当前位置: X-MOL 学术Metaphilosophy › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Correcting the Scholarly Record in the Aftermath of Plagiarism: A Snapshot of Current-Day Publishing Practices in Philosophy
Metaphilosophy Pub Date : 2017-04-01 , DOI: 10.1111/meta.12241
M. V. Dougherty 1
Affiliation  

Individuals discovered to have engaged in serial plagiarism in philosophy are few, but the academic publishers falling victim to them are many. Some of the most respected publishing houses in philosophy have recently dealt with the problem of having published plagiarized material. The various responses by these publishers to an instance of serial plagiarism, one that involves forty-three articles and book chapters, provides a real-time snapshot of the practices for correcting the scholarly record. The analysis offered in this article yields a twofold conclusion: first, there is relatively little uniformity among publishers in philosophy for responding to plagiarism; and second, in comparison with the natural sciences the discipline of philosophy often falls short of the accepted practices for correcting the scholarly record. The article considers only public, documented cases of academic plagiarism in philosophy and makes no new allegations of plagiarism.

中文翻译:

纠正抄袭后的学术记录:当今哲学出版实践的快照

被发现在哲学领域连续抄袭的人很少,但成为受害者的学术出版商却很多。一些最受尊敬的哲学出版社最近处理了出版抄袭材料的问题。这些出版商对一个连载抄袭实例的各种回应,其中涉及 43 篇文章和书籍章节,提供了纠正学术记录实践的实时快照。本文提供的分析得出了双重结论:第一,出版商之间在应对抄袭的哲学上几乎没有统一性;第二,与自然科学相比,哲学学科常常达不到纠正学术记录的公认做法。
更新日期:2017-04-01
down
wechat
bug