I'm an assistant professor in the humanities-- graduated a few years back, got a TT job, and since then have been working to revise portions of my dissertation in article format. I'm also juggling other research projects and a heavy teaching load, so it's taken me a few years to get back to some portions of the diss.
Today, in working on a revise-and-resubmit of one of my diss-based articles ("A"), I found that another article ("B") had been published a few months ago, on the same general topic. Looking over the article, it uses all the same major sources and presents a thesis which is identical to a portion of my central argument in "A".
"B" is apparently also a revised dissertation chapter; its author graduated much more recently than I did, and my dissertation would have been filed and readily available for public consultation, first in random circulating drafts/conference abstracts, then in the university library and subsequently in our online archive, during the time that "B" was being written.
I don't want to be uncharitable and assume plagiarism; it's possible that the ideas were "in the air" and we're having a kind of Darwin/Wallace moment here. If there's a question of priority, I'm clearly on the record as having been first to write up these ideas, at least in dissertation form. Since both I and the author of "B" are apparently actively trying to publish similar material, though, I'd love some advice on the following questions:
- -- Does the fact that "B"-author published their article first mean that I must now cite "B" in my draft of "A"? If so, is also citing my (clearly earlier-dated, copyrighted, formally filed) dissertation sufficient to clarify that these ideas are, indeed, original and mine? Would any of this have possible impact on the publishability of "A" for the journal?
-- How much do I now need to slim down my coverage of the "B"-overlapping portions? My article includes a lot of additional material not covered in "B", but the balance of the thing works better with a thorough treatment of the "B"-portions of the thesis, as well.
--Do I contact "B"-author, with a link to my dissertation, to note the overlap in content? Because I'm in a teaching-heavy position, it's quite possible "B"-author will end up getting around to the book version of this before I do. If so, I would definitely like to be cited in said book. However, I don't want to put "B"-author on the defensive or prompt them to try aggressive countermeasures that might interfere with the publication of "A" (which I need for my tenure file!).
Any suggestions would be much appreciated! Thanks!
Something similar happened with me many years back, also in humanities. I rewrote part of my dissertation and sent it to a journal. The editor vaguely suggested I was plagiarizing because another author published the same ideas in a very recent article I had not read. I told him that my dissertation was first by over 10 years, but he still was not
interested in my work or dissertation. My diss. was unpublished, so the editor had no reason to care about it. I was very annoyed but nothing I could do.
I think the other author should cite your diss but is not really obliged because it is unpublished. I may be wrong. You should cite his/her work if you publish your article. Maybe you could slightly change it so it looks new.Try contacting through email if you can. He or she may be gracious about it or snub you. It is sort of like author B got the patent first.
You add a footnote that says, "B's work was published just as I was readying my final draft. On [topic] and [topic], now see also B [reference]." You might also pare down the part that is most similar, as it is no longer new and cutting-edge, and beef up whatever parts are less similar — for one thing, that will make it more attractive to journals.
The whole point of publishing is to add something new to the world. If your work is similar and is saying the same thing in the same way, you're just out of luck, IMO. If you can put your own spin on it, then cite the published work and do that.
This kind of thing happens a lot. You have to be quick to publish: You say you graduated "a few years back" but you're only just getting articles out of it now? You've got to find a way to be quicker in your writing and publishing.
Should you contact the person? That depends--I'd personally contact them and ask them if they want to collaborate, given you've got this work you want to get out, and it's on something they are also interested in. Perhaps together you can put together a book? You can just make them aware of your dissertation, but I would just move onto something new if I were you.
I'm not in the humanities, so things could be different, but:
1) You should definitely cite their work as well as your thesis. I would not specifically say that you thought of it first, just cite both and allow the dates say it for you (for anyone looking that closely).
2) I dont actually see any evidence of plagiarism here. It is quite possible that they independently came to the same conclusions. A while ago I developed a thingamajig and reported it to my university to see if it was patentable. During their review to look for prior art they came across another thingamajig out there that was quite similar. I had never seen this thingamajig, but independently developed the same concept (with several variations), because it was a good idea. If the inventor saw my thingamajig, they would likely think that I stole their concept, but that would be a false conclusion despite the similarities. So, unless they copies text from your thesis verbatim, I dont think there is any recourse and you dont even know that they have read it. Regardless, I would simply submit your article and get working on the next...
