Hello everyone,
I am a historian and basically I recently ran into an old article from the 1950s that covers a topic similar to what I cover in one of my thesis chapters. Our arguments differ though and the article is generally rather short and superficial. Now I normally always make sure to try and read every piece of secondary literature on a topic before I write a chapter. However, I simply must have missed this one.
The question is: What do I do know? I am thinking of simply including this article in the literature review of that chapter and point out how I differ from it (different argument, more detail etc.). But do I have to do even more and go through my chapter page by page and add a footnote (X also makes a similar point...) for every minor point that is similar? In most cases we make similar minor points simply because we discuss some of the same historical events and, I feel, are bound to do so.
More generally, I am wondering whether it would be seen as ethically wrong if after finishing a piece of work one comes across an argument that is similar to one's own but doesn't acknowledge it. In a sense, it seems to me that this should be ethically fine (even though it might not be considered ideal behaviour), because that person would have come to a certain conclusion without the help of the other scholar, even though the argument might be similar.
My fear is not that I would do this, but rather what happens if you publish something and then after the fact someone else points out that part of your argument is similar to that of another publication and accuses you of having taken someone else's idea, even though you simply missed that particularly publication during the writing of your article. I have certainly seen quite often that two historians make similar arguments without acknowledging each other and this seems to be fine, but I am still wondering how this is viewed ethically.
This is a crosspost from /askacademia
One can always (and probably should) simply be honest: I recommend that you state clearly in your literature review exactly what you describe here: "Late in my process, while editing my article, I found a publication that offers much of the same argument. It is gratifying on at least one level that two independent reviews of the sources led to much the same conclusion. Differences, however, are as follows ..."
At the same time, this is an opportunity to "take if further" (as my mentor said to me over four decades ago when I made a similar discovery). Ask yourself not only what differentiates your work but also how you might take it, perhaps, yet another step further. Stretch the rubber band and see what insights occur to you.
My fear is not that I would do this, but rather what happens if you publish something and then after the fact someone else points out that part of your argument is similar to that of another publication and accuses you of having taken someone else's idea, even though you simply missed that particularly publication during the writing of your article. I have certainly seen quite often that two historians make similar arguments without acknowledging each other and this seems to be fine, but I am still wondering how this is viewed ethically.
Scholarly journal editor here. This is unlikely. Most academic plagiarism cases deal with more profound cases of borrowing or misuse.
Peer review is meant to help prevent this. If two+ reviewers in your field don't point out a secondary work that makes a similar argument there is a good chance that the secondary work is not well known and therefore unlikely to be used against you.
This should happen for a dissertation, too. But often by the time of the defense you know more and have read more on your topic than even your advisor. This means they very well will not have run across a small unknown piece dealing with your topic.
Also, as you become more confident in your own work you will be able to more easily differentiate your argument from others. You can even do a service to the field by writing an amazing historiography that includes lesser known works whose arguments should be revisited.