In the post-plagiarism era, a concept proposed by Sarah Eaton (2023), the reflection on academic integrity is profoundly transforming. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are no longer merely individual infractions but symptoms of an academic system subject to growing pressures: multiplication of publications, quantitative performance evaluation, and massive use of digital technologies and artificial intelligence. Post-plagiarism thus designates a context where the boundaries between originality and reuse become porous, forcing institutions to rethink their prevention and sanction mechanisms.
In this framework, the issues are multiple. Classic plagiarism – appropriation of texts or ideas without attribution – remains a serious offense, but self-plagiarism raises more complex questions. Reusing one's own work without disclosure can be perceived as a survival strategy in a system that values productivity, but it undermines scientific credibility and blurs the distinction between innovation and repetition. Post-plagiarism, therefore, invites us to move beyond a punitive vision to question the structural logics that favor these practices.
Sarah Eaton's contribution is significant: she introduced this conceptual framework into the Canadian debate and raised institutional awareness of the need for a systemic approach. However, her activity has focused primarily on the student body, through training, guides, and pedagogical policies. Students are thus placed at the heart of prevention and sanction mechanisms, while faculty and publishers remain less exposed. This asymmetry raises a moral and ethical problem: why is academic integrity treated as a priority requirement for students but approached with more discretion when it concerns researchers and professors?
In the Canadian Francophone space, particularly in Quebec, this orientation translates into a strong emphasis on pedagogical prevention. Francophone universities emphasize codes of conduct and training for students, but cases of faculty misconduct are rarely discussed publicly. Institutional culture favors protecting reputation and internal cohesion, which contributes to making misconduct in scholarly production invisible.
In the Anglophone space, debates are more connected to international standards. Anglophone universities adopt more explicit policies on plagiarism and self-plagiarism, including detection mechanisms and disciplinary procedures. The concept of post-plagiarism finds a more direct resonance there, as it fits into a global reflection on technological transformations and publication pressures. Eaton has played a catalytic role there, promoting institutional awareness and opening debate on shared responsibility.
Ultimately, the post-plagiarism era highlights a fundamental tension: the management of plagiarism and self-plagiarism cannot be limited to students but must include the academic body as a whole. The focus on students, as carried by part of Canadian initiatives, creates an asymmetry that undermines the credibility of the system. The moral and ethical challenge is therefore to recognize that academic integrity is a universal value that must be applied with the same rigor to students, professors, and publishers. Post-plagiarism is not just a new era: it is a call to rethink collective responsibility in the production and transmission of knowledge. (M. A.).
Note: To better understand the concept of postplagiarism, see Eaton, S. E. (2023). Postplagiarism: transdisciplinary ethics and integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology. Int J Educ Integr, 19, 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00144-1
