Gender Inequality and Plagiarism in Academia

G e nd e r In eq u a lity a n d P lagia r is m in A c a d e m ia By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS Table of Contents By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS ............................................................................1 An enduring problem plagiarism in academia among the faculty too ...................3 Women are undercited and plagiarized by men...................................................17 Men continually deny women authorship credit .................................................31 ABOUT THE AUTHOR .................................................................................40 An enduring problem plagiarism in academia among the faculty too There is a code of honor in academia about not attributing ideas, citing, and plagiarizing authors. Teachers teach students the academic and career consequences to plagiarizing work that belongs to someone else. Professor of Law & Political Theory at the University of Kent Davina Cooper notes, "Stealing ideas and phrases from published writers (or other students), we tell our classes, is a serious offence – far more damaging to their future career prospects than other unlicensed takings." If a graduate student finds out someone is writing a topic for their thesis and theirs is too close, they have to defer to the one started and definitely published first. Cooper's article "Who's ideas are they anyway Academic work as a form of public action, rather than possession" looks at the concept of academic's owning their ideas. While most academics are overly careful when citing another's scholar's work, they have to at the same time be concerned of others taking their ideas. Scholars' worry about have others take their ideas leads them not to discuss unpublished work or work in progress at conference or other academic events. Academics guard their work carefully because losing their intellectual capital causes a variety of negative ramifications to their careers and finances. 1 Cooper explains, "But to blame individual academics for a kind of narcissistic possessiveness is to ignore wider social and economic conditions. For academics working in higher education, employment, status, salary and visibility depend on maintaining some kind of possessive attachment to what they have created. To give work away without attribution, to write under pseudonyms happens. But often it’s experienced as a generosity that can be ill-afforded. Scholarship, ideas, research, thoughts are the cultural capital academics rely upon. And academic value unfortunately rests on the appearance of distinction (of one’s ideas, work and intellectual identity), along with the ability to make a recognised ownership claim (producing a name at the front of a work)."2 While plagiarism is an academic offense that can ruin careers, it is also crime; and an intellectual property law violation. The National Juris University describes plagiarism and the position on borrowing information, "There should be no "borrowing" of material in academic research and writing without proper attribution. Borrowing—or stealing —information by not attributing the work to its original author (also called citing) is equivalent to plagiarism." 3 In borrowing, the university specifically explains, the rules regarding borrowing through paraphrasing. The NJ University explains, "In both paraphrasing ideas and directly quoting other scholars, in order not to plagiarize information, students must provide citations in the correct style of the discipline being represented. When paraphrasing, students must avoid using language and sentence structure that too closely models the work being paraphrased. The paraphrase should capture the student’s ability to distill the most important information from the scholar and present it in a new and interesting way, using correct documentation." 4 The Oxford University Press Blog defines the "Six common types of plagiarism in academic research" which includes, paraphrasing a text with different words, patchwork or mosaic of sources, verbatim of a text, 1 https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/09/26/whose-ideas-are-they-anyway/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/09/26/whose-ideas-are-they-anyway/ 3 https://nationalparalegal.edu/IntellectualProperty.aspx 4 https://nationalparalegal.edu/IntellectualProperty.aspx 2 source-based plagiarism, incorrectly citing a source, global plagiarism having someone else write the piece, and self-plagiarism submitting one's own work multiple times and publications.5 Mostly universities find that undergraduates are the worse plagiarism offenders. If they got away with it in high school, students in their early years are the most suspect. Professors exact their punishments on students ranging from failure on their assignment, failing the course, to even suspension and expulsion. A 2015 Times investigation in the United Kingdom found almost 50,000 students were caught cheating in the previous three years, amounting to a so-called 'plagiarism epidemic.'"6 The study found eleven British universities had more than 1,000 cases of cheating, with the University of Kent at the top of the list with nearly two thousand cases. Most of the cheating was by international students coming from outside the European Union, and a third came from China. These international students were "coming out as being more than four times as likely to cheat in exams and coursework." 7 One of the most common forms of cheating was buying essays from writing services called "type two cheating." The internet provide vast opportunities for students to plagiarize making it easier to buy essays from mills, lift paragraphs from published works to borrowing without proper attribution, often done accidentally. Universities and professor give brief workshops or warning about copying, providing students minimal instruction on to proper deal with university essay writing and citation. Studies on plagiarism do not distinguish between students that purposely or accidentally plagiarize. The Covid-19 pandemic has only increased the number of students cheating. At American universities, cheating increased on average by over fifty percent, some universities three times of the number of cases they found in the previous academic year. 8 "According to an annual report from" the Ohio State University "committee on academic misconduct.… students shared information during the exam or used unauthorized materials." 9 Professor Tricia Bertram Gallant, at the University of California, San Diego specializes in researching academic integrity spoke to NPR, the National Public Radio explaining the phenomenon. Gallant 5 https://blog.oup.com/2021/10/six-common-types-of-plagiarism-in-academic-research/ https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/uk-universities-plagiarism-epidemic-almost-50-000students-caught-cheating-over-last-3-years-a6796021.html 7 https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/uk-universities-plagiarism-epidemic-almost-50-000students-caught-cheating-over-last-3-years-a6796021.html 8 https://www.npr.org/2021/08/27/1031255390/reports-of-cheating-at-colleges-soar-during-the-pandemic 9 https://www.npr.org/2021/08/27/1031255390/reports-of-cheating-at-colleges-soar-during-the-pandemic 6 noted, "There was probably increased cheating because there were more temptations and opportunities and stress and pressure. Faculty were probably detecting it more. It's easier to catch in the virtual world, in many ways, than it is in the in-person world."10 Remote learning only magnified the cheating problem, and software is being used to detect the cheating. Universities and professors are increasingly used software to proctor exams and to detect plagiarism, which have been in use longer by professors to check essays. When transferring to online learning exams were also being administered at home online. Students were taking exams in their bedrooms with access to devices and cell phones that allow to cheat and contact other students while taking exams online or when completing take home exams. Students used any sources on the internet available when they were not allowed, and this was considered cheating. Experts are uncertain whether it is because cheating increased or the methods to uncover and survey the students only improved. It is easier to cheat in person than on the computer and at home, because it is traceable with a digital footprint. James Orr, a "board member of the International Center for Academic Integrity" told NPR, "Just because there's an increase in reports of academic misconduct doesn't mean that there's more cheating occurring. In the online environment, I think that faculty across the country are more vigilant in looking for academic misconduct."11 University officials have been more understanding of these forms of cheating, some calling it "miscommunication" about the rules.12 Students might not always know better, professors should. What universities overlook is the frequency their faculty plagiarizes. In research universities, the faculty is stressed; they have to teach, participate in professional duties, and produce original research. In their 2012, study, Professors Benson Honig and Akanksha Bedi examined plagiarism among Management faculty in their article, "The Fox in the Hen House: A Critical Examination of Plagiarism Among Members of the Academy of Management" finding a quarter of the academics plagiarized. Honig and Bedi noted, "Research on academic plagiarism has typically focused on students as the perpetrators of unethical behaviors, and less attention 10 https://www.npr.org/2021/08/27/1031255390/reports-of-cheating-at-colleges-soar-during-the-pandemic https://www.npr.org/2021/08/27/1031255390/reports-of-cheating-at-colleges-soar-during-the-pandemic 12 https://www.npr.org/2021/08/27/1031255390/reports-of-cheating-at-colleges-soar-during-the-pandemic 11 has been paid to academic researchers as likely candidates for such behaviors. We examined 279 papers presented at the International Management division of the 2009 Academy of Management conference for the purpose of studying plagiarism among academics. Results showed that 25% of our sample had some amount of plagiarism, and over 13% exhibited significant plagiarism. This exploratory study raises an alarm regarding the inadequate monitoring of norms and professional activities associated with Academy of Management members."13 The Oxford University Press Blog indicates that during the pandemic plagiarism increased by faculty and students alike. Their article, "Six common types of plagiarism in academic research" quotes a number of recent studies that indicate how prevalent plagiarism is in academia. One study indicated that 10 percent of students submit essays written by others mostly purchasing texts from essay writing services. OUP recounts, "Across Australia more than 1 in 10 university students submit assignments written by someone else, with new research suggesting that 95% of students who cheat this way are not caught." 