Abstract
As we explain below in our editorial introduction, the idea behind the symposium printed in this issue was to give our authors, reviewers, and readers an insight into the peer review process. To our surprise and dismay, it has been brought to our attention that Nina Witoszek’s paper “Re-enchanting Modernity in the East and West” published here is an almost exact copy of Chapter 2 of her book The Origins of Anti-Authoritarianism (Routledge 2019).The author, on being asked to explain, responded that the book chapter aimed to compare 1968’s political ideas in Western and Eastern Europe, while this article used the legacy of 1968 to illuminate the current growth of populism. However, only the opening paragraph and a few short paragraphs elsewhere in the text are different; a few citations have been omitted, a few others added; the rest is basically identical to the book version. All the main arguments of this piece are contained in that chapter, and the new framing changes none of those key points.The substantial re-use of text from the author’s prior published work is a violation of good practice in publishing (see the section on text recycling in Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines https://publicationethics.org/files/Web_A29298_COPE_Text_Recycling.pdf), of EEPS policies posted on our website, and of the necessary trust among journal editors, reviewers, and authors.In our manuscript guidelines for authors, we state unequivocally: “We (…) discourage more than a minimal amount of ‘text recycling’, the reproduction of an author’s own text from a previous publication. Sometimes this is unavoidable, but authors should be transparent and provide citations to previously published material where this is the case.” This transparency was missing here. Neither in her cover letter, nor at any time during the long and laborious process of preparing this symposium for publication, did Nina Witoszek inform us of the previous publication of her paper.Authors sometimes recycle their work. Sometimes it is well-justified, for instance when two (or more) different publications are likely to find their way to different audiences. An article originally published in an area studies journal may attract different readers in a discipline specific publication. A chapter from a book issued by an obscure local imprint (not one of Routledge’s fame) can be put into wider circulation if reworked as an article in an international journal. But transparency is always a basic requirement. Academic self-governance, just like societal self-governance, depends in large part on the commitment of its members to general principles. One of academia’s basic rules is honest acknowledgement of previous publication. Editors and reviewers cannot and should not be responsible for investigating the prior history of a submission, though sometimes this comes to light in the review process or, as in this case, subsequently. Instead, we trust our authors to follow their obligation to disclose whether a piece has been published elsewhere in its entirety or in significant fragments; not only in a book or another journal, but also in an online depository or blog; even in a different language. Then it is up to the editors to assess if further consideration of such a text is in the best interest of their journal.In this case, as explained in the editorial introduction, our initial response to the submission was skeptical. We decided eventually to seek reviewers because of the interesting slant of the paper; coincidentally closely related to the topic of a special section we had published in 2019. After we received the reviews, the idea of this symposium was born. Had we known of the previous publication of this paper, we would have given it no further consideration, sparing the time and effort of our reviewers. We would have rejected the submission right away — the act known among editors as “desk reject” — with a stern reminder to the author that submitting an already published text for consideration without disclosure of this fact is a violation of mutual trust and of the rules of professional conduct.Since there is no formal violation of copyright here, we are not retracting this paper. Instead, and accordingly, we have published this correction.For us, the accidental discovery of previous publication was a bitter disappointment. The re-use of text from one’s earlier published work (which can amount to duplicate publication where significant) raises a matter of professional standards in the academic world; the erosion of the trust that all members of a society will adhere to the same basic principles is a much wider political problem. We can only hope that through presenting our reflections in this way we can contribute to the education of our authors and readers about these issues as well as about peer review