The story of plagiarism at UK Universities is a familiar one. Senior scholars are protected, regardless of the consequences for junior scholars whose work is stolen. This is not a victimless crime. Real and lasting harm can be done to the careers of young researchers.
Dr William O’Reilly is Associate Professor in Early Modern History at Cambridge University. As reported in the Financial Times and Varsity, Dr O’Reilly included large portions of two essays by one of his undergraduate students in an article published in the Journal of Austrian-American History. The paper ‘Fredrick Jackson Turner’s Frontier Thesis, Orientalism, and the Austrian Militärgrenze‘ appeared in 2018 under Dr O’Reilly’s name only. When the student later discovered this in 2021, he contacted Cambridge University. They launched an investigation.
Those familiar with university investigations will not be too surprised at the outcome. Two years later, a tribunal of scholars at Cambridge University decided this was not plagiarism, but the “product of negligent acts“. Nonetheless, the Journal of Austrian-American History did behave honourably. It correctly retracted the article, as the material “was presented without credit“. Dr O’Reilly did not dispute “that uncredited material was included“. His former undergraduate, whose work he stole, did not receive an apology from the University. He said that he was “baffled” at the conclusion. He was not the only one baffled, the verdict was received with widespread incredulity.
Unfortunately, further plagiarism allegations against Dr O’Reilly have now come to light, as reported in Varsity. Three journal articles by O’Reilly published between 2006 and 2016 contain sections of word-for-word overlap with uncredited sources. For example, Dr O’Reilly (2011) article on “Movements of People in the Atlantic World, 1450-1850” (left panel above) contains material lifted almost directly from a 1995 article by Michael Heffernan (right panel). O’Reilly does not cite Heffernan at all. The image comes from Pubpeer, who give more examples.
Dr Magdalen Connolly was an MPhil and PhD student, then Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at Cambridge University’s Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. As this Early Career Fellowship came to a close, she was offered a Humboldt Fellowship in Germany which ended in May 2024. She had all the ingredients for a successful long-term academic career. Now, she has sadly exited academia and has serious health problems caused by stress and anxiety. What went wrong?
Dr Connolly had some novel ideas on a Judeo-Arabic text. They were appropriated by a more senior scholar. In 2020, Dr Connolly submitted a formal complaint to Cambridge University. She hoped that the matter might be dealt with quickly and a mutually acceptable outcome obtained.
Instead, it was the start of a lengthy 4 year battle during which Dr Connolly had to dedicate substantial parts of her time and energy to ensure the matter was dealt with fairly. The University set up an investigation — but the investigators either had conflicts of interest or lacked the necessary academic expertise to decide the matter, speaking neither Arabic nor Hebrew. At every turn, there were long delays. At every turn, the senior scholar argued that it was not Dr Connolly who had come up with the new idea. At every turn, the senior scholar was given the benefit of the doubt, despite examples of poor academic practice.
The University produced a report in 2022 that exonerated the actions of the senior scholar. Despite the length of time that it had taken, the many failings of the investigation were not addressed.
Dr Connolly then appealed. This though took more time. A new committee of scholars, fully independent and with the relevant expertise in Arabic and Hebrew, was assembled. It contained Professors external to the University. They reported in 2024 finally confirming the truth of what Dr Connolly had maintained all along — that acts of plagiarism had indeed taken place. The whole process took 4 years.
But by then it was too late.
The energy that Dr Connolly had to redirect away from her scholarship to fighting the case had a big impact on her ability to produce new work and on her health. Her research output declined. When she applied for new positions in 2023, as her Humboldt fellowship drew to a close, she found it difficult. She was even told that some Professors would not be willing to write her a reference and she was no longer invited to speak at events related to her field. This is the all-too-familiar pattern of ‘victim-blaming’.
The upsetting thing in these two cases is not that a senior academic cheated. Sadly, this is not uncommon.
The upsetting thing is that universities defend the senior scholar and completely ignore any effects on the more junior victim. Allegations of plagiarism, if proven, would have a serious effect on any academic’s career, as well as damaging the reputation of the university. So, universities instinctively side with the senior scholar who normally has done the plagiarising.
