"I'm not looking to 'tattle' on the perpetrator — doing so starts to look like revenge rather than achieving the more important objectives, and may even draw attention away from those objectives."
[0] https://www.statnews.com/2016/12/12/plagiarist-study-science...
I do not fully understand this reasoning myself. Is this a common sentiment? That calling out perpetrators by name is counterproductive? Is it specific to some culture? I've never heard it expressed directly.
Let them restart their career in advertising, sales, marketing, or politics -- fields where lying is routine and accepted.
This one needs to be categorical. In fact I would support civil or even criminal prosecution, for misuse of public funding if there is any government money behind their fraudulent research.
In my mind, this is "white collar" crime, pure and simple. The repercussions should be life-changing.
So reasons to out: habitual behavior that's a negative to the community; to make the injured party feel better (in some fashion). We've already addressed habitual behavior, outing is appropriate as they're a net-negative. So the second needs to be address, satisfaction for the injured party.
The publication is out there, what the true author wanted, and people can base new work on that (by way of citations and reading it). So the only thing for the injured party to gain is satisfaction at knowing the offenders are hurt and that they (true author) will get credit. But this is vanity, and other than the potential for that credit to provide the true other with greater resources (due to proper recognition in the future for their, potentially, valuable work), there is no benefit to the community. And if the true author's work is of value, and their work isn't frequently plagiarized, then their personal career is going to be fine.
Exceptions, of course, are important to note. I knew someone in grad school who had a professor plagiarize their work (and not their advisor, either). This greatly hurt the grad student, as this was one of their early publications (first significant one, maybe?). It also greatly hurt the plagiarizer who lost a lot of standing within the department (I don't recall what all became of either of them, I was on my way out at the time). We can always construct ever more exceptional cases that show that extreme (by some measure) responses are justifiable in the name of justice. But moderate responses are certainly also worthy of consideration, and probably ought to be considered more often.
For starters if you fuck up, you might ruin an innocent persons life, and in turn, hopefully they will sue you into the ground and ruin yours.
Did the authors listed actually submit the paper. Are all the authors complicit? Were there different levels of complicity? Was the Journal involved? Were the reviewers involved?
By just stating the facts the case is made and humanity hopefully moves forward reducing errors and less lives ruined.
Add to this, do you think a person who is at their wits end deserves to be taken down.
They might be just about to lose their house and position at there university and this was their last desperate ditched attempt.
Their harm to the original author really was minimal, if anything at all. (Plus they got an extra citation out of it)
Would you as a human not feel guilty if they killed themselves after you went to the extra effort of outing them and you realized just how bad a shape they were to do what they did?
What if they we in a manic state at the time, and the internet now turns on them and makes them and their families life a further living hell?
Western culture is mostly about about moving things forward, not revenge for revenges sake. Most decent people in the west try and practice this.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame_society