Also not in the humanities, but in my experience we tend to
a) Over-estimate how unique our ideas are. After all, we used past work to come up with our ideas, so other people can too.
b) Over-estimate how close a "scooping" paper is to our own, at least at first read. Pretty much every time I've had an oh-no someone scooped us reaction to seeing a title/abstract, further detailed reading revealed that there were substantial differences.
I know this doesn't apply to the OP, but for those of us in the sciences
Quote from: pedanticromantic on July 02, 2019, 12:57:18 PM
The whole point of publishing is to add something new to the world.
doesn't fully apply, if by this you mean show something brand new-- as we've learned the hard way, insisting on "novelty" is a recipe for non-replication. Sometimes replication (and extension ideally) should be the goal.
You need to get a copy of the other person's dissertation and check whether that person plagiarized yours.
Thanks for the feedback, all! My current article has a substantial amount of material not covered by B, and toward the end of their article they take a turn that I find questionable, so I think I should be able to highlight those differences in footnotes and still make a novel contribution in my MS.
I am irritated because in truth, B is just not a very good article. There are a number of points and source discussions that I had developed very carefully, with a lot of attention to evidence and form, because I knew they were very new ideas and would need explaining; but B just tosses them all together perfunctorily and with a dubious spin on some of the material. So it will be annoying if the shoddy B version of these ideas scrapes all the novelty off and makes it impossible to get my (earlier!) more careful version out there.
I don't think I would suspect plagiarism if it weren't for the online availability of the dissertation and the fact that I presented relevant portions at conferences this person could easily have attended early in their doctoral studies. It could just be happenstance, but I would still like a citation if they publish this as a book. Does the fact that my dissertation is copyrighted (as I believe they all are in the US), filed with ProQuest, and freely available online make a difference?
I think they are obligated to reference anything that can easily be found, and thus that they probably did find, but chose to ignore because it would have involved ILL or something and they didn't want to
make the effort. I doubt most reviewers or editors would enforce this.
1. Whatever transpired with them and your research, you're justified in citing as "My Dissertation (2014); Their Article (2017)." In most humanities subfields, I think people would grasp the situation pretty quickly.
2. I agree with the other poster who suggested you go ahead and obtain a copy of their dissertation and check for actual plagiarism.
It's possible that they plagiarized, but also possible that they didn't.
A while ago I was writing a book on, let's say, X, a very distinct subject. I was about three-fourths of the way through when I got an email from a scholar I didn't know, saying, "So-and-so said you were working on X too — so am I, I've just started a book on it — do you want to take a look at the chapter I've written?" So I looked at the chapter and I said, 'Unfortunately, not only is this the exact same subject, but I see you've used works A, B, and C, and I'd predict that you're about to use D, E, and F." And the other scholar said, "Oh no! You're right, I've already got D, E, and F in the draft of my next chapter!"
So basically what we did was agree to divide up the subject — I said, "I've already worked on D, E, and F, but I'm not addressing R, S and U at all — do you want to tackle them?" And so we agreed.
I realize you're not in contact with this other scholar, but this is just to show how, once you've started a certain subject, the evidence, development, and angles tend to be predictable, and two scholars working independently could come up with similar work.
Since the other scholar in your case didn't develop the ideas very well, you can certainly improve on their work by developing those ideas carefully yourself.
Quote from: Hegemony on July 02, 2019, 12:07:20 PM
You add a footnote that says, "B's work was published just as I was readying my final draft. On [topic] and [topic], now see also B [reference]." You might also pare down the part that is most similar, as it is no longer new and cutting-edge, and beef up whatever parts are less similar — for one thing, that will make it more attractive to journals.
This.
And, of course, it's obvious why we encourage new PhDs to get their dissertation article(s) out as soon as possible.
Quote from: octoprof on July 03, 2019, 04:10:50 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on July 02, 2019, 12:07:20 PM
You add a footnote that says, "B's work was published just as I was readying my final draft. On [topic] and [topic], now see also B [reference]." You might also pare down the part that is most similar, as it is no longer new and cutting-edge, and beef up whatever parts are less similar — for one thing, that will make it more attractive to journals.
