Byline Times seems to be seriously misrepresenting the story, and I think it is exploitative because they waited until the Arday story was starting to die down, until the white supremacists made another move, to manipulate the feelings of people who feel harmed by how Arday was handled.

Show Post

While it’s true that T&F did not label Arday’s behavior as plagiarism, it’s very clear the editors saw a problem and asked him to *significantly* revise in a way that is beyond a typical erratum. As the RW coverage shows, he removed things that were reported to them as constituting plagiarism.

Show Post

I am troubled by the Byline Times approach to this because it feels manipulative. I have seen the emotional reactions that Black academics in particular are having to the headline. But the headline is not backed by the facts as presented in the article or elsewhere.

Show Post

The link to prior reporting is an incomplete discussion of a finding about an MDPI journal that appeared in Retraction Watch in July, which also discussed a Taylor & Francis article. In both cases, rather than retract due to plagiarism, the journals allowed Arday to make major corrections.

Show Post

Gonna do the deeply unpopular thing and point out that the new Byline Times reporting on Jason Arday is so irresponsible to the point of feeling predatory The headline and opening para make a claim that they subsequently do not back with details, a source, or ANY evidence.

Show Post