14 OUP quotes a Copyleaks study about plagiarism among faculty during the pandemic looking at academic submissions. OUP recounts, "Globally, the similarity score for academic submissions rose from an average of 35.1% to an average of 49.6% across the two measured time periods. This includes a 31% rise in paraphrased content and a 39% rise in identically matched content." 15 In October 2021, a West Virginia university found itself at the center of a plagiarism scandal. W. Franklin Evans the president of West Liberty University was accused of plagiarizing at least three speeches, including the Fall Convocation address lifted from a Forbes magazine article. 16 Evans apologized for the commencement address, calling it an "oversight." Evans expressed, "That is a failure on my part. However, that mistake is in no way indicative of a pattern, or a 'bigger picture.' It was merely an oversight, and one for which I am apologetic." 17 Evans, however, lifted sections of published works in two other speeches including one for Juneteenth and Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Mostly Evans copied 13 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257141997_The_Fox_in_the_Hen_House_A_Critical_Examina tion_of_Plagiarism_Among_Members_of_the_Academy_of_Management_ETHICS_AND_THE_ACAD EMY_OF_MANAGEMENT/figures?lo=1 14 https://blog.oup.com/2021/10/six-common-types-of-plagiarism-in-academic-research/; https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210901152533384 15 https://blog.oup.com/2021/10/six-common-types-of-plagiarism-in-academic-research/ 16 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/10/05/west-liberty-president-plagiarized-several-speeches 17 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/10/05/west-liberty-president-plagiarized-several-speeches passages from journalistic sources, Desert News, New York Times, and NPR, but also from the Smithsonian website and even "a LitCharts study guide for Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow." In a speech Martin Luther King Jr. Day event Evans used a well-known Doug Williford quote without attribution. The Faculty Senate met to review Evans' conduct, however, Rich Lucas, chairman of the West Liberty University Board of Governor claimed it was "this was an oversight by Dr. Evans." Lucas expressed in a statement, "Dr. Evans has apologized to the faculty and has vowed that in the future he will be more diligent in giving proper attribution when drafting his speeches." 18 Evans, however, will keep his post as president. The board met and voted against terminating Evans only five members out of twelve wanted Evans dismissed. However, the board unanimously voted in favor of disciplinary action. 19 While plagiarism can destroy a student's academic career, however, when professional writers, journalists, or politicians plagiarize, unfortunately their careers seem to rebound too quickly, showing a double standard. Sarah Eaton, an associate professor of Education at the University of Calgary 20 specializing in academic integrity and plagiarism notes that the plagiarism case with Evans and other faculty members is not treated the same way as students. Evans clarifies that the paraphrasing Evans did was plagiarism and that universities do not have policies to deal with plagiarism by faculty in informal writing including speeches. Eaton told Inside Higher Education, "The reason for that could be an underlying assumption that we expect that faculty and administration already know better. If we're having somebody plagiarize in a nonresearch way -- like a commencement speech or public address -- many institutions actually don't have policies and procedures around that, apart from a code of conduct. So it can be quite difficult if an institution hasn't faced this before." 21 However, the result of Evans' shows that a slap on the wrist is what faculty get for downright copying without attribution, and plagiarism basically goes unpunished. Eaton in her journal article, "Comparative Analysis of Institutional Policy Definitions of Plagiarism: A Pan-Canadian University Study" notes how faculty perceive plagiarism. Eaton explains, "Plagiarism remains a topic of debate among 18 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/10/05/west-liberty-president-plagiarized-several-speeches https://www.timesleaderonline.com/news/local-news/2021/10/evans-dodges-termination-forplagiarism-by-narrow-margin/ 20 https://werklund.ucalgary.ca/sarah-eaton 21 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/10/05/west-liberty-president-plagiarized-several-speeches 19 educators and academics (Bruton and Childers 2016) and it is not confined to the student body. It is also an issue among the academic ranks (Anekwe 2009; Bartlett and Smallwood 2004; Bosch 2011). Professors often know their institutions have formal policies, but such policies are not well enforced or even understood by individual instructors (Glendinning 2014; Hodgkinson et al. 2016). Scholars themselves debate where to draw the line with plagiarism and what the consequences for it should be." 22 Some of the most well known writers in fiction and non-fiction and even the current President of the United States experienced a plagiarism scandal. In 1987, during Joe Biden's first run for the presidency Biden was rocked with two scandals that forced him to withdraw from the race. The New York Times discovered Biden had plagiarized his speeches from British politician Neil Kinnock of the Labor Party, and famous Democratic politicians of the sixties including, President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, and Vice President Hubert Humphrey. 23 Biden not plagiarized in his speech, he did so while in law school. In his first year of law school at the Syracuse University College of Law, in 1965, Biden ''used five pages from a published law review article without quotation or attribution'' for a 15-page paper in his legal methods class. The review committee decided to fail Biden in the class, which affected his ranking upon graduation, he graduated 75 th from a class of 85. 24 In a Politico article reviewing the top plagiarism scandals, among the top ten scandals, journalists were among the worst offenders. They listed among their offenders, Sen. Rand Paul, Mike Barnicle of MSNBC News, Jayson Blair of the New York Times, Fareed Zakaria of Time Magazine and CNN, Jonah Lehrer of the New Yorker, and Alex Haley. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Martin Luther King, Jr. both plagiarized their theses. Most claimed it was a mistake; some made monetary settlements, while the punishment ranged from suspensions, firings, to nothing at all. 25 David Plotz in his article, "The Plagiarist Why Stephen Ambrose is a vampire," published in Slate, indicated how often plagiarism scandals occur. 22 Eaton, S. E. (2017). Comparative analysis of institutional policy definitions of plagiarism: A panCanadian university study. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education. doi: 10.1007/s10780-0179300-7. Retrieved from: http://rdcu.be/oCx2 23 https://www.politico.com/gallery/2014/07/10-high-profile-plagiarism-cases-001770?slide=0 24 https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-notmalevolent.html 25 https://www.politico.com/gallery/2014/07/10-high-profile-plagiarism-cases-001770?slide=0 Nothing seems to deter writers from the offense, the punishments and ramifications to their careers is not that significant. The more successful the offender the less the consequences. Plotz noted in 1995, the Columbia Journalism Review indicated, "plagiarists suffer vastly different punishments for similar offenses. Some are sacked for a single misdemeanor shoplifting. Some keep their jobs after numerous felonies. Some are briefly suspended; others sidelined for months. Some pay huge settlements to the writers they have ripped off; most don’t pay a penny." 26 Plotz noted all plagiarists have similar excuses and motivations for why they do it. They "steal" from good and bad sources, their reasons vary, most are rushed, and as Plotz indicated, "Probably don’t think they’ll get caught. Some are just exceptionally careless." They usually call it a mistake or bad note taking and citations. Plotz also points out "Plagiarists are almost always bright, and they often write better than those they rob." 27 However, he did not elaborate on the why, plagiarist pick lesser known writers because they believe not enough people would know their work and would not know about the transgressions. Writers plagiarize often and more than they are even discovered. Most believe no one will find out, they think they can outsmart the public and the writers they copy. Still, the scandals "regularly" when one of the writers pushes their luck. Plotz recounted in 2002, "Plagiarism bloodlettings occur with a dreary regularity. Every few months, a reporter or writer is caught copying a dozen paragraphs from a newspaper here or stealing a few choice lines from an obscure magazine there." 28 Plotz made fun of the excuses the plagiarists used, the same one of making mistakes with their notes. Although most of the offenders could have done, the same work with success themselves. When I started at HNN as an intern, I updated HNN's walk of shame page, "Historians in the Hot Seat," which kept track of any historian that faced any scandal, some lied about their credentials or their past, most related to plagiarizing and the consequences. 29 Some of history biggest names made the list. Of the plagiarism scandals one of the most significant was in 2002, with the Harvard educated Pulitzer Prize winning historian and commentator Doris Kearns Goodwin. In January 2002, The Weekly Standard and the Los Angeles Times accused of Goodwin plagiarizing in her 1987 monumental biography "The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys." Goodwin took passages from three books, "Times 26 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/01/why-stephen-ambrose-s-plagiarism-matters.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/01/why-stephen-ambrose-s-plagiarism-matters.html 28 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/01/why-stephen-ambrose-s-plagiarism-matters.html 29 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1081 27 to Remember" by Rose Kennedy; "The Lost Prince by Hank Searl;" and "Kathleen Kennedy: Her Life and Times" by Lynne McTaggart. The bulk of the plagiarism revolved around McTaggert's book. At the time, McTaggert responded, "If somebody takes a third of somebody's book, which is what happened to me, they are lifting out the heart and guts of somebody else's individual expression." 30 According to HNN, Goodwin "lied about whether it was plagiarism (and, incidentally, paid hush money to one of the people she plagiarized)." Goodwin made the settlement with McTaggert after McTaggert confronted Simon & Schuster about the lifted passages. Both Goodwin and the publisher hoped the settlement would prevent the scandal from reaching the public, it still did. In a so-called apology in Time Magazine 31, Goodwin tried to deflect any blame, "Though my footnotes repeatedly cited Ms. McTaggart's work, I failed to provide quotation marks for phrases that I had taken verbatim... The larger question for those of us who write history is to understand how citation mistakes can happen." 