The saga of the suspension and reinstatement of my tab at ezinearticles.com continues.

I submitted an article. Ezine suspended my tab and accused me of plagiarism. I showed them proof I did not plagiarize. They reinstated my tab. We have been trading emails since then. I am not satisfied with their responses.

Perhaps some day soon I will copy and paste our correspondence. If there’s enough interest, I’ll do the work necessary to inform everyone. In the meanwhile, here’s a summary:

When the Ezine editors get a submission which they believe is plagiarized they place on hold the tab of the submitter. Then they give the submitter the opportunity to prove her or his innocence. I have called this a ‘spurt first and question questions later’ policy.

From what I know of their emails, Ezine justifies this policy by claiming it protects their system from being accused of plagiarism.

I have on paper back to Ezine stating that protecting against plagiarism is a laudable goal, but there are additional issues in play.

An article submitter might have submitted many articles in the past which have been screened and accepted by Ezine. While these screened and accepted articles are available to everyone on the net, Ezine itself benefits from the articles. The articles grow on a page  which also has advertising. If someone clicks the advertising, Ezine gets money.

If Ezine decides to place on hold an leader’s tab because, let’s say for the sake of this discussion, the 63rd article the leader submitted is suspected of being plagiarized, each article the leader has on paper and has been screened until #63 is now also suspended. In other words, the body of work of the leader, not just the single suspected article, is taken away from the leader and placed in a locked box. The leader gets no benefit from work which has previously been screened and accepted.

While the leader gets no benefit, Ezine gets benefit. From Ezine’s end it is possible Ezine might place on hold the leader’s entire work from their screen. But the internet is not instantaneous. Let’s say Ezine suspends an tab on a Monday. The leader’s articles still grow out in cyberspace long after the suspension on that fateful Monday. Let’s say that on Wednesday a surfer finds one of the leader’s articles after a Google search. The surfer might click on one of the advertisments and Ezine might gets some money as a result of the click. The leader gets nothing but a nasty email from Ezine.

I have claimed in one of my emails to Ezine that their policy of suspending first and asking questions later amounts to theft. They steal a upset from the leader and benefit from their theft.

Note that all the while the leader’s single suspect article has not yet been PROVEN to be plagiarized. Ezine suspends accounts on the basis of suspicion, not evidence. But during the pendency of the suspension ‘trial’ the leader loses hegemony of her or his article while Ezine gains potential benefit.

Note also that the article which Ezine suspects might be plagiarised does not yet grow on their website and is not yet available to the public. The article has been submitted by the leader and sits on the desk of an Ezine editor prior to approval and publication. Ezine has not been hurt in the least if an leader submits a plagiarised article, yet Ezine penalizes an leader in any case. Only the leader get hurt, not Ezine, if an leader has really or is suspected of submitting a plagiarised article.

Until Ezine finds a more equitable way of dealing with plagiarism and the suspicion of plagiarism I will continue my correspondence with them. If they fail to take corrective action I will take more serious steps to get them to change their inequitable policy.

Powered By WP Footer

Tags: ezine, ezinearticles, inequitable policy, plagiarise, plaigarism