This is wrong. It is very important that senior researchers take every possible step to give proper credit to younger scholars. It is part of the duties of mentorship that is the responsibility of any academic.
(The 21 Group is interested in receiving further examples of plagiarism from young researchers. Please use contact@21percent.org)
20 Comments
Wolfsbane · 19 September 2024 at 09:01
Very common in science as well
Role & ideas of early-career researcher can be easily obscured in a large collaboration
Anon · 23 September 2024 at 18:32
There are now 6 separate cases of plagiarism by O’Reilly on Pubpeer.
1 https://pubpeer.com/publications/F0A4CDC815E00E743DA52F4A7393BC
2 https://pubpeer.com/publications/9E79E3DBE130057CB4123408FF6874#2
3 https://pubpeer.com/publications/C0ADCE42D316FC4D7D0BAE66ED4596
4 https://pubpeer.com/publications/B8536BDA3C305E050BF2CD82DBD252#1
5 https://pubpeer.com/publications/5606617E20AA45F98B81BAAB04BEB1#1
6 https://pubpeer.com/publications/7AB231ABD218290EDE8034A883DDAA
21percent.org · 26 September 2024 at 00:01
The Connolly case is now in the Daily Telegraph here
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/25/cambridge-university-protected-plagiarist-alumna-tribunal/
Elias · 27 October 2024 at 16:12
It is much worse than you think. What is rife within academia today is not just the theft of ideas from young researchers, but theft of grants and research funds.
That is, theft. Pure and simple.
I teach at Oxbridge. I have seen multiple instances where senior academics coerce junior scholars to remove their names from grant applications and reassign their income to those in charge. What is tragic is that often the senior scholars are individuals whose careers have stagnated, have no good publications, and are completely incapable or winning grants based on their own effort or merit, so instead of ticking down the years to retirement with nothing to show for it, they do that instead.
And they get away with it, repeatedly. It has become so much the norm that every time a grant application comes in they think about which of them has a turn to be added to the next one.
The problem is that we have amazing emeritus scholars and exceptionally talented new hires, but those in the middle are just dead wood. They would never be able to win their own jobs in an open competition and have got away with abuse their entire lives.
Full Professor · 28 October 2024 at 10:44
A decade ago I started my career as a lecturer at Cambridge, and this happened to me. The head of department at the time turned around a week before the deadline and said he was not going to sign the grant application until I replaced myself with one of his friends as the Principal investigator. His friend had nothing to do with the project. I refused. The application was never made.
I am now a full professor in the United States. I can’t say that it would never happen here, but – it would be seen as a scandal. What shocks me now is how my colleagues in the UK would shrug it off when I told them – like it was something normal. They almost reacted like I was the one with the problem, for not going along with blatant nepotism and corruption.
21percent.org · 28 October 2024 at 13:42
The 21 Group has received reports from Cambridge that confirm this picture is still true
Heads of Department wield enormous power
They often are out of control and run departments by favouritism or cronyism
Engineer · 28 October 2024 at 14:41
Me too.
I met my head to discuss promotion and he was like: “ok kid you’re all young and smart. But here there is a queue. So you have to wait in line a couple more years”. But then he dangled that if I could gift him a million in funding (taking no credit for myself), then I could jump ahead / bump someone else. Even go straight to reader. It was completely transactional.
Meanwhile, woe betide anyone who ever dares question this system.
Me Too · 29 October 2024 at 09:28
Me too.
I teach in the humanities (foreign languages/lit), so grant income is not such a big deal for us.
On the other hand, teaching is a huge issue. We are massively underresourced for staff relative to numbers and it gets worse every year.
When I applied for Reader three years ago, I was rejected on the grounds I hadn’t done enough teaching, even though I do an insane amount every year.
My head then told me the same thing about being at the back of the line. But not to worry – I should take on the teaching load from senior profs (while they are swanning away on sabbaticals) and then I will get it next year. Like your case, it was entirely transactional. Do x… get y.
So, I did everything I was told. But also, lodged an appeal with ACP, stating how they are abusing the promotion system.
And in the meanwhile, as instructed, applied again.
Yet somehow, this time, my head found a way to score me lower than before. Despite having yet more publications, admin and teaching experience.