32 However, Goodwin was a repeat offender; she plagiarized in her 1994 Pulitzer-Prize winning book, "No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II." Goodwin took passages from Joseph Lash's Eleanor and Franklin and Hugh Gregory Gallagher's FDR's Splendid Deception. Goodwin never corrected "The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys" in future editions. Goodwin's represents a bad example for faculty and professional writers who plagiarize. It took her only four years for her career to rebound, her 2005 book "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." Goodwin took ten years to write. The book was lauded by critics and won two awards, "the 2006 Lincoln Prize and the inaugural Book Prize for American History of the New-York Historical Society." 33 In-between, in 2001, filmmaker Steven Spielberg's DreamWorks Pictures bought the rights to the book. The film Lincoln was released in 2012, with numerous, acclaims, nominations and even the Academy Award for Best Actor for Daniel Day-Lewis' portrayal of Lincoln. 30 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Kearns_Goodwin#Plagiarism_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Kearns_Goodwin#cite_note-Kearns2002-35 32 Goodwin, Doris Kearns (January 27, 2002). "How I Caused That Story". Time. Archived from the original on February 9, 2002. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Kearns_Goodwin#cite_note-Kearns2002-35 33 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_of_Rivals 31 Goodwin's was a seasoned academic writer, with a doctorate from Harvard no less and never should have plagiarized mid-career, she never took responsibility and dismissed what she did. Still, it did not hinder her career at all, and she was celebrated afterward for another book. That it did not affect her career sends a bad message professions can plagiarize and there will be few repercussions. Without repercussions, there are no deterrents for others to plagiarize and borrow without abandon. In 2002, Timothy Noah wrote in Slate, "How To Curb the Plagiarism Epidemic (Or, how Alice Mayhew gets her groove back.)" Noah expressed, "Either instance would be considered plagiarism–and dealt with quite severely–if the perpetrator were a freshman at Harvard, where Goodwin was previously a professor of government and now serves on the board of directors." 34 Another high profile historian was marred by a plagiarism scandal in 2002. Simon & Shuster author Stephen Ambrose was accused of plagiarism in multiple books he published. Ambrose wrote over 25 books including the World War II book Band of Brothers made in 2001 to a HBO Emmy Award winning series. First, The Weekly Standard accused Ambrose of lifting passages of his book The Wild Blue from historian Thomas Childers' "Wings of Morning: The Story of the Last American Bomber Shot Down over Germany in World War II," without putting them in quotation marks, although he did cite him. Ambrose called it a "mistake;" an oversight, Ambrose would write more than a book year, with his family and a team of research assistants and his books were a mill of popular history books. After the first discovery, the speed he wrote and released books was to blame. Ambrose responded to the accusation in The New York Times: "I tell stories. I don't discuss my documents. I discuss the story. It almost gets to the point where, how much is the reader going to take? I am not writing a Ph.D. dissertation. I wish I had put the quotation marks in, but I didn't. I am not out there stealing other people's writings. If I am writing up a passage and it is a story I want to tell and this story fits and a part of it is from other people's writing, I just type it up that way and put it in a footnote. I just want to know where the hell it came from." 35 34 35 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/01/ending-the-plagiarism-epidemic.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_E._Ambrose Noah found Ambrose's statement on the scandal was "more defiant than apologetic." 36 Ambrose's scandal only grew as more accusations from journalists followed with Forbes' Mark Lewis looking to make it a story. Lewis discovered that Ambrose's plagiarism went back to 1975 and his book Crazy Horse and Custer, where Ambrose took passages from Jay Monaghan's 1959 book, "Custer: The Life of General George Armstrong Custer." Lewis than discovered that Ambrose copied passages in two other of his books Citizen Soldiers (1997) and Nixon: Ruin and Recovery (1991). Ironically, the book Ambrose copied Robert Sam Anson’s “Exile: The Unquiet Oblivion of Richard M. Nixon,” (1985) was also edited by Alice Mayhew, the revelation on put more spotlight on his editor and Simon & Shuster. 37Then the New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick found five more passages in The Wild Blue were plagiarized. Timothy Noah seems to place much of the blame for the Goodwin and Ambrose scandals on their editor at Simon & Schuster Alice Mayhew, especially once the plagiarism is detected. Noah explains one "expect(s) a distinguished editor to come clean once her authors’ hands are caught in the cookie jar. Simon & Schuster’s initial responses to the Ambrose and Goodwin revelations were shamefully Enron-like." However, editor's job is more complex and they bear some of the responsibility. They are the gatekeeper of the manuscript's publication and wide dissemination. Editors are supposed to detect problems with the unpublished manuscripts. Vault describes the job of a book editor explain they "acquire and prepare written material for publication in book form. ... A book editor's duties may include contracting for and evaluating a manuscript, accepting or rejecting it, rewriting, correcting spelling and grammar, researching, and fact checking." 38 Mayhew was a legend at Simon and Shuster and in the publishing industry. The Sag Harbor Express called Mayhew, "The legion of legendary editors who earned fierce loyalty from some of the top authors in the United States." 39 She served as the vice president and editorial director at Simon and Shuster, and mostly edited books by political journalists, politicians, and historians, who wrote as the 36 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/01/ending-the-plagiarism-epidemic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/books/alice-mayhew-dead.html 38 https://www.vault.com/industries-professions/professions/b/bookeditors#:~:text=Book%20editors%20acquire%20and%20prepare%20written%20material%20for%20publ ication%20in%20book%20form.&text=A%20book%20editor's%20duties%20may,%2C%20researching %2C%20and%20fact%20checking 39 https://sagharborexpress.com/legendary-editor-alice-mayhew-dies-at-87/ 37 Washington Post put it, "popular histories and biographies as well as the journalistic genre known as "'the Washington book.'"40 Her roster was the who's who of the field. Among the authors Mayhew worked with were "President Jimmy Carter, John Dean, E.J. Dionne, Frances FitzGerald, Diane von Furstenberg, David Gergen, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Thomas Hoving, David Maraniss, Sylvia Nasar, William Shawcross, Sally Bedell Smith, James B. Stewart, Evan Thomas, Mark Whitaker, and Amy Wilentz." In addition, her Sag Harbor neighbors, "Betty Friedan, J. Anthony Lukas, Kati Marton, Walter Isaacson, Judith Miller, Richard Reeves, Carl Bernstein, Robert Sam Anson, and Jennet Conant." 41 Her most loyal author was Bob Woodward, in 1974, she edited Woodward's and Bernstein's "All the President’s Men" about their reporting for President Richard Nixon's involvement with the Watergate scandal. Mayhew died in January 2020, and despite 49 years and the pinnacle of editing success, The Goodwin and Ambrose scandals tainted her. The obituaries announcing her death, celebrated her death, but almost always brought up the Goodwin and Ambrose scandals. In classic Washington Post style, the paper's obituary went further on the scandal. They quoted the New Republic, who in 1991 exposed faults in Mayhew's editing. The New Republic's expose accused Mayhew of giving out the editing duties to three of her workers, rather than review the texts herself. Jacob Weisberg tried to reveal the secrets inside the publishing business particularly the hands off approach of editors in the big publishing houses leading to books being published with errors. Weisberg pointed out, "Writers are loath to talk on the record about how poorly edited their books are because it reflects badly on them, and upon editors who are potential purchasers of future books." 42 The lack of editing is a well-known secret nobody likes to discuss until a plagiarism scandal or factual errors are discovered. Simon and Shuster and Mayhew was the dream team authors looked for if they wanted success. However, the emphasis was putting out money making books as opposed to editorial quality, "Many authors, in fact, long for an editor like Alice Mayhew or Michael Korda of Simon and Schuster, who are renowned not for their editing but for their ability to conjure best sellers out of their hats." 40 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/alice-mayhew-book-editor-with-an-eye-onwashington-dies-at-87/2020/02/04/b23185c6-3d29-11ea-baca-eb7ace0a3455_story.html 41 42 https://sagharborexpress.com/legendary-editor-alice-mayhew-dies-at-87/ https://newrepublic.com/article/149105/rough-trade Simon and Shuster, other editors defended Mayhew countering that she actually took a hands on approach. Mayhew's later editing style was far different at the start of her career. Woodward and Bernstein expressed the acknowledgments for "All the President's Men," thanking Mayhew for the "thought and guidance are reflected on every page."43 Mayhew first faced an editorial scandal when in 1991 Simon and Shuster released two conflicting biographies on the Reagans both edited by Mayhew. They were Kitty Kelley's sensational "Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography" and the serious biography by journalist Lou Cannon, "Ronald Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime." Kelley's book was filled with "thin documentation, unwarranted assertions, and innuendos" and Mayhew and the publisher did nothing about it to correct them or even to find out if they had been true. The book's sensationalism was its selling point and the reason they paid out a hefty multi-million advance. Mayhew's defense only damned her more when the Goodwin and Ambrose scandals were revealed. They made her guiltier and responsibility for the plagiarism in the books she edited. However, Mayhew claimed her position did not extend to fact checking. Weisberg recounted, "Alice Mayhew refused to take a position on whether the contents of the book were factual, 'That is not my role,' she told Newsweek.44 She refused to take responsibility for problems with a book under her editorship, leaving the blame entirely on the author. Cannon found fault with Mayhew and Simon and Shuster publishing both books within a month. Cannon felt he was "undermined" because Kelley's book was getting so publicity, but his was finely researched and cited. Cannon was even considering a lawsuit, but the publisher decided to settle silently as they later did with Goodwin and McTaggert. The publisher had no problem with the contradictions. Weisberg recounts, "No one at Simon and Schuster seems bothered by the contradictions. According to Snyder, 'To publish is to disseminate. Our aim is to present both sides.'" Earlier in 1991, Mayhew's books also had similar contradictory conflict, presenting radically different information about the same event the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama. Bob Woodward’s The Commanders and Kevin Buckley’s "Panama: The Whole Story" contradicted each other with Woodward recounting the Pentagon's version while Buckley believed Noriega planned to trick US troops into military action leading to 1,000 deaths. 