Plagiarism is condemned yet remains a frequently occurring form of academic misconduct. This editorial informs project scholars about plagiarism and Project Management Journal’s (PMJ®) approach to it. We define plagiarism as the theft of words, ideas, and representations, and explain three principles to judge plagiarism based on our expectations on research integrity: honesty, originality, and authorship. Accordingly, plagiarism detection services (PDS) assist but do not limit our judgment. We hope to lay the foundation for a comprehensive understanding of plagiarism in project studies, and thus help (early career) scholars understand the different facets of plagiarism and thereby avoid it.
Angelil-CarterS. (2014). Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
2.
BaboM. A. (1993). A escrita do livro(Trans.). Vega.
3.
BakhtinM. M. (1989). Speech genres and other late essays. University of Texas press Slavic series. The University of Texas Press.
4.
BarczakG. (2013). Thoughts on academic research misconduct. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(3), 406–406.doi:10.1111/jpim.12023
5.
BarczakG. (2014). From the editor: Plagiarism. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 194–195.
6.
BartleyG. B.AlbertD. M.LiesegangT. J. (2014). Choosing our words carefully: Plagiarism in the internet age. Ophthalmology, 121(4), 807–808.doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.12.03124694521
7.
BasbøllT.GrahamH. (2006). Substitutes for strategy research: Notes on the source of Karl Weick’s anecdote of the young lieutenant and the map of the Pyrenees. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 6(2), 194–204.
8.
BiagioliM.KenneyM.MartinB. R.WalshJ. P. (2019). Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: A reassessment. Research Policy, 48(2), 401–413.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.025
CallahanJ. L. (2018). The retrospective (im)moralization of self-plagiarism: Power interests in the social construction of new norms for publishing. Organization, 25(3), 305–319.doi:10.1177/1350508417734926
CleggS.BaumelerC. (2010). Essai: From iron cages to liquid modernity in organization analysis. Organization Studies, 31(12), 1713–1733.doi:10.1177/0170840610387240
16.
ErcegovacZ.RichardsonJ. (2004). Academic dishonesty, plagiarism included, in the digital age: A literature review. College & Research Libraries, 65(4), 301–318.doi:10.5860/crl.65.4.301
17.
FangF. C.SteenR. G.CasadevallA. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033.doi:10.1073/pnas.121224710923027971
18.
FlyvbjergB.GarbuioM.LovalloD. (2009). Delusion and deception in large infrastructure projects: Two models for explaining and preventing executive disaster. California Management Review, 51(2), 170–194.doi:10.2307/41166485
GeraldiJ. (2021). Self-plagiarism in project studies: A call for action and reflection. Project Management Journal.
21.
GhoshalS. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.doi:10.5465/amle.2005.16132558
22.
GoetheJ. W. (1963/1833). Maximen und reflexionen [Maxims and reflections]. J. G. Cotta’schen Buchhandlung.
23.
HarleyB.FaemsD.CorbettA. (2014). A few bad apples or the tip of an iceberg? Academic misconduct in publishing. Journal of Management Studies, 51(8), 1361–1363.doi:10.1111/joms.12104
24.
HonigB.BediA. (2012). The Fox in the hen house: A critical examination of plagiarism among members of the academy of management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 101–123.doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0084
25.
HorbachS. P. J. M.HalffmanW. (2019). The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism.’Research Policy, 48(2), 492–502.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.004
KučečkaT. (2011). Obfuscating plagiarism detection. InProceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies - CompSysTech ’11 (p.423). ACM Press.doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/2023607.2023678
32.
LenfleS.LochC. (2010). Lost roots: How project management came to emphasize control over flexibility and novelty. California Management Review, 53(1), 32–55.doi:10.1525/cmr.2010.53.1.32
33.
LundinR. A.SöderholmA. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–455.doi:10.1016/0956-5221(95)00036-U
34.
MarchJ. G. (2007). The study of organizations and organizing since 1945. Organization Studies, 28(1), 9–19.doi:10.1177/0170840607075277
MartinB. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42(5), 1005–1014.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.011
MorrisP. W. G. (2013). Reconstructing project management. John Wiley & Sons.
39.
MorrisP. W. G.GeraldiJ. (2011). Managing the institutional context. Project Management Journal, 42(6), 20–32.
40.
MorrisP. W. G.HoughG. H. (1987). The anatomy of major projects: A study of the reality of project management. John Wiley and Sons.
41.
PackendorffJ. (1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 319–333.doi:10.1016/0956-5221(95)00018-Q
42.
ParkC. (2003). In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students—literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471–488.doi:10.1080/02602930301677
43.
PartingtonD.JenkinsM. (2009). Deconstructing scholarship: An analysis of research methods citations in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 10(3), 399–416.doi:10.1177/1094428107300202
SaudersM.LewisP.ThornhillA. (2016). Research methods for business students. Pearson Education Limited.
49.
StinglV.GeraldiJ. (2017). Errors, lies and misunderstandings: Framing the literature on decision behaviour in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(2), 121–135.
TurabianK. L. (2013). A manual for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations—Chicago style for students & researchers (8th ed.). The Chicago University Press.
