Regan Boychuk

This story, which revealed major inaccuracies in reporting by The Times, is worth re-upping now that - just as a fourth investigation has found no evidence of plagiarism or data fabrication (bylinetimes.com/2026/10/21/j…) - the British Journalism Awards has nominated Times Higher Education for its plagiarism story on Arday's PhD. This was described as a major public interest story, despite the fact that the PhD was cleared of plagiarism by an official investigation. Where was the intrepid Times Higher Education when it came to reporting on Dr William O’Reilly, Associate Prof in Early Modern History at Cambridge - where a complaint of plagiarism was formally upheld? His related journal article was *retracted* (not "corrected" and upheld as happened three times with Arday and falsely portrayed by The Times). Pin drop silence for Dr O'Reilly's plagiarism (and he went on to be investigated again for further plagiarism). No interest from Times Higher Education in prying open the lid to see what it means when a senior white Cambridge don is exonerated by his university. In his case, the university finding is taken as done. For Arday, when Liverpool John Moores University concluded there was genuine error, but not plagiarism, it was rejected outright as a stitch-up with no evidence. Now, you won't read anywhere in the rest of the press the fact that every formal investigation into Arday's work has made no finding of plagiarism. Whether or not there remains a case to answer, and in my view there was one, the refusal to even acknowledge the findings of the formal inquiries and report them properly demonstrates what is happening. A venal set of institutions protecting their own and refusing accountability.