43 44 https://newrepublic.com/article/149105/rough-trade However, it is the responsibility of the editor to ensure everything seems fine and proper in all parts of the manuscript's text before publication. Especially in Ambrose case, if Mayhew had edited the books herself, she would have noticed the similarities between Ambrose's text and the text of Robert Sam Anson's book, which she also supposedly edited. However, and insider claimed years before that Mayhew rarely edited the books on her list. She supposedly edited between 30 and 40 books a year, and never mind edit them all, she did not read all of them and did not know of contradictions, factual errors or plagiarism in the books under her name. The HNN Historian's on the hot seat page and the sheer number of scandals profoundly affected me. Some careers rebounded, however, the fall out taught me to extra cautious in my academic and journalistic writing. Most academics do not want to mire up in any controversy and would never step in the questionable conduct. However, if there is no career ramifications and punishments there is very little to deter writers and academics from plagiarizing. As I experienced recently when I discovered Foreign Policy journalist James Traub liberally borrowed from an essay I wrote about Judah Benjamin without citing me, in his book "Judah Benjamin: Counselor to the Confederacy." All this happening barely two years after I have been approached a book series editor to write a book about Benjamin, who was more interested in giving my Benjamin essay and "clever" Master's thesis to another more high profile scholar to write. Traub's only response, "I have never heard of you or your book. Nobody stole anything," despite my essay being a top Google search which can be found by anyone doing a simple search on Judah Benjamin. Traub also liberally bowrowed from a female legal scholar, under-cited female historians, writing a book that proved a lack of knowledge of southern Jewish history, without any consequences to his career. However, he is not the only one responsible. Considering Mayhew's lack of editing in the books that resulted in scandals, fact based or plagiarism, one has to question Jewish Lives' editor Ileene Smith's involvement or lack of it in Traub's Judah Benjamin biography. Smith specifically recruited him to write a book on a topic he had no experience in because of his high profile and connections. We have to stop giving academics, like Kearns Goodwin, Ambrose, and Traub on their academic misdeeds because of their celebrity status, and hold them to the standards professors would hold their students. Women are undercited and plagiarized by men "I have never heard of you or your book. Nobody stole anything." This was the response I had on Facebook from a male author, journalist, and lecturer to my calling him out for liberally borrowing from my published research without any citations or attributions. My essay on Confederate cabinet secretary Judah P. Benjamin is a top ten Google search result that any high school student could find, never mind a veteran journalist; I am sure he came across it. I found his thesis, phrases, and ideas similar to my essay and my master's thesis. We also have some common professional acquaintances, including a mentor and former editor of mine at a high-profile online history publication. I highly doubt he never heard of my name either. Considering he is a white male writer who, in the course of an entire book, only cited four living female scholars or writers. Traub's avoidance of female writers represents the epitome of the sexism or lack of citations women scholars experience despite representing over 50 percent of non-tenured college faculty. The male hierarchy prevents women in academia from leadership positions, and male colleagues plagiarize women scholars more often, and women experience more undercitations than their male counterparts do. Among those most mistreated and disrespected are women. Especially in light of the Me-Too Movement, gender inequality in academia is a hot topic, with many published studies. The literature is so vast it is difficult to sum them up. Women have increased access to university education, with enrollment tripling since 1995. However, "equal access" does not mean "equal outcome," women are still finding it more challenging to break through and find academic career success than their male counterparts. 45 This year's International Women's Day theme was #BreakTheBias; the bias against women is both "conscious and unconscious" and is at the core of discrimination and inequality towards women in business and especially academia. 46 In business, male leadership uses a few keywords in performance reviews to justify and prevent women from advancing to management and leadership positions. The men call women "Bossy, Abrasive, A ball-buster, Aggressive, Shrill, Bolshy, Intense, Stroppy, Forward, Mannish," among others. 47 These words are a traditional means of gender bias, and these same qualities and derogatory terms are used as complimentary when describing men with the same behavior. In 2014, CEO and former academic Kieran Snyder examined the language used in tech businesses' performance reviews. In the reviews, women were 45 https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210312130746862 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/breaking-bias-against-women-academia-long-term-project 47 http://sacraparental.com/2016/05/14/everyday-misogyny-122-subtly-sexist-words-women/ 46 disproportionately called "abrasive, bossy, aggressive, strident, emotional and irrational." 48 Where men were never criticized in the same way; instead, only twice were they reviewed about the need to be more aggressive. While the business world punishes women and prevents their advancement because they find women workers to be outspoken, in the academic world, men silence women to prevent advancement by ignoring their scholarship and voice. On International Women's Day on March 8, 2022, The World Economic Forum (WEF) published a new report, "Gender equality: How global universities are performing," looking at how 776 universities are performing when it comes to achieving gender equality.49 The study uses Times Higher Education's (THE) impact indicators against "17 of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)." The study finds that although women represent a majority of university and college students, they face barriers to moving beyond higher education. The study finds women earned 54 percent of all university diplomas, but fewer of them are in STEM degrees. Women usually take the "arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS)" and medicine, but less so "science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)." 50 Universities claim they want women to succeed by providing policies that are supposed to help, with 89 percent having "policies of non-discrimination against women" and 81 percent having "mentoring or scholarships" programs. Still, they are not allowing women to advance and reach the upper level of university leadership. The study found a "policy-practice gap" where the universities have the policies on paper to look good, but they are not "implementing" them. Additionally, WEF finds that the universities are not making the policies well known to female students and faculty, and they cannot take advantage of these "gender-equal policies." 51 Most universities do not provide evidence that their programs are working to help women. Universities are far more interested in getting females to apply and enroll, but their long-term success is not that important to follow and maybe encourage. The report determined that "four in five universities track male and female application rates separately," but only "two-thirds of them track women's graduation rates and have plans aimed at closing the gap." Additionally, the survey found that women are squeezed out of advancement in academia; they face a more 48 http://sacraparental.com/2016/05/14/everyday-misogyny-122-subtly-sexist-words-women/ Gender equality: How global universities are performing 50 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/the_gender_equality_report_part_1.pdf 51 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/improve-gender-equality-universities-report/ 49 difficult time reaching senior academic teaching positions, and only "less than twofifths of senior academics are women globally." Women also have more trouble publishing their research, authoring only "less than a third" of research papers. 52 The WEF believes universities are the place to be at the forefront of gender equality to "set an example" to other industries. "Universities are also large organisations with thousands of staff, students and academics, and they should be setting a leading example for other industries by not only creating policies and services that support women's advancement, but ensuring these measures are properly documented, promoted and implemented. They must ensure that female staff have equality when it comes to recruitment, promotion, pay, funding and workload and that women have mentors and role models." 53 While the numbers improve each year, the studies show that women still face an uphill battle, and gender equality is not yet a reality. According to Georgina Randsley de Moura in the THE, "Breaking the bias against women in academia is a long-term project Transparency, institutional accountability and continual change are all essential." 54 Last year for 2021 International Women's Day, UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC) published a report, "Women in Higher Education: Has the female advantage put an end to gender inequalities?" The report finds women lag behind men in the university regarding "leadership and academic positions, pay, research and publications." The report documents that "there is a dearth of women at the top" and "among academic teachers and researchers." 55 Women are over-represented among teaching staff at lower educational levels, but their presence drops in tertiary education at colleges and universities. Still, even when they reach the college level of teaching, women find it harder to obtain tenure, especially in leadership positions. In 2018, 43% of teachers in tertiary education were women compared to 66% and 54% in primary and 52 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/the_gender_equality_report_part_1.pdf https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/improve-gender-equality-universities-report/ 54 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/breaking-bias-against-women-academia-long-term-project 55 https://www.iesalc.unesco.org/en/2021/03/10/has-the-female-advantage-put-an-end-to-gender-inequalities-areport-and-a-debate-seek-to-provide-an-answer/ 53 secondary education, respectively. In 2020, just 30% of the world's university researchers were women." 