Status of dossiers
Dossiers handled over the 9 months between 20 June 2016 and 20 March 2017
- During that 9-month period, the Institute received, on a weekly basis, an average of:
- 3 dossiers that involved deontological issues rather than plagiarism or fraud and so were not investigated
- 1 dossier that alleged plagiarism but was not handled by the Institute after our analysis revealed elements which could not be proven.
Cases investigated by the Institute since its creation on 18 June 2016: 23
A – In progress – cases where the Institue has contacted the authorities concerned: 2
B – In progress – cases where the protocol has been finalized and a letter of complaint sent to the authorities concerned: 4
C – On hold – cases where the protocol for establishing the facts has been explained to the whistleblower or complainant: 5
D – Cases closed after the Institute made contact with the authorities concerned: 4
E – Cases closed without direct action on the part of the Institute: 8
__________________________________________________________________________________
A – In progress – cases where the Institue has contacted the authorities concerned: 2
In these cases, the Chair wrote a letter to the authorities concerned (university presidents, publishers, co-authors, etc.).
A.1 A significant case of plagiarism spread out over several years. The whistleblower(s) required anonymity. The author involved was a well-known professor at a prestigious institution. The dossier put together by the whistleblower(s) included more than 180 pages, single-spaced, and covered several works. Discipline: mathematics.
A.2 A significant case of plagiarism spread out over several years. The whistleblower(s) required anonymity. The author involved was a political analyst who was well-known to the media and in academia. The dossier put together by the whistleblower(s) constituted more than 200 pages, single-spaced, and covered several works. Discipline: history and sociology.
B – In progress – cases where the protocol has been finalized and a letter of complaint sent to the authorities concerned: 4
In these cases, the letter disclosing the breaches of integrity was written by the complainant but the soundness of the underlying facts was verified by our experts. We also provided advice to the complainant on the steps that should be taken.
B.1 The case of a French-language thesis being plagiarized in an English-language category-C journal article by the author of the thesis. The facts were established and the complainant wrote to the publisher. There was no response from the publisher after two follow-ups. Discipline: finance.
B.2 A case where the structure and content of an article that was submitted to a journal closely resembled those of a chapter written by the complainant. These facts came to light as the article was going through the journal’s review process. It was not a case of textual plagiarism. A request was made for the article to be retracted. Discipline: law.
B.3 The case of a PhD thesis in law where the theoretical portion of the scope was largely “inspired” by a sociology thesis. The author of the sociology thesis requested that the president of the university involved withdraw the PhD. There was no reaction. The president of the sociologist’s university wrote to the public prosecutor’s office and was told that that office could only handle forgery and that the complainant had to be the one to file the complaint. Discipline: sociology.
B.4 The case of a professor who did not reveal the practices of another PhD candidate and their mutual supervisor until after she had left the country where she had received her PhD and found a job. The file was validated by our analysts and the complainant wrote to the head of research at the institution where she had received her PhD. The response was that as neither the complainant nor the alleged plagiarist worked with the institution, the case could not be brought before their disciplinary committee. The complainant turned to the justice system. Discipline: management.
C – On hold – cases where the protocol for establishing the facts has been explained to the whistleblower or complainant: 5
In these cases, we provided the complainant or the whistleblower with the protocol for establishing the facts. They then had to put together proof of the breaches of integrity that they had revealed, which would then be checked by our analysts. Then it was up to the Board to decide how it would get involved.
C.1 A case of alleged plagiarism by someone in the same institution as the person who wrote the original text. The case was submitted by a senior researcher at the institution. Discipline: geoscience.
C.2 The case of a work that was published, probably coming out a PhD thesis, and that used entire sections of a PhD thesis. Discipline: modern history.
C.3 The case of a teaching manual that had allegedly been plagiarized from a teaching manual that had not been published but was sold to students. Discipline: education.
C.4 The case of a journalist who wanted to expose “an eminent and knowledgeable librarian [who] published an investigation that used several elements that [the journalist] had published but who forgot to credit [the journalist].” Discipline: journalism.
C – 5 A probable case of plagiarism involving two English-language publications. The complainant was a relative of the alleged victim. Discipline: linguistics.
D – Cases closed after the Institute made contact with the authorities concerned: 4
In these cases, the protocol for establishing the facts was provided or validated by the Institute. A request for mediation is the sole outcome possible if there is an impasse, whether or not there are threats hanging over the complainant.
