconduct
INTRODUCTION
In this article we draw upon our experiences as plagiarism whistleblowers in the hope that we
can give others some idea of what to expect when they make plagiarism allegations. We start by
discussing some reasons why plagiarism should be reported. Next, we provide guidance on how
to report plagiarism in ways that are more likely to be favorably received by investigating parties,
such as journal editors and university research integrity officers. We also provide suggestions on
how to deal with legal threats and how to reduce the personal vulnerability and stress associated
with making plagiarism allegations. The primary focus of this article is blatant word-for-word
plagiarism.
Correspondence should be addressed to Mark Fox, Indiana University South Bend, Judd Leighton School of
Business & Economics, Room 204H, Administration Building, 1700 Mishawaka Avenue, South Bend, IN 46634.
E-mail: mfox1@iusb.edu
Downloaded by [76.186.146.148] at 15:36 09 November 2014
342 FOX AND BEALL
WHY REPORT PLAGIARISM?
• Perhaps the most compelling reason to report plagiarism is to ensure that authors of origi-
nal work are given due credit for their research and that this credit is not misappropriated
by plagiarists. This is why “plagiarism is widely thought of as perhaps the most grievous
academic crime” (Rosamond, 2002, p. 167).
• Reporting plagiarism may lead to corrections to the scientific record. Hence, one conse-
quence of reporting plagiarism is that editors may retract work by plagiarists. In this regard,
plagiarism is one of the major reasons for retractions. For example, Grieneisen and Zhang
(2012) looked at the justifications stated for 4,232 scientific retractions across a wide range
of disciplines. Of these retractions 47% were due to “publishing misconduct, primarily
plagiarism and author-initiated duplicate publication” (p. 6).
• Reporting plagiarism sends a consistent message to students, that is, that as academics we
will hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect of our students.
• Reporting plagiarism can also highlight flaws in the review or editorial processes of jour-
nals, particularly when plagiarism should have been detected prior to publication. This
appears to be a more prevalent problem for predatory open access journals. In this regard,
Arnold (2009) observed “journal misconduct, carried out by publishers and editors, often
with an evident profit motive. One example is a sloppy or sham peer review process
designed to produce the impression of a serious scholarly journal without the substance”
(p. 1). The increasing prevalence of predatory open access journals (Bohannon, 2013)may
be one reason that “in general, duplicates are often published in journals with lower impact
factors (undoubtedly at least in part to minimize the odds of detection)” (Errami & Garner,
2008, p. 399). Plagiarism is also a problem in well-established, reputable journals. The edi-
tors of Research Policy opined that “journal editors and referees, however knowledgeable
and diligent, cannot prevent all instances of plagiarism and other research. ...Hence, read-
ers of journals and books should be alert to possible instances of plagiarism that may have
slipped through the peer-review process” (Martin & other editors of Research Policy,2007,
p. 908).
• One consequence of plagiarism is that impact factors for the original authors of research
are undermined when plagiarists misappropriate their work (Martin, 2009). As career pro-
gression in academia and research institutions is typically tied to research outcomes and
to research impact, plagiarism gives an unfair advantage to plagiarists relative to others by
giving others a misleading impression of the research skills and contributions of plagiarists.
• One unfortunate alternative to reporting plagiarism is to do nothing. In some cases inaction
may be partly motivated by colleagues who provide advice such as, “No one will thank you
for this,” “Be very careful that this doesn’t hurt your career,” or “Don’t be surprised that this
gets covered up if you do complain.” As the authors of a special report on plagiarism in the
Chronicle of Higher Education observed, “academe often discourages victims from seeking
justice, and when they do, tends to ignore their complaints—a kind of scholarly ‘don’t ask,
don’t tell’ policy” (Bartlett & Smallwood, 2004, p. A8). However, inaction may lead those
who have discovered plagiarism to experience a lingering unrest as to whether they have
done the “right thing.” An Office of Research Integrity (1995) study provided some insight
into whether whistleblowers regret their actions. For whistleblowers that experienced no
negative actions, 86% would definitely blow the whistle again and a further 5% would
Downloaded by [76.186.146.148] at 15:36 09 November 2014
ADVICE FOR PLAGIARISM WHISTLEBLOWERS 343
probably do so. Surprisingly, 60% of those who suffered one or more adverse actions as a
result of their whistleblowing would do so again, and 15% probably would do so.