56 The World Economic Forum's report on women in academia in 2021 found that globally only 36 percent of women hold senior teaching positions in universities. At only "a sixth of institutions (138), women" held over "half" of all "senior" academic and teaching positions. The WEF explains, "This includes professors, deans, chairs, and senior university leaders; it does not include honorary positions." The number of women holding senior positions depends on geographic locations. The WEF notes, "The distributions show that in at least half of the participating universities in all regions, there is a gender gap in academic leadership." 57 The European and African continents were the only two where women academics held a more significant percentage of senior positions, with Russia having the most at 48 percent. Most of the country's women represent "between 30 and 40 percent" of their senior teaching and leadership faculty. Asia has the least female senior faculty; Japan has just 15 percent, with some universities in Asia not having any female senior faculty. Women represent over 50 percent of untenured college professors, lecturers, and instructors in the United States. The American Association of University Women AAUW notes, "Women make up the majority of nontenure-track lecturers and instructors across institutions, but only 44% of tenure-track faculty and 36% of full professors. Women of color are especially underrepresented in college faculty and staffs — which contributes to lack of diversity, equity and inclusion in teaching practices and curriculum and role models and support systems for students." 58 Only 30% of college presidents are women, while more than 50% of heads of departments are women. Women only make up around 30% of the college board of directors. Women are still paid less than men at every faculty rank and in most positions within institutional leadership, with higher education administrators experiencing around a 20% gender pay gap and college presidents having a pay gap under 10%. In January 2020, another study published looked at the academic staff in Italy conducted by Gianluca De Angelis and Barbara Grüning entitled" Gender Inequality in Precarious Academic Work: Female Adjunct Professors in Italy." They found that women held less tenured positions and took up more adjunct positions, but not attaining tenure posts allowed them to write more. They explain, 56 https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210312130746862 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/improve-gender-equality-universities-report/ 58 https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-academia/ 57 "International research studies and national reports point out two specific aspects which characterize women's academic careers (cf. Eagly, 2003; Glass and Cook, 2016). First, few women advance to senior academic roles. Second, although female academics progress in numbers equivalent to their male colleagues up to a certain point, in most cases, their academic career paths either stop before they arrive at tenured positions or they remain in the lower ranks of the hierarchical academic structure. Thus, while the numeric growth and temporal extension of fixed-term positions have, overall, increased women's opportunities for researching and teaching at universities, on the other hand, it has impeded their access to tenured positions." 59 Despite the old myths that family responsibility and childrearing prevent women from advancement, recent scholarship proves that gender and gender alone is the only determining factor in whether someone reaches a senior position. In 2019, HEC Paris professor Shaheena Janjuha-Jivraj wrote in Forbes about women being left behind in academic positions. She quoted Dr. Georgina Santos of Cardiff University and her UK study of 2,000 academics at UK universities looking at gender advancement in teaching positions. Janjuha-Jivraj writes, "The research found that male academics reached more senior levels than their female counterparts, even when taking parenting responsibilities into account. When comparing individuals with identical or similar qualifications and credentials and family circumstances, the only factor influencing differing academic rankings was gender, with men holding higher positions than female academics. 60 Women academics are passed over for promotions and advancement, and they are shut out of publishing their research. The World Economic Forum found that in 2021 women will write only 29 percent of the research at universities globally. Of the over 800 universities used in the report at 55 universities, just 7 percent of women represent over 50 percent of the research authors. However, this contrasts with the number of female students at the undergraduate level; women represent a majority of the students at 54 percent. According to the UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education, these numbers "demonstrates how much more work still needs to be done to encourage and support women to stay in academia and progress up the ranks." 61 59 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00087/full https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaheenajanjuhajivrajeurope/2019/06/10/the-gender-imbalance-in-academia-whatuniversities-need-to-learn-from-business/?sh=15d7f72ab0ff 60 61 During the Covid-19 crisis, gender inequality is becoming a bigger problem. The lockdown forced women to take on more domestic roles, taking them away from their academic careers. Professors Alesia Zuccala and Gemma Derrick recount, "Women are submitting fewer preprints, dropping enrolments in university programmes, missing from pandemic-related scientific committees, and experiencing pressure during lockdown periods to take on traditional caregiving and domestic responsibilities." 62 The number of women publishing research articles is less; according to UNESCO, "The average share across all institutions is just 29 per cent, while at only 55 universities (or 7 per cent of the total) are more than half of authors women. The averages by country range from 9 per cent in Iraq to 43 per cent in Portugal." The number of women publishing and being productive decreased during the pandemic. With lockdowns, women had more domestic duties, while working at home helped increase male academic productivity. Two studies showed women researchers published less in the first months of the pandemic, but their levels rebounded in the second half of the year when the lockdowns eased. UNESCO indicates, "It remains to be seen whether these unproductive research periods for female academics will have an impact on the hiring, promotion and funding of women." 63 Women are also plagiarized more often than their male counterparts are. The scholarship of women and people of color is disrespected more than white male academics and by white male academics. Twelve white women academics in an environmental history-writing group studied the prevalence of white male scholars omitting to cite the scholarship of women and minority groups, but most still use their work. They documented and analyzed this problem in their Inside Higher Ed article, "'A Disturbing Pattern' Inadequately citing or entirely omitting the scholarship of women and people of color reflects the larger problem of entrenched marginalization in the academy." 64 These women also recounted their experiences of being plagiarized, despite being senior professors at elite universities, including Ivy League and Top tier research and state universities. These historians have "published 34 books and 207 peer-reviewed articles and chapters." 65 62 https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/01/26/when-it-comes-to-gender-inequality-in-academia-weknow-more-than-what-can-be-measured/ 63 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377182 64 https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/08/27/entrenched-inequity-not-appropriately-citing-scholarshipwomen-and-people-color 65 https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/08/27/entrenched-inequity-not-appropriately-citing-scholarshipwomen-and-people-color The historians noted, "In just three months, published work by four of our members was inadequately cited or entirely omitted in other relevant publications." The historians point out that almost all women in all academic fields have had their work undercited. They recount, "Those disturbing lapses reflect a larger pattern, in all disciplines, of undercitation of scholarship by women and people of color. This pattern plays out in books, articles, grant applications, and blogs and extends into applied fields of scholarship outside the academy." 66 Unfortunately, if under citation happens to senior women scholars some in university leadership positions, then it is more prevalent among "junior colleagues -- graduate students, postdocs, adjunct faculty, lecturers, and untenured faculty." 67 Additionally, scholars of color and other minority groups risk being undercited. These scholars looked at undercitations as just one result of systematic sexism and discrimination in the academe. These historians find citation policy and the omission of citing women and people of color a "powerful" example of sexism and racism in academia because it skews academic scholarship and viewpoints, preventing more varied and broader historiography. The historians claim, "Citations are powerful technologies of knowledge production, yet they may simultaneously produce ignorance. Failure to cite the work of particular groups of scholars, whether intentional or not, distorts our understandings of the past and of contemporary inequities." 68 Males in academia, particularly white males, are looking to make a particular view on history; they do not want the perspectives of others because it changes the tight, rigid, and "traditional" approaches to history. Male historians want to prevent women from historiography from having a voice and shaping the professions and analysis of the past. They are picking and choosing whose voices they want in the historical canon, and it is not women's voices. In doing so, these male historians willingly plagiarized rather than cite female historians. The men want to serve as gatekeepers; if they refuse to cite women scholars, they shut women from moving up the ladder in the academic world in the university and publishing. Research is the game's name, and citations are the currency to win. In refusing to cite women in their women, the men can keep their predominance and status within their fields. 