Plagiarism in Economics | The RePEc Blog

Plagiarism in Economics | The RePEc Blog
The RePEc Blog
Information about Research Papers in Economics (RePEc)
Plagiarism in Economics
We are all aware that plagiarism exists, and RePEc has helped expose quite a few cases through its open bibliographies. But sanctions for plagiarism are rather limited. An offended party may complain with the administration of the accused offender, in some cases without consequences, and in others with sanctions that can lead to dismissal. But the now convicted offender may simply take a new job as if nothing happened, the new employer being oblivious to what happened.
Economics does not have an ethics board that could deal with such cases beyond the current employer of an accused offender. There is now a proposal to create a committee dedicated to plagiarism. This committee would examine cases and vote on sanctions which may go all the way to publicly exposing the plagiarist. A group of volunteers have are discussed a simple set of procedures. Over the next month, the plan is to solicit comments from the public through this blog and call for further volunteers to participate in the committee. After that the committee would become active and deal with any new plagiarism cases that come to its attention. Please contact any current member to participate.
To view the current proposal and committee members, see a simple and bare bones site at
plagiarism.repec.org
. The committee awaits your reaction. Beyond comments, you can also vote your reaction below.
Share this:
Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Share on X (Opens in new window)
Like
Loading...
Related
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 16th, 2011 at 2:20 am and is filed under
Economics Profession
. You can follow any responses to this entry through the
RSS 2.0
feed.
You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
from your own site.
8 Responses to
Plagiarism in Economics
sterndavidi
says:
February 16, 2011 at 4:20 am
The threshold for plagiarism needs to be clearly defined. Some plagiarism is simply sloppy quoting and citing of others work within an otherwise original paper. At the other extreme a whole paper might be essentially ripped off with varying degrees of alteration. I don’t think the first should have any sanctions but such material might be removed from RePEc if it was thought to be a problem. The latter should require some kind of sanction as everyone knows this is wrong.
Alexia Gaudeul
says:
February 16, 2011 at 10:44 am
Great idea. However, in “procedures”, you say “Only case where both the plagiarising and plagiarised works are listed on RePEc will be considered.”
What about papers published on RePEc that are ripped off from articles published elsewhere, or articles published elsewhere ripped off from RePEc?
I do think this should also come under your remit. Why do you choose to only consider cases where both papers were published on RePEc?
Christian Zimmermann
says:
February 16, 2011 at 11:58 pm
David: this is why a two-thirds majority is required for a sanction.
Alexia: We do not really know how many cases will come to light. We may relax requirements in the future.
chatterjeeecon
says:
March 8, 2011 at 8:53 am
Yes, its a long overdue, so go on…
Taking on this opportunity to quote a few things on the topics of plagiarism, I would first and foremost say that, plagiarism is an offence rather crime an aspect similar in grade to piracy or counterfeiting. When someone has put in some great effort to set some original ideas or conceived some novel ideas, and then, when it is copied, there occurs a breach of copyright or violations, or simply, “copyfraud”-according to a paper published. Thus in general, it is a genuine breach of conduct on the part of the agent who just simply “copy-and-paste” the original work without even contributing anything to the development of the parent idea(s), or, citing as such.
However, as sterndavidi mentions above, there still remains much idiosyncrasy in defining what truly plagiarism is, or, to what extent a term plagiarism needs to be ascribed (stamped) on a violator to underwrite a work as “plagiaristic, rather, imitative.” I want to shed some thoughts on this matter personally:
To define the true context of plagiarism, as “a confidence of trust bestowed upon us against true violation and breach of such empowered on the peers while working on intellectual property, as it is indeed be described as an “art and piece of academic work” undertaken thereof by these agent(s), and anyone who, intentionally and knowingly that the work or ideas improved or conceived by someone prior to him or her, and with this contextual state of knowledge in mind, reproduces similar work without citing the original contributor, and without obtaining permission to reproduce such content, is but, a plagiarist.”-
But as indeed, here is some caveat: All works of intellectuality involves genuine cost of search, innovation, and execution which in some countries defined as developing, may take a heavy toll on individual researcher(s) and innovators, although nobody sends chariots or ask them to undertake such endeavor. It is, rather, not in one’s own sake but for the sake or benefit of peers or her citizens that her expressions of freedom of “thoughts and ideas” suppressed through the ages due to political disorientations or lack of information sources might have prevented her to express her views and ideas in complete.
