Affiliation:
1. Ohio Dominican University Columbus, OH USA
Abstract
Abstract
This article documents how a serial plagiarism case discovered over a decade ago continues to generate negative effects in the downstream research on medieval and early modern philosophy. The ongoing positive citation of the 40 plagiarizing articles and book chapters – including those retracted by their publishers – affects the reliability of later scholarship in several ways. The present state of affairs is the joint result of authors, editors, peer reviewers, and publishers who continue to allow (and in some cases, support) the publication of new works across a variety of genres that contain positive citations to the 40 plagiarizing articles and book chapters. The problem shows no signs of abating; the plagiarizing articles and book chapters continue to acquire positive citations in new publications, including authoritative reference works. The breach of research standards is further shown by the fact that even a non-existent publication by the plagiarist continues to acquire positive citations.
Reference86 articles.
1. Peter Abailard, Sic et Non: A Critical Edition, eds. B. B. Boyer and R. McKeon (Chicago, 1977).
2. Anderson, M. “Telling the Same Story of Nietzsche’s Life.” Journal of Nietzsche Studies 42 (2011), 105–120.
3. Athanasopoulos, P. C. “Georgios Gennadios Scholarios’ On the Difference of Venial and Mortal Sins and Its Thomistic Background.” Revue des Études Byzantines 76 (2018), 167–203.
4. Avenell, A., M. J. Bolland, G. D. Gamble, and A. Grey. “A Randomized Trial Alerting Authors, With or without Coauthors or Editors, That Research They Cited in Systematic Reviews and Guidelines has been Retracted.” Accountability in Research (2022), url = https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2082290.
5. Bar-Ilan, J., and G. Halevi. “Post Retraction Citations in Context: A Case Study.” Scientometrics 113 (2017), 547–565.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献