66 https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/08/27/entrenched-inequity-not-appropriately-citing-scholarshipwomen-and-people-color 67 https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/08/27/entrenched-inequity-not-appropriately-citing-scholarshipwomen-and-people-color 68 https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/08/27/entrenched-inequity-not-appropriately-citing-scholarshipwomen-and-people-color In the article, the women historians explain, "Many professional decisions are tied to impact and influence. Undercited scholarship affects who gets hired, tenured, funded, published, and promoted. It undermines morale and well-being. Undercitation impedes participation in networks, communities, and decisionmaking bodies that are the locus of evaluation and power. Undercited scholarship trivializes the contributions of women and marginalized groups, making disciplines appear whiter and more male." 69 In addition, under citation affects women's further scholarship, ensuring what the women historians call "White supremacy." The gatekeeping starts even before publication. Journals and book publishers make it difficult for women and people of color to be published from the start, refusing their journal and book proposals more often than white male scholars. The women historians recount, "Scholars of color, white women and LBGTQ+ scholars have lower rates of journal publication, receive less support and encouragement, and recount numerous experiences when they have pitched manuscripts and proposals only to be dismissed." 70 Although I had already self-published my Benjamin essay and had it published on blogs, I could not get it published as a book because I was a woman, and on my second strike, I did not have a doctorate. In 2020, a year after I published my essay, "The Mysterious Prince of the Confederacy: Judah P. Benjamin and the Jewish Goal of whiteness in the South," Paul Finkelman, then President at Gratz College in Philadelphia, approached me to write a full biography on Benjamin for the series he edited at Routledge Press, "Routledge Historical Americans. First flattered me and wanted me to write a proposal, sending me samples and instructions. Finkelman then looked to find any fault in my essay because, as he said, he wanted a Benjamin book. But he wanted a book written by a male elite, not a woman without a doctorate, which was the only reason Finkelman did not want me to write a Benjamin biography in his series. Finkelman wanted my ideas, my original essay, and a book proposal; like other white male scholars, women's ideas are fine, but not citing them or giving them authorship. I feared he wanted to plagiarize my essay; I publicized that I authored the paper, my intention to elongate it to an entire book. At jobs I applied to in academia, I included my essay 69 https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/08/27/entrenched-inequity-not-appropriately-citing-scholarshipwomen-and-people-color 70 https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/08/27/entrenched-inequity-not-appropriately-citing-scholarshipwomen-and-people-color and plans; it was well circulated in the Jewish media, on the Times of Israel Blogs, and in academia. Still, a year and a half later, James Traub, who only has a bachelor's degree, but from Harvard University. Yale University Press published his biography on Benjamin, where he did not cite almost any female scholars or me, still borrowed from my thesis and even phrases from my text. Traub may be an excellent foreign policy journalist, but he barely has a background in history and has admitted he knows nothing about American Jewish history and knows nothing about Judah Benjamin when the Jewish Lives editor and personal friend, Ileene Smith, asked Traub to write the book on Benjamin. 71 The twelve female historians believe that undercitation is a form of plagiarism. Male scholars use female scholars' ideas but refuse to cite their writing. They are also whitewashing the historiography leaving out the important contributions of women and people of color. Historians point out, "Undercitation raises academic honesty and integrity questions. When authors do not consider the full diversity of research published in their fields, their neglect women and BIPOC scholars, wield professional power against others. When authors fail to cite authors whose works they relied upon, they are guilty of plagiarism. How can scholars ethically continue to erase others' work?" 72 Students are the worst plagiarism offenders, but they are the most overly punished by their professors, 25 percent of who, according to a recent study, plagiarize themselves. Students might not always know better; professors should. What universities overlook is the frequency their faculty plagiarizes. In research universities, the faculty is stressed; they must teach, participate in professional duties, and produce original research. In their 2012 study, Professors Benson Honig and Akanksha Bedi examined plagiarism among Management faculty in their article, "The Fox in the Hen House: A Critical Examination of Plagiarism Among Members of the Academy of Management," finding a quarter of the academics plagiarized. 73 The women historians also pointed out this doublestandard in universities, writing, "It is ironic that in a profession that requires our 71 https://bonniekgoodman.medium.com/an-enduring-problem-in-academia-professors-also-plagiarize-but-get-awaywith-it-2015fee4bf59 72 https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/08/27/entrenched-inequity-not-appropriately-citing-scholarshipwomen-and-people-color 73 https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amle.2010.0084 students to abide by principles of academic integrity, some scholars fail to do so." 74 The women historians also pointed out that "moreover, guilty parties regularly escape accountability." I recently wrote an article about how professors and professional writers escape even from plagiarism scandals almost unscathed. The article was entitled, "An enduring problem in academia professors also plagiarize but get away with it." 75 The article looked at plagiarism in academia, especially among historians. It was based on what I observed while working as an intern and then editor at the History News Network. At HNN, there was a walk of shame page, "Historians in the Hot Seat," which kept track of any historian that faced any scandal. 76 Some lied about their credentials or past, most related to plagiarizing and the consequences. Some of history's most prominent names made a list of plagiarism scandals, they almost always were not punished, and their careers rebounded. The women historians also indicated that while white male scholars exclude citing women, they also overcite other male colleagues or scholars more influential than them. In doing so, they mutually build each other's careers while leaving women out in the cold. Traub was also guilty of overciting scholars. In his Benjamin biography, he cited more than any other scholars Eli N. Evans's Judah P. Benjamin, the Jewish Confederate, the complete biography on Benjamin written, and the influential American Jewish historian, Jonathan Sarna. Sarna's name and publications were included nine times in Traub's book. Sarna, in turn, endorsed Traub's book, calling it, "This is, by far, the best and most readable, short biography of Benjamin that exists." Sarna knows better; Traub's biography was full of historical errors, but Traub played up to Sarna, giving him the citations; he wanted to increase his ever-long lists of mentions. The women historians explained the phenomenon that kept men at the forefront of historiography, "Indeed, they often are rewarded by those canonical scholars they do amplify through citations. As a result, the field reproduces itself in exclusionary ways." 77 74 https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/08/27/entrenched-inequity-not-appropriately-citing-scholarshipwomen-and-people-color 75 https://bonniekgoodman.medium.com/an-enduring-problem-in-academia-professors-also-plagiarize-but-get-awaywith-it-2015fee4bf59 76 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1081 77 https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/08/27/entrenched-inequity-not-appropriately-citing-scholarshipwomen-and-people-color President Finkelman might have a hand in The Jewish Lives series by adding a biography on Judah Benjamin and their choice of Traub, a white male with a high profile. Almost confirming that Finkelman gave Traub a primarily favorable review in the Jewish Review of Books' Winter 2022 issue. Besides Chancellor Finkelman approaching me to write a Benjamin book for his Routledge series, Finkelman has not written about Benjamin in his research. It is difficult not to see the coincidences and then Traub's liberal usage of my thesis and some phrases from both my master's thesis, "Unconditional Loyalty to the Cause: Jews, Whiteness, and Anti-Semitism in the Civil War South, 1840-1913" and my Benjamin essay, "The Mysterious Prince of the Confederacy: Judah P. Benjamin and the Jewish Goal of Whiteness in the South," ties it all together. 78 Finkelman summarized the Benjamin biography and the Confederate secretary's life before critiquing and commending Traub's take on Benjamin's life. Finkelman wrote: "Traub's biography is lively, well written, and engaging. There are superb vignettes of political leaders and vivid descriptions of Benjamin's oratorical and forensic skills. Unfortunately, it is also often inaccurate… Despite the many such errors, Traub has written a vivid portrait of Judah Benjamin, who led an utterly fascinating (and marginally Jewish) life. It is not always pretty, but history often isn't." 79 Ironically, even when searching the title of Traub's book on Google, my essay on Traub on Medium still comes out in the top ten searches, while my biography of Benjamin is still in the top 100 searches. So how is Traub completely ignored to cite and mention that my work exists? My essay is the most extended available biography on Benjamin since Southern historian Eli Evans's monumental 1989 book "Judah P. Benjamin, the Jewish Confederate." While I primarily relied on secondary sources for convenience, I still included every study published on Benjamin. 