The Theft of Ideas from Young Researchers

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)