D.1 The case of a whistleblower threatened by the learned society to which he belonged. A university president wrote to the president of the university where the whistleblower worked revealing that the whistleblower had helped put together a dossier against a colleague. This defamatory letter was answered by the Institute, as was the refusal to go into the matter or inform the publishers involved. Discipline: medieval history.
D.2 The case of an text that had been translated by an freelance writer and translator and that was used by a university teacher in an academic publication. The alleged plagiarist received assistance from the university’s lawyers, who wrote a letter to the complainant and threatened to bring a lawsuit against him for defamation. Because of the threats and the severity of the letter, the Institute sent a firm response to the lawyer. However, because the article in question had been published in an internal university journal and was therefore not subject to rigorous ethical standards, it was not retracted. The complainant chose not to take the matter to court. Discipline: communications.
D.3 The case of a doctoral candidate who was finishing his thesis and discovered that his supervisor had used a significant portion one of its chapters several years earlier. After discussion, the Institute decided that the most important and urgent matter was for the thesis defense, which seemed compromised, to be able to go ahead. A firm letter was written to the thesis supervisor regarding the plagiarism that had been detected and a request for mediation was made. The thesis was successfully defended, was highly commended, and was considered for the institution’s thesis prize. Discipline: law.
D.4 An author filed a complaint with the ethics committee of the institution where he had received his PhD because, 4 years earlier, a research document (deposited at the national library) on which he was the first of 4 co-authors had been translated and published in a book by one of the other co-authors, who put his own name first. The book chapter did not refer to the prior document and none of the three other co-authors were aware of the change in the order of the authors. The ethics committee dismissed the complaint. The complainant appealed and was then threatened by the institution’s lawyer and prohibited from returning there. Through mediation, two co-authors were able to apologize to the first. The 4 co-authors then decided to turn the page and the institution’s administration cancelled the lawyer’s order. The ethics committee did not retract its decision. Discipline: management.
E – Cases closed without direct action on the part of the Institute: 8
In these cases, the protocol for establishing the facts was provided or validated by the Institute. The complainant wrote the letter notifying the relevant bodies of the charges and enclosed the report of the facts established.
E.1 Plagiarism of one thesis in another thesis. The victim–after receiving the assessment protocol and after the direct intervention of their thesis supervisor–informed us that “the person who I accuse of plagiarism has agreed not to publish the thesis in its current form with the publisher Perrin (where I knew they had a contract) and will only publish on my subject in Italy.” Discipline: contemporary history.
E.2 The case of a book published in English that plagiarized an article previously published in French. The American university where the alleged plagiarist worked set up an ad hoc committee that found no plagiarism and closed the file without giving the victim the opportunity to read the report. However, the American publisher suspended distribution of the book a few months later and waited for the author to insert footnotes with all the references to the prior works of the source author. Discipline: Near Eastern Studies.
E.3 The case of a thesis defended in the United States that partially plagiarized a thesis defended in French in Europe. The American university set up an investigating committee that heard the complainant over Skype. The university provided no further updates, saying the investigation was still in progress, although the publisher had withdrawn the book in dispute. Discipline: economics.
E.4 Plagiarism of a PhD thesis in a later PhD thesis. A “mediation” panel was put together. The thesis does not appear to have been revoked but the president of the university personally thanked Michelle Bergadaà. Discipline: information sciences.
E.5 The case of a publication with multiple authors where it was claimed that authors who had contributed significantly had not been named. This was a complex dossier given the large number of people and institutions involved. Acting on advice from the Institute, it appears that a lawsuit is in progress. Discipline: medicine.
E.6 The case of an article being published that contained substantial portions of an article already published in another journal. The editor-in-chief contacted us, we recommended that the article be withdrawn, that the publisher make a formal apology to the victims (authors and readers) who had been deceived, and that the information be shared. This was done, and the offender was also banned from the society that puts out the journal for two years. Discipline: medicine.
E.7 The case submitted by a young researcher who noticed significant similarities between her thesis and a colleague’s more recent thesis. The university where he filed the complaint rejected it without possibility of appeal. Text comparison tables did not show any textual plagiarism. We advised the complainant not to continue. Discipline: history.
E.8 The case of an article in a Category B journal that did not cite prior works, thereby demonstrating a “deliberate omission of essential contributions of other authors on the same subject.” The Board’s advice is that a precise commentary be published by the complainants in another journal. Discipline: geoscience.