Notwithstanding these externalities, some genuine researcher(s) conceive ideas that in some tune, mimic or reproduce unintentionally or uncovetously, since, the researcher may not be able to bear the search cost to the fuller extent (if they are undertaking such research without supportive measures); or in some aspect, is not aware of such work been done in past, and thus is a severe drawback on the part of these agents to be looked upon. The individual thus seems to fall in a kind of “deferential trap”: a dilemma of what is defined and what should be defined. So, in that case, if any similarities does arise in published works, that needs to be pointed out first, and if undeterred, to be dealt/removed later. As such, ascribing to such efforts as plagiarism needs to be reevaluated on these contexts. It is rational however, to think that with the spread of globalization and availability of more free information, one needs to be careful enough to avoid such in restlessness while undertaking such initiatives.
And for the other part, which also needs to be looked upon, is random “copyfraud”, and be strictly dealt with, since, it takes much effort for the part of the agent(s) who really conceive novel ideas, and quite contemptuous if such efforts are copied randomly without contributing anything to the originality, or properly citing the owners’ efforts and obtaining prior permissions. Off course, we do not want to endeavor to allow flourish such a crooked domain as plagiarists paradise.
Thank You,
Sidharta Chatterjee
Christian Zimmermann
says:
March 21, 2011 at 2:07 am
The committee, based on the feedback received, has decided to go “live” now. Also, the number of members has increased to 21, showing that many people care about plagiarism and are willing to do something about it.
ccllaarriissaa
says:
June 15, 2013 at 1:16 pm
I read a complaint was filed that was regarded important by the committee but it was rejected because it was filed anonymously:
The whole thing has been out for quite a while and is well documented in the wiki
with evidence on numerous cases published in dozens of journals, involving 20 authors. What does it say about our discipline if nobody dares to come forward and submit this non-anonymously and no action is taken?
Christian Zimmermann
says:
June 25, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Sorry for the delay in approving your message, I was in China with no access to the blogging platform.
It was felt by many on the committee that it should not become a conduit for anonymos accusations. We guarantee the anonymity of the submitter, if requested, but we want a real person to bring the case to the table. We hope this small cost will prevent the committee from being overburdened by cases that are not worth pursuing.
This says nothing about the merits of the case that is described. My understanding is that the relevant journals have been contacted, and the committee would take on the case if the journals are not reaching a conclusion, and somebody submits the case. We are not activiely seeking work.
ccllaarriissaa
says:
September 24, 2013 at 5:28 pm
Thank you for your answer. Journalist Olaf Storbeck wrote about the self-plagiarism in the press, so it’s not just an anonymous complaint. You find ample evidence in the google docs document he compiled. The freyplag website covers further cases, now also very obvious ones, unrelated to the previously mentioned authors and including plagiarism not only from their own papers.
English)
Leave a comment
About this blog
Welcome to the RePEc blog. We, the RePEc team, discuss here the workings of RePEc and seek input from the community on how we can improve. We also want to give more volunteers opportunity to be part of this project and provide valuable services to the profession. Finally, we also discuss issues about the dissemination of research in Economics.