The focus of the remainder of this article is on providing advice to plagiarism whistleblowers.
One particular piece of advice that resonates with us is to “do the right thing even though such
action may place you at considerable risk” (Sprague, 1993, p. 131). However, we hope that the
advice that follows will lessen these risks.
BE AWARE OF WHAT CONSTITUTES PLAGIARISM
• Would-be whistleblowers should be aware of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
definition of plagiarism. COPE provides guidelines to journal editors, including guidance
on investigating suspected plagiarism. Within this guidance, COPE mention three types of
plagiarism:
Clear plagiarism (unattributed use of large portions of text and/or data, presented as if they were
by the plagiarist) ...
Minor copying of short phrases only ...([e.g.] in discussion of research paper from non-native
language speaker) With no misattribution of data
Redundancy ...(i.e., copying from author’s own work) ....(Wager,2011,p.2)
• Also, the Committee on Publication Ethics (2008) published a guide entitled What to
Do if You Suspect Redundant (Duplicate) Publication. This guide is useful for potential
whistleblowers and editors alike.
• Note that COPE also provides guidance to editors on what action to take in light of dif-
ferent forms of plagiarism. If a journal is a member of COPE, it is worth pointing out the
definition of plagiarism when contacting the journal editor and to explain why you believe
the plagiarized text meets COPE’s definition. Alternatively, when journals are published by
professional societies or associations these bodies are likely to have their own professional
codes of ethics that include mention of plagiarism and the procedures that will be followed
when allegations of plagiarism are made.
• If you are a plagiarism whistleblower, pointing editors to the COPE definitions of plagiarism
should help reinforce that there are indeed generally held definitions of plagiarism. Such
definitions are also useful to combat those who defend plagiarists by using arguments such
as “[there is no] universally acceptable definition of plagiarism” or “attempting to pin this
down is like catching smoke in a butterfly net” (see Green & Wenger, 2013).
SOME ALLEGATIONS WILL BE TAKEN MORE SERIOUSLY THAN OTHERS
• Plagiarism of the works of others is more likely to be taken seriously by editors than is, say,
plagiarizing of one’s own work, although editors do appear to be increasingly concerned
about duplicate publication issues.
Downloaded by [76.186.146.148] at 15:36 09 November 2014
344 FOX AND BEALL
• Also, to use the language of the earlier COPE definitions, “clear plagiarism” is more likely
to be taken seriously by others than is minor copying of short phrases. The cases of pla-
giarism that we have pursued tend to involve multiple paragraphs or much of entire articles
being plagiarized from the works of others.
• Be cautious about reporting plagiarism that occurs in the Methods section of a publication.
For many scientific processes, there is only one way to describe the approach taken. As a
result, editors may overlook text with similar phrasing in methodology descriptions. For
example, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI; 1994) of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services noted that they “generally [do] not pursue the limited use of identi-
cal or nearly-identical phrases which describe a commonly-used methodology or previous
research because ORI does not consider such use as substantially misleading to the reader
or of great significance.”
DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THE PLAGIARIST THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND?
• Consider carefully whether you want to give a suspected plagiarist the opportunity to
respond to your allegations before progressing. Authors of plagiarized material may respond
in different ways. Consider the example of duplicate publication and plagiarism in the
medical field. Long, Errami, George, Sun, and Garner (2009) looked at responses from
60 “duplicate authors.” Of these, 28% denied doing anything wrong, 35% admitted that
they had “borrowed” from previously published authors, 22% said they were coauthors
who were not involved in writing up the manuscript, and 17% said they did not realize their
names were on the article in question.
• One compelling reason to give a suspected plagiarist the opportunity to respond is that what
appears to be plagiarism at first glance may have a straightforward explanation such as the
original author changing his or her name (Errami & Garner, 2008).
• On the other hand, giving a suspected plagiarist the opportunity to respond buys them time
to attempt to thwart your making the allegations known to others or to preemptively retaliate
against you.
• In the event that a plagiarist does “come clean,” this may make it easier to proceed further
by, for example, pursuing the timely retraction of a work that largely contains plagiarism.
• When contacting a suspected plagiarist, you should be clear about what wording you believe
is plagiarized (and why). You should also give a reasonable deadline for a response so that
they do not delay matters indefinitely.
