To Our Readers:
This morning, senior management at The University Times became aware that a member of our editorial staff had plagiarised an article that had been published yesterday evening. Immediately following this discovery, we conducted a preliminary investigation into the matter to determine whether it was an isolated instance or part of a pattern of misconduct. This revealed that the editor in question has plagiarised multiple times over the course of the past twelve months by lifting sentences and paragraphs, sometimes verbatim or with minimal rewording, and sometimes significant chunks of articles and essays published elsewhere on the web.
As a reader of The University Times, you trust that what you read in the newspaper is honest. Plagiarism – taking someone else’s work, words or ideas and passing them off as one’s own – is the most egregious way of breaking that trust with you, the reader. And for that, we sincerely apologise to you. As a newspaper that holds people in the College community – such as those responsible for large budgets or those in administration positions – to a very high standard, we need to hold ourselves to an even greater standard.
This incident is extraordinarily embarrassing for every member of the newspaper’s staff, and it has the potential to call into question the work of dozens of diligent, hard-working editors and writers.
There is also a level of trust between management and editors that manifests in the expectation that plagiarism will always be unacceptable. That trust, in this instance, has very clearly been broken. However, we, the senior management editors of the newspaper, as well as the section editor primarily responsible for his work, also bear a very real responsibility, and we take this responsibility very seriously. We should not have let this happen – and we should have protocols in place to makes sure things like this cannot consistently recur, even if it is just one person ultimately responsible.
As of this afternoon, we have removed the editor from his position. Over the course of the next few days, we will be carefully investigating this editor’s work and redirecting his articles to a note apologising for the systematic plagiarism. We intend to take this opportunity to renew our commitment to producing the highest quality journalism possible by opening up the discussion within our team about the reasons as to how an incident like this can occur – and reaffirming standards and best practice in our newsroom.
Samuel Riggs
Editor
Edmund Heaphy
Deputy Editor
