Summary, December SGE Monthly Luncheon
Summary of Remarks by Professor Gary Hoover,
“Plagiarism in the Economics Profession”
By Steven Payson, National Institutes of Health _
Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of the National Institutes of Health)
At the December Society of Government Economists monthly luncheon, Dr. Gary Hoover, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Alabama, presented his latest work on plagiarism in economics. Dr. Hoover discussed the findings of a series of papers (co-authored with Professor Enders of the University of Alabama) that have appeared in the Journal of Economic Literature (2004) the Atlantic Economic Journal (2006) and in Challenge (2006). Their findings are from a survey they conducted of editors of economic journals, and another survey of professional economists in academia, government, and private industry.
Of the approximately 110 editor responses, Professor Hoover noted that “nearly 24 percent of responding editors encounter one case of plagiarism in a typical year. In addition … less than 19 percent of responding journals have a formal policy regarding plagiarism.” He found that the proportion of plagiarized economists was at 32 percent among those who received their doctoral degrees in the 1990s.
Among Professor Hoover’s results: “I find that respondents are not aware of the distinction between copyright infringement and plagiarism. … risk of damage to one’s reputation from plagiarizing is minimal since most cases go unreported.” In fact, in one of his papers he develops “a simple model to show that it is rational for individuals in the economics profession who want to plagiarize to engage in this activity, given current incentives.” With regard to finding a solution to this problem, Professor Hoover concluded that “respondents were split over whether the economics profession would benefit from a professional code of ethics, although rank-and-file economists were more in favor.”
In addition to discussing plagiarism in economics, Professor Hoover mentioned similar issues that he described as being “much more common.” These included situations where the same authors rewrite their articles in a slightly different form, or recycle and piece-together substantive portions of previously written articles, and pass them off as new papers for publication in other journals. Professor Hoover explained that such behavior is not plagiarism, since the same author is involved. However, it is likely to be a violation of the copyright agreements that authors sign with their publishers. A similar situation occurs when an author renames a published paper and has it published by a lesser-known journal. Since these additional publications are likely to have a different audience, authors are able to expand their publication counts without repercussions. Another example, where individuals may be credited for authorship that they did not deserve, is the situation in which there are multiple authors, but some of the authors may not have contributed significantly to the work.
On a positive note, however, Professor Hoover remarked that “such practices eventually become transparent.” He quipped, “George Stigler, one of my professors in graduate school, was once asked why he’d ‘only’ written 70 or so articles while a colleague of his at that time had written hundreds. Stigler’s response was ‘Ah, but mine are all different.’”
Hoover quoted several candid statements that were made by various authors, journal editors, and other economists regarding their experiences with plagiarism or similar issues. Some of these statements were quite revealing. For example, he mentioned that one author, who felt s/he was plagiarized, remarked, “I complained to my colleagues and to members of my committee but nothing was done. I since found out that this reputed academic is a habitual offender.” Another author said, “I contacted the journal, sending along copies of the sections of my dissertation that closely mirrored text from the article. I received no response. The editor I contacted claimed later that he had never received this material.”
Hoover also asked survey respondents whether they would be in favor of an established code of ethics, which he defined as a “Clear statement regarding what does and what does not constitute plagiarism; consistent standards across journals/institutions for dealing with plagiarism so that individuals know a) what the consequences are, and b) how to deal with the situation.” Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed support the idea, while thirty-three percent did not.
References:
Enders, W. and G. Hoover. (2004). “Whose Line Is It? Plagiarism in Economics,” Journal of Economic Literature, 42: 487-493.
Hoover, G. (2006). “Game-Theoretical Theory of Plagiarism,” Atlantic Economic Journal, 34: 449-454.
Enders, W. and G. Hoover (2006). , “Plagiarism in the Economics Profession: A Survey,” Challenge, 49(5): 92-107.
Lederman, D. (2007). “Arguing Against Free-Market Plagiarism Prevention," Inside Higher Ed, December 17, 2007, available at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/17/econ