BE PREPARED FOR THE THREAT OF LEGAL ACTION
• When an author is accused of plagiarism, he or she may choose to fight the charge and/or
retaliate against the whistleblower. One way the author may fight the charge is by hiring an
attorney. Usually, the attorney will initially compose and send a demand letter to those mak-
ing the plagiarism accusations, asking them to withdraw the statements and apologize. If the
requested conditions are not met, then the accused plagiarist may initiate legal proceedings
alleging defamation.
Downloaded by [76.186.146.148] at 15:36 09 November 2014
ADVICE FOR PLAGIARISM WHISTLEBLOWERS 345
• With respect to legal issues, you should have a clear idea of what support you can expect
from your own institution. If you work for a college or university, it is not a given that
your university will defend you if someone you have accused of plagiarism decides to file
a lawsuit.
• Whistleblowers should be aware that they could be threatened with legal action, but
they should also understand that truth is a complete defense to a defamation law-
suit. Carefully wording any allegations on plagiarism can lessen the likelihood of a
lawsuit arising. Moreover, legal action is probably unlikely, as this would involve
considerable cost and may well draw additional, unwanted attention to a plagiarist’s
conduct.
DOCUMENTING PLAGIARISM ALLEGATIONS
• Before making allegations of plagiarism, you should take all steps necessary to ensure that
the allegations are true and justifiable.
• Justifying plagiarism allegations is easier for word-for-word plagiarism, but it is more
difficult for plagiarism of general ideas. Several approaches to verifying word-for-word pla-
giarism include plagiarism detection software and checking the work manually. The latter
approach will often involve searching for individual sentences or phrases using an Internet
search engine such as Google or Google Scholar.
• When using plagiarism detection software, you should be aware of the potential limitations
of such software. For example, some plagiarism detection programs provide a numerical
score (a “similarity index”) that quantifies the wording that is in common with other sources.
A paper with a low score may still contain some serious plagiarism, as the source of the pla-
giarized text may be outside of the database that is being searched (Garner, 2011). Likewise,
a similarity index will likely include some wording that is coincidental or that is not plagia-
rized (e.g., a reference list within a publication). Also, to make sure that your allegations are
verifiable by others, you should consider asking a trusted colleague to see if he or she can
duplicate the allegations. In such cases it is better to just give the colleague the allegedly
plagiarized publication and have the colleague work from scratch rather than to provide the
colleague with the sources that you believe were plagiarized.
• You should also make multiple backup copies of both the plagiarism examples (e.g., arti-
cles that contain plagiarism) and the sources where the text originally appeared. This is
important, as the articles containing plagiarism may disappear from journal websites. (This
has occurred multiple times with at least one predatory open access publisher, namely, the
Academic and Business Research Institute.) Likewise, the sources of plagiarized content
may also vanish over time, particularly if they are blogs and the like. Having said this, one
way of searching for material that is not currently online is to use the Internet archiving site
The Wayback Machine (web.archive.org).
• Be wary of using licensed plagiarism checkers such as turnitin.com. This software is
licensed for institutional use and for checking the work of students who are enrolled in
your classes. To use the software for checking for plagiarism by a colleague could create
legal problems. Given this, you may be better off using software such as WriteCheck or
iThenticate, or making use of the manual method just described.
Downloaded by [76.186.146.148] at 15:36 09 November 2014
346 FOX AND BEALL
• You should document everything, not just the plagiarism allegations themselves. For
example, institutional research integrity offices may prefer phone conversations that provide
a degree of deniability regarding what advice they give. After engaging in such conversa-
tions, you should follow up with e-mails that reprise what you understood to be the key
points from the conversation.
• In documenting plagiarism, you also need to decide how far you are prepared to go. If you
find plagiarism in, say a single article, will you stop there, or will you widen your search to
other publications by the same author(s)? In our experience, those who engage in plagiarism
tend to do so in multiple publications; plagiarism tends not to be an isolated, one-off event.
MAKING THE ALLEGATIONS
• To minimize the likelihood of legal action you should be careful how you phrase allega-
tions and to whom you communicate those allegations. For example, it is preferable to
write “Professor X has multiple passages in various articles that appear to be identical to
those of earlier published scholars. Accordingly, we ask that you investigate whether or not
plagiarism has taken place” rather than “Professor X is clearly a plagiarist.”
• Also consider whether you want to seek the support of those whose work has been plagia-
rized. You may find that some authors are simply uninterested in becoming involved in such
matters, and others may even be flattered that their work was plagiarized.