78 Goodman, Bonnie K., "The Mysterious Prince of the Confederacy: Judah P. Benjamin and the Jewish Goal of Whiteness in the South," https://www.academia.edu/38088923/The_Mysterious_Prince_of_the_Confederacy_Judah_P_Benjamin_and_the_Je wish_Goal_of_Whiteness_in_the_South ; Bonnie K. Goodman, "Unconditional Loyalty to the Cause: Jews, Whiteness, and Anti-Semitism in the Civil War South, 1840-1913," 2020. https://www.academia.edu/44561920/Unconditional_Loyalty_to_the_Cause_Jews_Whiteness_and_Anti_Semitism_ in_the_Civil_War_South_1840_1913 79 https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/american-jewry/11996/an-israelite-with-egyptian-principles Traub purposely forgot my top-ranking essay and everything published about Benjamin in the last fifteen years. Traub ignored the recent historiography, some seminal works on Jews during the Civil War, and Southern Jewish history, and his book and analysis are poorer for it. I am not the only woman academic Traub chose to dismiss. I am not the only woman academic Traub decided to ignore. Traub's source notes avoid any writing about Benjamin written by women. Traub's entire book attempts to prevent women scholars if they wrote about Benjamin, Southern history, Southern Jewish history, or the Civil War era. Traub only cited four women scholars in his entire book. Duke University Librarian Jennie Holton Fant's, "The Travelers' Charleston: Accounts of Charleston and Lowcountry, South Carolina, 1666-1861" (2016), Stonybrook University President Maureen Dee McInnis, a cultural art historian's award-winning book "The Politics of Taste in Antebellum Charleston" (2005). Shirley Elizabeth Thompson's book, "Exiles at Home: The Struggle to Become American in Creole New Orleans." (2009), Thompson is a minority in the historian's Traub, an African American and a woman, which seems like an insult considering academics and historians of color are just as much undercited as white women scholars. Additionally, Traub cited Yale University historian Joanne B. Freeman's "The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to the Civil War" (2018). Freeman is a leading historian in the field, but there are so many women studying the Civil War that Traub ignores, including one of the most influential. Former President of Harvard, Civil War historian Drew Gilpin Faust. Additionally, the American Jewish history and Southern Jewish field are filled with women historians, which Traub conveniently forgot. One of the most glaring omissions and plagiarism is when Traub repeatedly emphasizes Benjamin's ability to change and adapt. In 2015, Legal scholar Catharine MacMillan, the Chair in Private Law at the Dickson Poon School of Law at King's College London, wrote the essay, "Judah Benjamin: marginalized outsider or admitted insider?." MacMillian argued about Benjamin's ability to adapt to different circumstances focusing on his years in England after escaping capture in the Confederacy. 80 In 2014, Professor MacMillan presented a paper entitled "Judah Benjamin: The Louisianan's Influence on British Law" at Louisiana State University. 81 80 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2562677 https://sites.law.lsu.edu/worldwide/2014/08/27/catherine-macmillan-discusses-judah-benjamin-and-the-influenceof-louisiana-civil-law-on-the-english-common-law/ 81 In 2018, MacMillan presented a paper at the William & Mary Law School Marshall-Wythe Lecture in Legal History, "Personal Networks and the Transference of Legal Ideas: the Trans-Atlantic Career of Judah P. Benjamin," and hosted a workshop, "A Political Exile's Odyssey: The Strange Life of Judah P. Benjamin." 82 McMillan was authoring a book about Benjamin's legal career. MacMillan is the preeminent scholar examining Benjamin's legal profession. However, Traub never mentions her, and none of her writings appear in his endnotes. The bias extends to one of America's most beloved figures, Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In February 2002, Ginsburg delivered an address to the Jewish Council for Public Affairs when they honored her with the Albert D. Chernin Award. Ginsburg's speech discussed Benjamin being the first Jew nominated to the United States Supreme Court. While filed with the secondary source material, Ginsburg's insights into Benjamin's legal career are a welcome addition to a biography on Benjamin. Yet, Traub could cite a Tablet Magazine about Benjamin, of course, written by a man. 83 Male writers, especially influential ones, seem like Teflon, untouchable whether they undercite or downright plagiarize; they get away without retribution. Despite calling out Traub on multi-platforms and readers seeing my articles, the mainstream media has not picked up on his plagiarism, undercitation, and ignoring female scholars. It is eight months since Yale University Press published Traub's, and there have not been attempts to address, apologize, or rectify Traub's errors, undercitations, and plagiarism. The closest Traub got to any punishment or ridicule was in June when YUP put some volumes of the Jewish Lives series on sale. Traub had the distinct honor of having his Benjamin's print, and digital version put down to the lowest markdown, a bargain price of six dollars. In the past, such price lowering was reserved for books that could not sell. At least the publisher and readers recognize the sexism and a plentitude of historical errors in his biography that ruins the integrity of the rest of the series, including some esteemed historians. 82 83 https://law.wm.edu/news/stories/2018/william-mary-law-hosts-marshall-wythe-lecture-in-legal-history.php https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/judah-benjamin Men continually deny women authorship credit Last week I found an interesting and surprisingly relevant headline in the Inside Higher Education newsletter, "Science's Women Ghostwriters." The article discussed that women in science, which can be applied to every area of academia, "are 'systematically' denied credit for their work," which the study's authors conclude is "the result of implicit bias." According to the study released on June 22, 2022, and published in Nature, "Many women scientists report having their work go un- or undercredited, and some say they've left science altogether as a result." 84 All publications, from academic to political to fashion, even covered the topic. It is a topic I know so well, one I have been researching, writing about, and lived through. The "paper finds that women are significant—and systematically—less likely to be recognized than their male peers." The numbers are troubling, "Women were 13 percent less likely to be named on articles and 58 percent less likely to be named on patents than their male collaborators." 85 The more significant the work, with more citations, the less likely women are included as authors; women are given authorship in 38 percent of the studies examined but represented 48 percent of the scientists. Women are more excluded than men from authorship, 38 to 43 percent, but must more women feel their contributions to the field are undervalued and unappreciated. The gender gap in STEM is studied more because of the available data but happens just as often in other fields to women in all stages of their careers. In 2019, another similar study, "Gender Disparity in Authorship Existent in Academia," found men were given more authorship credit in scientific publications than women even if their contributions did not deserve the credit. The study found, "Inequality seen in female authorship is another issue affecting academia. This is connected to underrepresentation of women in the scientific and academic communities. This gender disparity in authorship can have negative consequences, including a lack of recognition for the work done by female scientists. In fact, it might have led to the decrease in female students entering the scientific community." 86 The problems are the same in most academic fields, especially where men are the majority. A 2020 study concluded that even if women are given authorship credit, they are denied first-place authorship. The study in Nature was entitled, "More gender equality in authorship, issues in the past when looking at empirical work on authorships and therefore we need to think how we can improve gender equality in publishing." The authors found, "The piece also referred to evidence from mixedgender co-first authors in high-impact clinical journals indicating that women are significantly more likely to be placed second." 87 84 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/06/23/study-womens-credit-science-doesnt-match-contributions 85 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/06/23/study-womens-credit-science-doesnt-match-contributions 86 https://www.enago.com/academy/gender-disparity-in-authorship-existent-in-academia/ https://socialsciences.nature.com/posts/65148-more-gender-equality-in-authorship 87 In her Medium article, "The Culture of Genius and Women Impostors in Academia," Professor Maria Angel Ferrero discusses the "Underrepresentation and discrimination of women in Academia." Ferrero indicates, "Women, compared to male peers, earn less, take longer to get tenure, occupy fewer top tier positions, receive fewer grants and scholarships, just to name a few. On top of all that, women in academia are expected to work harder, produce more research, participate in multiple projects, take on more service and teaching hours, nurture their students, listen and show compassion for their colleagues, and outperform male academics, to just maybe get equal chances and treatment." 88 According to the International Growth Centre, "Barriers to women's careers in academia persist, and not just in the notorious STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. Here are five facts that illustrate why we are still far from parity." 89 One of the top reasons is that women in academia do not promote themselves the same way men do. Women do not shamelessly promote their work; we are more subdued because we fear the aggressive label. The study states, "The numbers suggest that only 21% of women self-cited their own work, compared to 31% of men. This has a direct impact on women's careers in academia, as the number of peer-reviewed publications and citations are the two key criteria taken into account for promotions. This is a classic catch-22. Negotiating and self-promoting by women are also judged to be negative traits by both men and women. Research shows that women, in academia and beyond, are either liked or respected, but not both (Cuddy, Fiske and Glick 2004)." 90 This past winter, after discovering that I had been plagiarized, I wrote a series of articles on plagiarism, "How the academic elites stole my Judah Benjamin biography: James Traub's Judah Benjamin: Counselor to the Confederacy," 91 "An enduring problem in academia professors also plagiarize but get away with it" 92 "Gender Inequality in Academia: Women are undercited and plagiarized." 