I've created this separate thread to discuss plagiarism in general, as opposed to a discussion about Malhotra specifically. Unfortunately, I feel it necessary to point out what should be obvious: I'm not defending Malhotra's plagiarism. I'd prefer to leave that discussion at one of the other threads.

The discussion about plagiarism has brought to light some important issues. It seems that are different opinions as to what constitutes plagiarism and how to deal with it.

So the first thing, as always, is to define terms. I recommend this document:

http://go.turnitin.com/paper/plagiarism-spectrum?Product=Turnitin&Notification_Language=English&Lead_Origin=Website&source=Website%20-%20Download

As the paper notes, the Internet has made plagiarism easier and more common, both intentional and unintentional. This is in part because information overload has made it difficult to keep track of the plethora of sources one can now gain on a subject.

In addition, the downturn in the publishing industry has made it more difficult to get the resources for proofreaders. This could cause an impoverishment of new voices who don't have the resources available to do the necessary checks.

I think we need to look at plagiarism and how to deal with it in light of two criteria: intent and extent.

1) Intent

As Dominik pointed out, unintentional plagiarism is still plagiarism, using the example of manslaughter. But that is also why manslaughter is usually not punished as severely as murder.

If the plagiarism is unintentional, then an apology and a commitment to make a correction should be sufficient. It would be better if the apology were not grudgingly given.

If the plagiarism it is intentional, then the penalties should be greater. Intentional plagiarism is not the same as murder, but it might be considered suicide – at least professionally speaking.

2) Extent

In dealing with plagiarism, the extent may also be relevant. If only a few items are found have been unintentionally plagiarized in a large body of work, maybe that should be dealt with differently than when the plagiarism makes up a large proportion of the work or works of the author.

It seems to me that there is a need, especially in the modern information age, to re-examine our definitions of plagiarism and to create more nuanced responses about how to deal with such allegations.

Best,

Dean