Interesting case of plagiarism and rectification without apology
[update 5/17/11] – the editor for the magazine got back with me, apologized and rectified the situation. I removed their name from the title of he post.
At some point in time tonight, I got a Google Alert about the Tribalization of Business Study, a study which I co-founded with Deloitte and the Society for New Communications Research and which is in its 4th year.
The article, written by Marco Ciobo, a Principal at AT Kearney, claimed that “A study by AT Kearney in 2009, called The Tribalization of Business, found that the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies in the US investigated, and then relegated, social media to the marketing department, which was also given responsibility for imposing tight policy controls on its use.” (screenshot here)
I immediately posted a comment on the Business Spectator Article, alerting them to the fact that the study was not done by AT Kearney, but by Human 1.0 (formerly Beeline Labs), Deloitte and the Society for New Communications Research. I also tweeted my indignation with the obvious plagiarism. After all, the study made for the foundation of our award winning book, The Hyper-Social Organization, which was published by McGraw-Hill last year.
The comment was not approved, but the article was modified to say that “A study by Deloitte and the Society for New Communications Research, in 2009, called The Tribalization of Business*” – without any mention that:
- The article had been modified
- Human 1.0/Beeline Labs is a founding sponsor and a driving force behind the study
In my book, this is a bad practice all around, violating most Human 1.0 principles we discovered through the Tribalization of Business study.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Francois,
This was not a case of plagiarism but rather an honest mistake in the editorial process. It was assumed by our editors that this was an internal study.
As soon as it was discovered as an error it was rectified, literally minutes after it appeared on the web. Your firm has been cited as the correct author of this study.
Although I personally apologize for this mistake, I will leave it to readers to consider that this was an honest mistake; we rectified the error and have worked with the editors of business spectator to ensure citation is provided where it is appropriate.
Please let me know directly if you have any concerns.
Kind regards
Marco Ciobo
Hi Marco,
The error was indeed corrected – still with the wrong citation and without any acknowledgement that an error actually occurred and was corrected – neither of which I would consider a best practice in this social space (or in traditional publishing for that matter). The comment I posted on the site was never approved either.
It takes a lot of work and effort to generate original content – and in this case it was not just the misappropriation of a finding in the study that happened, but the claim that the whole Tribalization of Business Study, a well documented study which is now in its 4th year, and the basis for a successful book, was conducted by your firm.
Francois
Francois,
Im afraid all that is in my control is the article accuracy and what I submit to the publisher. They have the right to modify this. The correct citation is given now according to our research. Again, this incorrect citation was identified and quickly rectified (in a matter of minutes from publication) once the publisher was notified. Again, my apology for what was a human error.
I agree with the work and effort you and others have done and been involved with in the original content. Hence why the citation accuracy is important. I ask that you also respect this by not labelling this work a case of plagiarism. It is nothing of the sort. The article is original in content, was written by me, and now makes the correct citations where applicable.
In terms of acknowledgement of correction, this is an issue beyond my control Im afraid, and is under the control of the publisher, business spectator. This is also true of the issue of your comment posting. I suggest you are best placed to pursue these particular complaints with them directly.
Again, I would appreciate it if you tone down your response a little. Please understand my perspective – beyond making the correction and responding to your blog, there is little more I can do.
Kind regards
Marco Ciobo