93 The last one was supposed to be posted in honor of International Women's Day, 88 Under-representation of women in Academia | The Faculty (medium.com) https://medium.com/thefaculty/women-under-representation-in-academia-3e950e02d699 89 https://www.aauw.org/resources/research/the-stem-gap/ 90 5 facts on women in academia: Is gender parity really around the corner? - IGC (theigc.org) https://www.theigc.org/blog/5-facts-about-women-in-academia-is-gender-parity-really-around-the-corner/ 91 https://bonniekgoodman.medium.com/how-the-academic-elites-stole-my-judah-benjamin-biography3148aaf7edf4 https://bonniekgoodman.medium.com/an-enduring-problem-in-academia-professors-also-plagiarize-but-get-away- 92 with-it-2015fee4bf59 https://bonniekgoodman.medium.com/gender-inequality-women-are-undercited-and-plagiarized-in-academia- 93 8484442d988d focusing on the under citation of women in academia, I wrote over 4,000 words on the topic, about the research behind sexism in academia and my personal experiences, but I never finished the article until now. Why? Women being undercited and the inequality in academia was probably one of the most depressing topics I ever wrote about, and I have repeatedly studied and written about antisemitism. Men in academia are the gatekeepers; they want to prevent women from getting ahead because they might surpass them. Since published works are the name of the game in academia, the men's solution denies women authorship credit for the writing and research. The phrase footnote in history has its reasons. Male academics make the women they work with footnotes to their labors; the men reap the praise the women get nothing. Without authorship and credits, women cannot get the promotion they need to climb the ladder; it is the equivalent of professional starvation. Continuing in on my point about women not receiving the credit they deserve in academia, this was one such experience. In 2009, I was asked by a former professor, Gil Troy, at McGill University to add overviews and timelines to the essays on each of the elections from 1789 through 2008 for the revised 4th edition of the encyclopedia, the History of American Presidential Elections, 17892008 edited initially by famed historian Arthur M. Schlesinger and Fred L. Israel. When he came to me, the overviews featured a few topics; I was the one with the minutiae and many facts included in the final copy of the overviews. Adding the overviews and essays for the 2004 and 2008 elections was the significant changes to the new edition. Troy admitted in the introduction about the major additions, "For this 2011 edition, we reviewed the original text for any anachronisms, added electoral overviews, chronologies, and electoral maps and statistics, and updated the bibliography for each section." (xx) Therefore, in taking on the overviews and chronologies, Troy handed over a large part of the work for the project to me. In June 2019, in the middle of the #metoo movement, I posted on Facebook, but I did not say what I wanted or should have said. I feared retribution for speaking out for myself. I wrote: "Herculean indeed, try almost impossible in 3 months… The draft "Election Overviews" I contributed to the revised History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2008 (2011) edited by my former professor Gil Troy and the famed Arthur M. Schlesinger and Fred L. Israel; unfortunately, it too is out of print and only available as an ebook. https://www.academia.edu/.../History_of_American..." Instead of the contributor credit I was promised or deserved, Troy just gave me one line in the acknowledgment section of the introduction. He wrote, "Bonnie undertook the Herculean task of compiling the first drafts of the impressive overviews and chronologies." (xx). Although Troy acknowledged my significant work and praised it, he did not give the contributor credit anyone should have been given for a task and contribution that huge in a publication. In the Table of Contents, the authors of the essays were listed as the contributors and then the overviews and chronologies were listed, making it appear they authored it when some were written a long time ago. I have always been almost obsessive about copyright and credit in my work, whether writing or painting. I sacrificed monetarily for the proprietorship of my work; clear credit has always been necessary if copyright was impossible. Troy was one of my mentors, I had done occasional research assistance work, and I trusted him and believed him when I asked for a contributor credit, and he made me think I would receive it once the project was complete. Looking back, I can see I was more trusting, and his response was a vague positive allusion I would receive the credit, enough for my young naïve self to believe. He wanted me to believe in taking on the massive project because it is easier to direct than do. It was four months in the fall of 2009 of grueling work; I barely slept, ate, breathed, or anything, and my hands ached from typing. When you constantly work in such a stressed environment, the work especially writing and research, suffers. I was in Montreal and had to be available and work on Israel time. I got Shabbat off, but Troy was there barely seconds after Shabbat ended on the phone and email. I will admit my faults; with the enormity of the project, I procrastinated in the summer about how I should tackle the project. I did not correct my rough drafts as I went along. I had a bad habit of placing the text I was working from within my document to work from and not putting citations because I was not supposed to be for anyone else's eyes except mine until complete. The project was not supposed to be filled with footnotes, just a list of sources, making rough drafts clear only to me at that point. Troy demanded perfection, but there is no such thing as perfect rough drafts, even his book manuscripts. I would have provided a perfect draft had Troy not constantly threatened to take away the work from me and give it to someone else, as he called a crackerjack team of researchers or fact-checkers. I knew how significant my contribution was to such a legendary publication. In the end, despite my efforts, the project drained me from the constant work, and nothing I did seemed to please Troy. Do not ever work with someone if you want to remain friends; money, work, and deadlines do not mix. Animosity sets in; through the project, Troy realized, as most men in academia do, he gave me an exceptional opportunity to make my mark, with a big part in a legendary publication's new edition. I felt betrayed that I was denied the contributor credit, I was paid for the project as a whole, but was also never given a copy of the expensive volume. I had done work for other encyclopedias before, and I had completed bibliographies and still given credit. Men in academia will use any reason to degrade women to justify why they should deny them the authorship credit they deserve for their work. Troy will justify not giving me my contributor credit based on my rough drafts. However, he would never have treated another man working on the project the way he did me, and he would have given them the contributor credit for the work on the outlines and chronologies. The project took me away from my work as the Features Editor at the History News Network, a position I cherished. One can never bounce back from such a considerable absence from a position, especially in journalism. In the extended absence, I let down my other mentor, Rick Shenkman, whom I learned so much from at HNN, which shaped my career. At HNN, authorship credit was always given justly and fairly, from intern to contributor to the editor, no matter what, and I had been lucky to serve as an editor in a male field. My revelation is not in disrespect to Professor Troy; I learned so much from him about history, but that does not mean inequality was not there. Although I did not go to a doctorate program, what I learned from both Shenkman and Troy was the equivalent of a doctorate program. Still, it does not mean because women have male mentors and teachers that, they do not deserve credit for work when they author it, and Troy, who claims to be a feminist, should have acted justly. We keep seeing studies published where women are undercited in publications in 2013, in 2021, where women were denied authorship in 2017, and again in 2022. 94 [12] The cycle continues because men do not want to give women the prestige and opportunity citations, and authorship gives women for advancement in academia from the time of graduate school through professorships, tenure, and university leadership positions. Men in academia might want to seem progressive and claim they are feminists, but none of them are when it comes to giving women the credit that would help advance their careers, even if it is deserved. Even looking at the acknowledgments and Troy's crackerjack team, only 94 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism_in_academia one other female, was listed. From the onset of undergraduate studies, women are chosen less as research assistants, despite being the majority of students. The same bias and inequality continue through the academic journey and ranks. Fortunately for me, through my initiative, scholars have given me the credit I was denied citing me in several books and journal articles. Schools have used my outlines and chronologies in teaching. Readers worldwide have read my contribution to the encyclopedia more than any other part of the encyclopedia's revised edition. Women must take the same initiative, make their voices heard, and get back the credit denied. Men will not change; we have to be that change, or we will continue to read about these studies for years to come. It is a travesty that in 2022, women's rights are being trampled on by the male gatekeepers. Whether it be legal or academic, women's rights are in jeopardy. After the #metoo movement, women believed the tide had turned, and the male hierarchy would no longer take them advantage of, but this year proved to be the end of the progress. First, we saw actress Amber Heard not being believed in a defamation lawsuit brought on by her ex-husband mega actor Johnny Depp after she alluded to being abused in a Washington Post op-ed. This ended women's ability to call out their abusers without consequences. Then the Supreme Court overturned the almost fifty-year-old precedent allowing abortions established by Roe vs. Wade in 1973, allowing the states to tell women what they can do to their bodies and possibly making a right to choose criminal. All the while, studies show how many male academics are keeping women scholars from succeeding. When will women gain and keep real equality, and when will men be accountable? BIBLIOGRAHY Troy, Gil, Arthur M. Schlesinger, and Fred L. Israel. History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2008. New York: Infobase Pub, 2011. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS, is a Professional Librarian (CBPQ) and historian. She is the author of "Silver Boom! The Rise and Decline of Leadville, Colorado as the United States Silver Capital, 1860–1896," "The Mysterious Prince of the Confederacy: Judah P. Benjamin and the Jewish goal of whiteness in the South," "We Used to be Friends? The Long Complicated History of Jews, Blacks, and AntiSemitism," and the viral article, "OTD in History… October 19, 1796, Alexander Hamilton accuses Thomas Jefferson of having an affair with his slave creating a 200-year-old controversy over Sally Hemings." Ms. Goodman has a BA in History and Art History and a Masters in Library and Information Studies, both from McGill University, and has done graduate work in Jewish history at Concordia University as part of the MA in Judaic Studies, where she focused on Medieval and Modern Judaism. Her research area is North American Jewish history, particularly American Jewish history, and her thesis was entitled, "Unconditional Loyalty to the Cause: Southern Whiteness, Jewish Women, and Antisemitism, 1860–1913." Ms. Goodman contributed the overviews and chronologies to the "History of American Presidential Elections, 1789–2008," edited by Gil Troy, Arthur M. Schlesinger, and Fred L. Israel (2012). She is the former Features Editor at the History News Network and reporter at Examiner.com, where she covered politics, universities, religion, and news. She currently blogs at Medium, where she was a top writer in history and regularly writes on "On This Day in History (#OTD in #History)" Feature and on the Times of Israel. Her scholarly articles can be found on Academia.edu. She has over fifteen years of experience in education and political journalism.