Follow Blog via Email
Join 450 other subscribers
Search the RePEc blog
RePEc
RePEc homepage
FAQs and help
Open your local RePEc archive
Participating archives
RePEc team
Suggestion box
Volunteer opportunities
Core RePEc services
CitEc
citation analysis
CollEc
coauthorship network
EconPapers
bibliography
EDIRC
institution authority
IDEAS
bibliography
NEP
paper announcements
Rankings
RePEc Author Service
author authority
RePEc Biblio
curated bibligraphy
RePEc Genealogy
academic family tree
Authors
annaoates
bbatiz
Soledad Zignago
Bill Goffe
Ekkehart Schlicht
Jose Manuel Barrueco
Kit Baum
Thomas Krichel
Christian Zimmermann
repecblogguest
Sergey Parinov
Sune Karlsson
Archives
April 2026
(1)
March 2026
(2)
February 2026
(1)
January 2026
(1)
December 2025
(1)
November 2025
(2)
October 2025
(1)
September 2025
(1)
August 2025
(1)
July 2025
(1)
June 2025
(1)
May 2025
(1)
April 2025
(1)
March 2025
(1)
February 2025
(2)
January 2025
(1)
December 2024
(1)
November 2024
(1)
October 2024
(1)
September 2024
(1)
August 2024
(1)
July 2024
(2)
June 2024
(1)
May 2024
(1)
April 2024
(1)
March 2024
(1)
February 2024
(1)
January 2024
(1)
December 2023
(1)
November 2023
(1)
October 2023
(1)
September 2023
(1)
August 2023
(1)
July 2023
(1)
June 2023
(1)
May 2023
(1)
April 2023
(2)
March 2023
(1)
February 2023
(3)
January 2023
(1)
December 2022
(2)
November 2022
(2)
October 2022
(1)
September 2022
(3)
August 2022
(2)
July 2022
(2)
June 2022
(1)
May 2022
(3)
April 2022
(2)
March 2022
(3)
February 2022
(3)
January 2022
(2)
December 2021
(2)
November 2021
(2)
October 2021
(2)
September 2021
(2)
August 2021
(1)
July 2021
(2)
June 2021
(2)
May 2021
(2)
April 2021
(2)
March 2021
(3)
February 2021
(2)
January 2021
(1)
December 2020
(2)
November 2020
(2)
October 2020
(2)
September 2020
(2)
August 2020
(3)
July 2020
(1)
June 2020
(2)
May 2020
(2)
April 2020
(2)
March 2020
(3)
February 2020
(1)
January 2020
(3)
December 2019
(2)
November 2019
(2)
October 2019
(3)
September 2019
(2)
August 2019
(1)
July 2019
(2)
June 2019
(1)
May 2019
(2)
April 2019
(3)
March 2019
(2)
February 2019
(1)
January 2019
(3)
December 2018
(1)
November 2018
(2)
October 2018
(2)
September 2018
(2)
August 2018
(1)
July 2018
(1)
June 2018
(2)
May 2018
(1)
April 2018
(3)
March 2018
(1)
February 2018
(2)
January 2018
(2)
December 2017
(1)
November 2017
(2)
October 2017
(2)
September 2017
(2)
August 2017
(2)
July 2017
(2)
June 2017
(2)
May 2017
(2)
April 2017
(3)
March 2017
(2)
February 2017
(2)
January 2017
(2)
December 2016
(1)
November 2016
(2)
October 2016
(2)
September 2016
(2)
August 2016
(2)
July 2016
(2)
June 2016
(3)
May 2016
(2)
April 2016
(2)
March 2016
(2)
February 2016
(2)
January 2016
(3)
December 2015
(2)
November 2015
(2)
October 2015
(2)
September 2015
(2)
August 2015
(2)
July 2015
(2)
June 2015
(1)
May 2015
(3)
April 2015
(2)
March 2015
(1)
February 2015
(2)
January 2015
(4)
December 2014
(5)
November 2014
(4)
October 2014
(3)
September 2014
(3)
August 2014
(2)
July 2014
(3)
June 2014
(2)
May 2014
(3)
April 2014
(1)
March 2014
(2)
February 2014
(2)
January 2014
(3)
December 2013
(2)
November 2013
(3)
October 2013
(4)
September 2013
(3)
August 2013
(3)
July 2013
(2)
June 2013