This.
And, of course, it's obvious why we encourage new PhDs to get their dissertation article(s) out as soon as possible.
Being so explicit seems a little off-putting to me, kind of like making some excuse where none is required. At the end of the day, it was published first, so I would just cite it (and your thesis) as appropriate. Anyone reading it will see the dates etc.
I definitely agree to expand on the areas that make sense and perhaps dial down what they did cover well.
Quote from: Puget on July 02, 2019, 02:41:08 PM
I know this doesn't apply to the OP, but for those of us in the sciences
Quote from: pedanticromantic on July 02, 2019, 12:57:18 PM
The whole point of publishing is to add something new to the world.
doesn't fully apply, if by this you mean show something brand new-- as we've learned the hard way, insisting on "novelty" is a recipe for non-replication. Sometimes replication (and extension ideally) should be the goal.
It depends what you mean by new and "fully apply", but I work in the sciences and the humanities, and it applies for both--something has to be new, otherwise it's not worth publishing! Even if that new thing is a critique of an old thing (commoner in the humanities), that's the new part. In sciences, your approach, your data, but not necessarily your results are new. Replication is still adding something new when it comes to the sciences--because you are adding new data.
Quote from: pedanticromantic on July 03, 2019, 06:35:35 AM
Quote from: Puget on July 02, 2019, 02:41:08 PM
I know this doesn't apply to the OP, but for those of us in the sciences
Quote from: pedanticromantic on July 02, 2019, 12:57:18 PM
The whole point of publishing is to add something new to the world.
doesn't fully apply, if by this you mean show something brand new-- as we've learned the hard way, insisting on "novelty" is a recipe for non-replication. Sometimes replication (and extension ideally) should be the goal.
It depends what you mean by new and "fully apply", but I work in the sciences and the humanities, and it applies for both--something has to be new, otherwise it's not worth publishing! Even if that new thing is a critique of an old thing (commoner in the humanities), that's the new part. In sciences, your approach, your data, but not necessarily your results are new. Replication is still adding something new when it comes to the sciences--because you are adding new data.
I'm happy to accept this definition of "new"--
This maybe should be a separate thread*, but I just wanted to highlight the dangers of the long history of considering replications "not new" and thus unworthy of publication in top journals, whereas unexpected effects were considered "novel" and thus worthy of such publication. This set up perverse incentives that really distorted the scientific literature and from which we are only just beginning to recover.
* In fact, I'll start one.
In my social sciences fields, I've seen lots of redundant work across different journals, book chapters, and entire monographs. An article appears in one journal; a year later, someone else publishes much the same in another journal, often not citing the first article. Or a young scholar claims to create a new concept but it was already published by someone else under a different label 10-20 years prior. It's increasingly common for people not to cite relevant works due to laziness, ignorance, and/or deliberate intent to ignore other works. More competition than collegiality.
Observe pedanticromantic's and octoprof's advice to move faster on getting your work out if you don't want to be scooped.
Submit your manuscript. Don't send it to the same journal that published B's article.
Quote from: JFlanders on July 01, 2019, 02:58:17 PM
- -- Does the fact that "B"-author published their article first mean that I must now cite "B" in my draft of "A"? If so, is also citing my (clearly earlier-dated, copyrighted, formally filed) dissertation sufficient to clarify that these ideas are, indeed, original and mine? Would any of this have possible impact on the publishability of "A" for the journal?
-- How much do I now need to slim down my coverage of the "B"-overlapping portions? My article includes a lot of additional material not covered in "B", but the balance of the thing works better with a thorough treatment of the "B"-portions of the thesis, as well.
--Do I contact "B"-author, with a link to my dissertation, to note the overlap in content? Because I'm in a teaching-heavy position, it's quite possible "B"-author will end up getting around to the book version of this before I do. If so, I would definitely like to be cited in said book. However, I don't want to put "B"-author on the defensive or prompt them to try aggressive countermeasures that might interfere with the publication of "A" (which I need for my tenure file!).
