IU Press withdraws book from circulation

IU teaches its students from the second they walk into their first classes freshman year that in academic writing, if someone’s concepts and idea are used, they must be cited. When in doubt, cite!\nThe real world follows the same model. Unfortunately, sometimes in the mix of all the research and interviews an author does to get work published, not adding enough footnotes can sometimes pose a problem.\nThis was the case for Mark Mitchell and his book titled “Vladimir de Pachmann: A Piano Virtuoso’s Life and Art.”\nAllegations of plagiarism over the last four years finally led IU Press, a publishing company run through the University, to halt publication of the book and recall existing copies in October.\nAn article from The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that when Edward H. Blickstein picked up a copy of Mitchell’s work, he found similarities between it and a manuscript he had written. This fueled Blickstein to involve his editor Gregor Benko, sparking a letter being sent to IU Press stating that Mitchell had plagiarized, said Janet Rabinowitch, director of publication for IU Press. \nBenko determined that Mitchell could not have gotten some of the information in the book from any source other than Blickstein’s manuscript, Rabinowitch said.\nRabinowitch said that, in May 2003, Benko came to Bloomington and sought the director of the IU Press to discuss Blickstein’s manuscript and the possibility of plagiraism.\nFrom here the issue had stalled, Rabinowitch said, until Benko sent a letter to IU President Adam Herbert in December 2005. Upon receiving the letter, Herbert then involved Michael Klein, university counsel, in the situation, she said. In the letter that Benko sent, he again claimed that Blickstein’s manuscript had been plagiarized. In the spring of 2006, Klein received 40 pages where similarities were found, she added.\n“If (Mitchell) had done better footnoting sources, (IU Press) would have been on firmer ground,” Rabinowitch said.\nRabinowitch said she later learned from Benko that Blickstein’s manuscript had been sent to Mitchell with the idea that he would edit it. Mitchell worked on a few chapters and sent them to Blickstein and Benko, however, both Blickstein and Benko did not like the work that was done to the manuscript and asked for it to be sent back with no further work to be done on it, she said. Mitchell did not keep a copy of the manuscript, but later became interested in the subject and began researching material for his own manuscript, she added.\n“The manuscript was far from being publishable,” Rabinowitch added.\nSince Mitchell had not cited the particular passages that Benko had sent, in addition to the fact that he had access to Blickstein’s manuscript, IU Press had no choice but to withdraw the book, she said.\nAs of now the issue has been closed. The book has been out of the print since October 2006, and copies that IU Press still had were destroyed, she said. IU asked for any copies that had been sent out to be returned, she added.\nKlein prepared the University’s response in a letter that he sent to Blickstein in October which explained what the University was doing and why. \n“IU does not believe Mitchell’s work infringed upon Blickstein’s intellectual property rights,” Klein stated in the letter. \nAlso stated in the letter were steps that the University would uphold which included the recall of the books, and a written apology to Blickstein, she said. The letter, she said, contained information that stated that the University would pay no compensation to Blickstein for two reasons: one, because IU Press had no knowledge of a prior relationship between Blickstein and Mitchell; and two, because the University did not profit monetarily from its publication.