It was so obviously an act of petty retaliation. Simply for having the gumption to stand up and question his divine authority.
Erika · 31 October 2024 at 10:25
Goodness that’s awful. I’m so sorry you’ve had this experience.
Experience · 1 November 2024 at 10:52
Just to give a perspective here from a different angle, I think it is important to remember that Head of Department is a job no-one really wants. The way I see it, being HOD involves a lot of hassle, requires a skillset (i.e. management) that academics inherently lack, and is poorly remunerated (there might be a small bonus but not much).
Add to that the fact that academic incomes have declined/stagnated in the past thirty years, and you have a situated where many heads now feel it is right to extract benefits in other ways. That can be rewarding oneself and colleagues with discretionary funds, getting your name on extra grants/publications, earning favours (to be paid back later) from who you put forward for promotion, coercing your way on to donor projects or taking a cut from sources of fee income. I’m not saying any of that is right, only that this is the reason I think we see this happening more and more.
21percent.org · 1 November 2024 at 13:20
In Cambridge University, Heads of Dept get an extra 10k per annum, plus 2 years extra sabbatical
Money is a bit meagre, but the extra sabbatical provision is generous
May well vary a lot from institution to institution
My Experience Is Different · 1 November 2024 at 17:32
I’m sorry but what you are describing is literally, literally the dictionary definition of corruption… **the abuse of office for private gain**. There is no justification — /ever, ever, ever/ — for heads of department abusing their power to violate rights of vulnerable staff, expropriate resources for their own benefit, exchange favours and inflict needless harm.
How would this sound if I replaced “head of department” with “member of parliament”? Would the average UK voter think was simply alright, that politicians should be able to extract bribes and coerce the weak to make up for their high-but-not-quite-high-enough salaries? I don’t know, but yeah I fucking doubt it sorry.
More Experience · 1 November 2024 at 18:26
It is also a total insult to all those department heads who act with honesty and integrity, and try protect and foster members of their team.
I am frankly appalled that anyone with “experience” could bring themselves to think in this way.
Experience · 2 November 2024 at 11:02
If you had actually read my original post, you would have seen that I said that I said I didn’t think it was necessarily right. I merely took the effort to explain – for those who lack the appropriate contextual knowledge and understanding – how otherwise good people might end up doing things outsiders could perceive badly.
Nerdygruffalo · 2 November 2024 at 11:27
Haha why do I feel like this makes it worse
Engineer · 2 November 2024 at 16:09
Must be because you lack the “appropriate” knowledge and understanding
HendrixExperience · 4 November 2024 at 14:13
Or because no-one else knows how to read?
Norbert · 27 October 2024 at 18:06
>> What is tragic is that often the senior scholars are individuals whose careers have stagnated, have no good publications, and are completely incapable or winning grants based on their own effort or merit
This. Absolutely this.
I gave up on my academic career in Germany for precisely this reason. Here the whole system is stacked in favor of outdated dinosaurs who freely steal ideas and grant funds from more talented younger scholars without any means of accountability. It is simply seen as part of our system, which is why so many talented young scientists have fled overseas.
At least in England you have the means to take these swine to court and make them face justice. If she wins your system has a future yet.
David v Goliath at the Employment Tribunals - 21percent.org · 9 November 2024 at 21:03
[…] it still provides an opportunity to put your case to a wider audience (see the Daily Telegraph and our blog posting). The abusive supervisor who plagiarised her PhD student was named in the press. In fact, Cambridge […]
The Magdalen Connolly Case - 21percent.org · 17 November 2024 at 08:47
[…] Dr Connolly developed innovative ideas regarding a Judaeo-Arabic text, but one of her advisors appropriated them without acknowledgement. In the Daily Telegraph, the plagiarist was named as Dr Esther-Miriam Wagner, a Cambridge academic appointed to advise her and Director of the Woolf Institute. As noted in the Times Higher Educational Supplement, a disturbing aspect of this matter is that the plagiarism was actually perpetrated by an advisor. Plagiarizing a student’s work undermines a university’s fundamental mission to mentor and develop the next generation of scholars. It is unfortunately not uncommon. […]