• Do not expect that journal editors will necessarily be all that receptive to retracting work
that contains plagiarism. Retractions point to shortcomings in the review and editorial pro-
cesses, and editors may prefer that attention not be drawn to the publication of plagiarized
work. This concern may be greater for predatory online journals, which earn their income
from article processing charges and page fees paid by their authors. These journals want
to maintain their income, so they may well be less likely to act on plagiarism charges that
could potentially decrease their income.
• If allegations of plagiarism involve a college or university employee, do not assume that uni-
versities will look into allegations in a timely manner. Most universities have a multiphase
process (Office of Research Integrity, 1993,2000). Typically, a preliminary examination of
the allegations occurs to determine if they are prima facie credible. If the allegations do war-
rant further examination, the next step is typically an inquiry to “determine whether there
are sufficient grounds to proceed with an investigation, which can result in a finding of mis-
conduct” (Loui, 2002, p. 530). After an investigation has occurred, a final decision is often
made by a senior university official such as a VP for Research or by some body constituted
to handle such matters such as a standing committee on scientific misconduct. Following
a finding of misconduct or imposition of a sanction, the person accused of plagiarism can
appeal, and the appeal process will entail additional time.
• Given the procedural steps involved, the university process for pursuing allegations of pla-
giarism often takes a considerable amount of time. In some cases this may be more than a
year (Gantert, 2011). It may also be in the interests of a university to delay an investiga-
tion so that the allegations are less timely if they are reported in the media or if an alleged
plagiarist is near retirement.
Downloaded by [76.186.146.148] at 15:36 09 November 2014
ADVICE FOR PLAGIARISM WHISTLEBLOWERS 347
• Do not assume that universities will make public their findings when their investigation is
over. If the complaint does not involve federally funded research, the university is likely
to cite “employee confidentiality” as a reason for not disclosing the outcome of an investi-
gation. If you complain about plagiarism within a doctoral thesis, the institution may treat
the plagiarist as a student who is subject to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
As a result, the outcome of any investigation will not be disclosed to the complainant.
• Universities may ask employees who are reporting plagiarism to remain silent about the
allegations until any investigation is over. This may mean that, for example, you would
not be allowed to discuss the allegations with journal editors. Or, if journal editors have
retracted articles of someone you have made allegations about, then you may be instructed
to not disclose that fact to others. This may prove professionally frustrating, as knowledge of
this matter could affect other matters within your institution, such as whether a plagiarist is
viewed as a credible person to serve on a promotion and tenure committee or on committees
that evaluate research proposals for funding purposes.
• If plagiarized work was federally funded, the procedures followed will differ from research
that was not funded by the government. The procedures followed (and the implications for
the accuser and the accused) will also differ depending on the funding agency.
PUBLICIZING ALLEGATIONS THROUGH MAINSTREAM MEDIA OR ONLINE
• You should carefully consider the implications of speaking to the media, as to do so may
increase the possibility of subsequent legal action. If you do decide to speak to the media,
be thoughtful as to why you are speaking to the media and of your message.
• Do not assume that allegations themselves will be of interest to the media, or to higher edu-
cation publications such as InsideHigherEd or The Chronicle of Higher Education. Higher
education publications tend to publish allegations only when an investigation has been com-
pleted (e.g., by a university), or they may provide coverage if a plagiarism allegation is
already mentioned in a mainstream outlet such as a daily newspaper. Newspapers them-
selves may be wary of publishing allegations of plagiarism, and are more likely to do so
when the story has additional hooks. One example of this is publicity by the Baltimore Sun
of plagiarism by a Towson University law professor who was also Chair of the Baltimore
City Schools’ Ethics Commission (Green, 2013). Student newspapers may also be inter-
ested in publishing stories about plagiarism by faculty members. In some cases this has led
to wider media attention (see, e.g., Sullivan & Hardner, 2013).
• Also, carefully consider what, if any, use you want to make of the Internet: Do you want
to create a blog that highlights the plagiarism? Do you want to make a website such
as Retraction Watch aware of any articles that have been retracted as a result of your
whistleblowing?
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Making allegations of plagiarism is inherently stressful. One way of dealing with this stress is to
seek support and advice from others who have made plagiarism allegations. Making plagiarism
Downloaded by [76.186.146.148] at 15:36 09 November 2014
348 FOX AND BEALL
allegations is a lonely business and one that few academics will go through. In our experience,
those who have made allegations seem only too willing to talk about their experiences and offer
advice and support. In particular, seek support from those who have made allegations to the
same or a somewhat similar institution or journal, as this will provide you with insights into the
complaint process itself.