1. Yes--but do it thusly, either in your text or footnotes: [Me] has suggested this idea in 2007 [cite your diss]. B made a similar argument in 2009 [cite]."
2. Not at all.
3. I wouldn't--but maybe?
When I earned my Ph.D. in Canada, the government instituted the requirement that all dissertations be freely available online. (The rationale was that every student and institution received substantial state support.) The internet was still pretty new, and students squawked that this would both hinder publication, and encourage scooping. In the end, it was agreed to have a time-lag, attempting to satisfy everybody.
In a case like the O.P.'s, the public dissemination of the dissertation would also be a kind of priority claim.
dc
Quote from: Puget on July 02, 2019, 02:41:08 PM
Also not in the humanities, but in my experience we tend to
a) Over-estimate how unique our ideas are. After all, we used past work to come up with our ideas, so other people can too.
b) Over-estimate how close a "scooping" paper is to our own, at least at first read. Pretty much every time I've had an oh-no someone scooped us reaction to seeing a title/abstract, further detailed reading revealed that there were substantial differences.
Ding Ding Ding. Puget just scooped me. Just as true in the humanities. Academia is a small world and all of us end up following trends in scholarship. People are reading the same new books and going to the same conferences. It isn't really that weird that two people come up with similar ideas. And yeah, once you look at it again you might find that there are some big differences in the topic and approach.
How much of a problem this is really depends on the details of the research and argument. If your project relies heavily on a particular set of sources that scholars have not used before you might have a problem. Publishers might not want to publish the second book in two years about John Donne's previously unknown letters to his mistress. However, if you're using sources that have been used before, it might be less of a big deal, especially if you can emphasize all the ways that your work differs from this other thing. There's probably room for two books about Shakespeare and Tudor politics, even if they use some of the same sources and make some similar points.
A new colleague of mine (who is wonderful!) has told me multiple times that their ideas have been stolen and published after they presented them at a conference. I am not sure what to make of this.
Quote from: larryc on October 23, 2019, 12:02:56 PM
A new colleague of mine (who is wonderful!) has told me multiple times that their ideas have been stolen and published after they presented them at a conference. I am not sure what to make of this.
It's possible, but it is also just as likely (IMO) that others were already working in the same direction. Most people I know mostly present work at conferences that is close enough to publishing that it would be unlikely to give anyone enough time to scoop it, which seems like sound reasoning.
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 23, 2019, 12:15:43 PM
Quote from: larryc on October 23, 2019, 12:02:56 PM
A new colleague of mine (who is wonderful!) has told me multiple times that their ideas have been stolen and published after they presented them at a conference. I am not sure what to make of this.
It's possible, but it is also just as likely (IMO) that others were already working in the same direction. Most people I know mostly present work at conferences that is close enough to publishing that it would be unlikely to give anyone enough time to scoop it, which seems like sound reasoning.
Also what's the line between stealing someone's work and being inspired by it. If I go to a conference and as part of someone's paper, I learn about some source I was unaware of, but is relevant to my work, am I not allowed to go to the archives and use it? Obviously, it would be appropriate and good manners for me to put a footnote in that acknowledges my debt to the presenter in this situation. But really this is what conferences are supposed to be for. Otherwise, they are just places for people to add lines to their C.V and have awkward interactions with other awkward people.
Quote from: Kron3007 on July 03, 2019, 06:07:54 AM
Quote from: octoprof on July 03, 2019, 04:10:50 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on July 02, 2019, 12:07:20 PM
You add a footnote that says, "B's work was published just as I was readying my final draft. On [topic] and [topic], now see also B [reference]." You might also pare down the part that is most similar, as it is no longer new and cutting-edge, and beef up whatever parts are less similar — for one thing, that will make it more attractive to journals.
This.
And, of course, it's obvious why we encourage new PhDs to get their dissertation article(s) out as soon as possible.
Being so explicit seems a little off-putting to me, kind of like making some excuse where none is required. At the end of the day, it was published first, so I would just cite it (and your thesis) as appropriate. Anyone reading it will see the dates etc.
I definitely agree to expand on the areas that make sense and perhaps dial down what they did cover well.
I also wouldn't include the phrase "while I was readying my final draft." Just cite your dissertation and the newer paper.