(2)
May 2013
(1)
April 2013
(3)
March 2013
(3)
February 2013
(3)
January 2013
(2)
December 2012
(2)
November 2012
(3)
October 2012
(2)
September 2012
(3)
August 2012
(3)
July 2012
(3)
June 2012
(2)
May 2012
(3)
April 2012
(3)
March 2012
(4)
February 2012
(3)
January 2012
(2)
December 2011
(2)
November 2011
(2)
October 2011
(2)
September 2011
(2)
August 2011
(3)
July 2011
(2)
June 2011
(2)
May 2011
(1)
April 2011
(2)
March 2011
(1)
February 2011
(2)
January 2011
(2)
December 2010
(1)
November 2010
(2)
October 2010
(2)
September 2010
(2)
August 2010
(4)
July 2010
(2)
June 2010
(2)
May 2010
(3)
April 2010
(4)
March 2010
(4)
February 2010
(4)
January 2010
(5)
December 2009
(4)
November 2009
(4)
October 2009
(4)
September 2009
(4)
August 2009
(4)
July 2009
(4)
June 2009
(4)
May 2009
(5)
April 2009
(4)
March 2009
(4)
February 2009
(4)
January 2009
(4)
December 2008
(4)
November 2008
(4)
October 2008
(3)
September 2008
(3)
August 2008
(4)
July 2008
(4)
June 2008
(4)
May 2008
(4)
April 2008
(6)
March 2008
(5)
February 2008
(4)
January 2008
(5)
December 2007
(7)
November 2007
(7)
October 2007
(5)
Categories
Bibliographic features in RePEc
Dissemination of research in Economics
Economics Profession
Going off on a tangent
Open Access
Open Archives
RePEc blog policy
RePEc features
RePEc policy discussion
RePEc rankings
RePEc volunteers
Temporary RePEc announcements
Uncategorized
Use of RePEc data
Workings of RePEc
Recent Posts
RePEc in March 2026
Polls regarding self-citations and field determination in RePEc
RePEc in February 2026
RePEc in January 2026
RePEc in December 2025, and a look back at 2025
RePEc in November 2025
RePEc in October 2025
AI issues in RePEc
RePEc in September 2025
RePEc in August 2025
RePEc in July 2025
RePEc in June 2025
RePEc in May 2025
RePEc in April 2025
RePEc in March 2025
NEP Blogs
NEP-ARA: Economics of the MENA - Middle East and North Africa
NEP-DGE: Dynamic General Equilibrium
NEP-HIS: Business, Economic and Financial History
NEP-INT: International Trade
NEP-LTV: Unemployment, Inequality and Poverty
NEP-OPM: Open Macroeconomics
NEP-PAY: The Cashless Society
Comment policy
To post a comment, you need to be registered with this blog with a valid email address. Your first comment may be delayed for verification purposes. Note: you may need to create a new account if your old one predated the
move to our new blog service
Recent Comments
Jimmy Reddy on
Bob Parks (1946-2025), the Internet pioneer of economics
GINSBURGH Victor on
RePEc in May 2024
Willy Schuettelbier on
RePEc in September 2023
Christian Zimmermann
on
RePEc in September 2023
Willy Schuettelbier on
RePEc in September 2023
Christian Zimmermann
on
RePEc in September 2023
Willy Schuettelbier on
RePEc in September 2023
Christian Zimmermann
on
RePEc in July 2022
apriliakinanti
on
RePEc in July 2022
abdulwasayimperiumdynamicscom on
How to create a (good) PDF
Meta
Create account
Entries feed
Comments feed
WordPress.com
Blog at WordPress.com.
Comment
Reblog
Subscribed
The RePEc Blog
Already have a WordPress.com account?
Log in now.
The RePEc Blog
Subscribed
Copy shortlink
Report this content
View post in Reader
Manage subscriptions
Collapse this bar
%d