How Online Database Providers Are Handling Plagiarism and Fabrication Issues
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Seing the Record Straight: How Online Database Providers Are Handling Plagiarism and Fabrication Issues John Cosgrove, Barbara Norelli, and Elizabeth Putnam As a result of several well-publicized media scandals involving plagiarism and outright fabrication, the authors question whether online database providers are appending or linking corrections to original stories. Unfortu- nately, in most cases, the answer is no. In this study of how some major database providers (EBSCO, LexisNexis, ProQuest, and Thomson/Gale) handle highly publicized cases of plagiarism and fabrication, only Lex- isNexis was found to append corrections, and even then inconsistently. Databases are not alone in this oversight; even the Web sites of the publications involved were unreliable in their treatment of corrections of their own articles. cademic librarians try in good publishing corrections, retractions, and faith to direct undergradu- apologies, researchers using tangible ates to legitimate, accurate library resources (print and microform) resources. When scandals may miss these emendations. Articles surface that call into question the trust- in bound periodicals and microform are worthiness of those resources, it is par- separated from corrections that appear a ticularly troubling. Not only are these week or a month or a year later by pages, “reliable” resources in fact unreliable, but volumes, and reels. librarians’ recommendations to use them Unlike print and microform, the are consequently compromised. virtual record can be updated easily A recent spate of scandals involving through the use of linking. Consider plagiarism and fabrication has rocked the case of Slate writer Jay Forman’s the New York Times and other periodicals. 2001 article “MonkeyFishing,” which Although it is true that the newspaper contained several dubious claims.1 Not and magazine publishers involved have only does Slate have a correction notice made efforts to correct the record by appended to Forman’s article, but the John Cosgrove is the Humanities and Access Services Librarian in the Lucy Scribner Library at Skidmore College; e-mail: [email protected]. Barbara Norelli is the Social Sciences and Instructional Services Librarian in the Lucy Scribner Library at Skidmore College; e-mail: [email protected]. Elizabeth Putnam is the Social Sciences and Exercise Science Librarian in the Lucy Scribner Library at Skidmore College; e-mail: [email protected]. 136 Seing the Record Straight 137 whole saga of how Forman’s deceptions whose responsibility it is to make readers came to light, including editor Michael aware of problematic materials. Kinsley’s initial defense of Forman, Medical publications and databases, his later apology, and links to outside most notably the National Library of sources that broke the story about the Medicine’s (NLM) MEDLINE, have deception, is readily available and linked led the way in terms of clearly stated from Forman’s article. As an exclusively policy, procedure, and action regarding online publication, Slate did not need retractions. NLM’s retraction policy for to clean up a paper trail. However, it is MEDLINE (2002) explains that the data- important to note that it was relatively base will index retractions for previously easy to append a correction to Forman’s indexed articles, link the original article article and link it to Kinsley’s precisely citation and its subsequent retraction, because Slate is online. and add a “Retracted Publication” label At a time when many academic li- to the retracted article’s “Publication braries have access to more publications Type” field.3 through online sources than they could However, MEDLINE’s careful policy comfortably house in their buildings, and diligent linking have not been rep- librarians need to know that they can resentative of the database industry as a rely on publishers and database pro- whole. Nancy Garman found that many viders to deliver accurate, timely, and, databases, including Business Dateline, if need be, corrected information. This UMI’s Periodical Abstracts Plustext, and article explores the current practices of Magazine Index, all accessed by Garman several major database providers, includ- through Dialog, do not link retraction ing EBSCO, LexisNexis, ProQuest, and notices to previously indexed articles.4,5 Thomson/Gale, regarding corrections, Marydee Ojala’s research in 1996 showed retractions, and errata and argues that inconsistencies even in MEDLINE cover- they should be more proactive in their age; although the database providers treatment of known plagiarism and DIALOG and Ovid included a particular fabrication by alerting users to these retraction notice in their coverage of problems. MEDLINE, LexisNexis’s did not.6 Peter Hernon and Ellen Altman point out that Background alerts or links to retractions are far from How libraries and database providers common in most databases.7 should treat plagiarized or forged pub- Although these studies were con- lications has been a subject of debate ducted in the mid- to late-1990s and thus for years. On more than one occasion, reflect database policies and procedures libraries have been encouraged to remove that may have been updated since that retracted printed materials from their time, a more recent controversy revolved shelves; some acquiesce, others resist.2 As around the retraction procedures of more libraries acquire greater amounts of Elsevier Science’s ScienceDirect database. their collections from electronic sources, Elsevier’s removal of a Human Immunol- the option of compliance no longer rests ogy article, which was deemed “entirely in their hands but, rather, in the hands inappropriate,” from the database in of database providers. Alarmingly, the 2001 led to an outcry among librarians literature reveals a great disparity not and other concerned parties.8,9 As a re- only in how database providers handle sult of the debacle, Elsevier revised its retractions, but also in opinions as to withdrawal policy, which now states that 138 College & Research Libraries March 2005 Elsevier will not remove articles from its Previously published research shows database but, instead, will link retraction that (1) the scientific, particularly medical, notices to original, retracted articles and community is taking the lead in ensur- add a retraction watermark to the PDF ing that retraction notices are available article pages.10 Although plagiarism was to readers, and (2) database coverage of, not the reason for the withdrawal of the and linking among, retraction notices and Human Immunology article, it does high- retracted articles was spoy at best, par- light the issue of concern for maintaining ticularly in the 1990s. The authors of this the historical record. paper ask, then, how is the nonscientific Whose responsibility is it to ensure that community dealing with corrections and retractions or corrections are clearly and how are databases treating corrections easily available to readers? Some recom- currently? mend that editors read and filter the mate- rial appearing in their publications more Methodology meticulously.11 Even reviewers are lauded The authors selected one low-profile for their plagiarism-detection abilities, as (Lynee Holloway) and several high-pro- seen in several cases of plagiarism detec- file incidents of plagiarism, fabrication, tion by Library Journal and World Literature or error in newspaper and magazine Today reviewers.12,13 Others recommend articles of different dates. Profiled in the that database providers and online pub- appendix are six writers at four differ- lishers set explicit policies for handling ent publications, for whom the authors retractions and also take advantage of looked at a total of eight original articles linking capabilities to pull articles and and eight correcting articles. The articles their retractions together.14 It is still not a were reviewed between July and Septem- perfect system. ber 2003 and again between October 28 As a group, medical librarians seem and November 6, 2003, to confirm that willing to accept responsibility for alert- the status of the information had not ing their patrons to retracted materials. A changed. 1998 survey by Carole Hughes indicated The selected incidents of misconduct that 41 percent of academic medical li- are: braries identified and/or labeled retracted Low Profile: Lynee Holloway, New publications for their patrons. Hughes York Times (error); stated that “academic medical libraries High Profile: Mike Barnicle, Boston have a responsibility to inform library Globe (plagiarism); Jayson Blair, New users of information regarding retracted York Times (fabrication) 2 articles; Rick publications.”15 Hernon and Altman dealt Bragg, New York Times (plagiarism); Ja- quite explicitly with the important role net Cook, Washington Post (fabrication); librarians can play in mediating between Stephen Glass, New Republic (fabrication) patrons and problematic literature. They 2 articles. have warned librarians not to rely too Although only a small number of heavily on database linkages and en- writers and articles were selected for couraged them to take an active role in review, it was assumed that well-known educating their users about misconduct incidents would be a reasonable test of in the literature.16 As shown in the Else- how database providers are handling vier case, the demands of librarians and corrections. If providers are not process- scholars can compel database providers ing the most highly publicized incidents to adjust their policies. of published