Do not assume that you will be applauded for raising allegations. In particular, it is unlikely
that colleagues and friends of the plagiarist will applaud your actions. Indeed, they may retaliate
by examining your own published works, so it is not a good idea to report plagiarism if you your-
self have ever committed research misconduct. Others may wish that plagiarism allegations be
dealt with quietly, as publicity may adversely affect the reputation of the institution or journals
where the misconduct occurred. Having said this, you should keep in mind the benefits of report-
ing plagiarism, namely, that this serves as a deterrent to others and helps maintain the integrity of
the academic and scholarly record.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. (1993). Michigan gets an expensive lesson. Science,262,23.
Arnold, D. N. (2009, December). Integrity under attack: The state of scholarly publishing. SIAM News. Retrieved from
https://www.siam.org/news/news.php?id=1663
Bartlett, T., & Smallwood, S. (2004). Four academic plagiarists you’ve never heard of: How many more are out there?
The Chronicle of Higher Education,51(17), A8.
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342(6154), 60–65.
Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2004). Ethical misconduct in the business school: A case of plagiarism that turned bitter. Journal of
Business Ethics,49, 75–89.
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2008). What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication. Retrieved from
http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/All_flowcharts.pdf
Errami, M., & Garner, H. (2008). A tale of two citations. Nature,451, 397–399.
Gantert, T. (2011). Plagiarism double standards at Michigan State. CAPCON: Michigan Capital Confidential. Retrieved
from http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/14261
Garner, H. R. (2011). Combating unethical publications with plagiarism detection services. Urologic Oncology,29,
95–99.
Green, E. L. (2013, April 1). City schools ethics panel: And then there were four. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/
Green, E. L., & Wenger, Y. (2013, March 28). Towson professor investigated over allegations of plagiarism. The Baltimore
Sun. Retrieved from http://www.baltimoresun.com/
Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS
One,7, 1–15.
Long, T. C., Errami M., George A. C., Sun, Z, & Garner, H. R. (2009). Scientific integrity. Responding to possible
plagiarism. Science,323, 1293–1294.
Loui, M. C. (2002). Seven ways to plagiarize: Handling real allegations of misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics,
8, 529–539.
Martin, B. R. (2009). Research misconduct—does self-policing work? In W. Østreng (Ed.), Confluence.
Interdisciplinary communications 2007/2008 (pp. 59–69). Retrieved from http://www.cas.uio.no/Publications/
Seminar/Confluence_Martin.pdf
Martin, B. R., & other editors of Research Policy. (2007). Keeping plagiarism at bay—A salutary tale. Research Policy,
36, 905–911.
Office of Research Integrity. (2000, September 29). Final report: Analysis of institutional policies for responding to
allegations of scientific misconduct. Retrieved from http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/institutional_policies.pdf
Office of Research Integrity. (1993). How institutions have handled investigations of plagiarism, ORI/AAAS Conference
on Plagiarism and Theft of Ideas, Session 2, June 21–22, 1993. Retrieved from http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/aaas2.
pdf
Downloaded by [76.186.146.148] at 15:36 09 November 2014
ADVICE FOR PLAGIARISM WHISTLEBLOWERS 349
Office of Research Integrity. (1994). ORI policy on plagiarism. Retrieved from http://ori.dhhs.gov/ori-policy-plagiarism
Office of Research Integrity. (1995, October 30). Consequences of whistleblowing for the whistleblower in misconduct in
science cases. Retrieved from http://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/final.pdf
Rosamond, B. (2002). Plagiarism, academic norms and the governance of the profession. Politics,22, 167–174.
Sprague, R. L. (1993). Whistleblowing: A very unpleasant avocation. Ethics & Behavior,3, 103–133.
Sullivan, P., & Hardner, H. (2013, February 13). Econ professor Swart resigned due to plagiarism. Scarlet and Black.
Retrieved from http://www.thesandb.com/news/econ-professor-swart-resigned-due-to-plagiarism.html
Wager, E. (2011). How should editors respond to plagiarism? COPE discussion paper. Retrieved from http://
publicationethics.org/files/COPE_plagiarism_discussion_%20doc_26%20Apr%2011.pdf
Downloaded by [76.186.146.148] at 15:36 09 November 2014
