| Plagiarism
in the Professional, Published Discourse of Science and Medicine
Gasp!
Not in science and medicine too . . .
Unfortunately,
yes. Scientists and medical researchers are not immune to
the virulent strains of plagiarism and other forms of falsifications
and fabrications afflicting the discourse embodied in the
cross-disciplinary professional literature.
Some
of the most blatent offenses against the conventions for honest
discoursal interchange have been perpetrated by members of
the scientific and medical discourse communities. The number
of professional studies and research resports tainted by plagiarism,
forgery, and falsified data will probably never be known.
As
Dave Mcmullin observes in reference to the research fraud
of Jan Hendrik Schön,
"
[R]esearch
suggests that scientific fraud is widespread. In a comprehensive
study involving 4,000 researchers from 100 faculties, a
University of Minnesota research team found that one in
three scientists sometimes plagiarize, and that 22 percent
of all researchers admit to sometimes handling data carelessly.
. . . Fraud seems most likely to pop up in the research
of unmonitored scientists who are working alone on irreproducible
research."
It
comes as great blow to the integrity of scientific inquiry
to discover the vast number of questionable papers which individual
researchers have slipped by unwitting peer reviewers who serve
as the gatekeepers to professional discourse published in
the journals, books, and online databases of the scientific
and medical communities.
This
webspace will focus on specific allegations pertaining to
plagiarism, including where applicable, discussion of forgery
and data falsification since it is often the case that these
related strategies go hand-in-hand. A dishonest researcher
will combine cut-n-paste strategies with fraudulent manipulation
of fabricated research data. And presto! Another
article is ready for submission to the peer reviewers to be
considered for publication.
Plagiarism
and data falsification by scientific and medical researchers
constitute perhaps the greatest threat to the well-being of
living, breathing people. This is especially the case when
doctors rely on the integrity and reliability of the professional
discourse in diagnosing and treating medical conditions of
their patients. Just one skewed or falsified study could affect
the treatment of hundreds, or even thousands, of patients.
If medical practitioners rely on the information reported
in such a skewed/falsifed report, lives might literally hang
in the balance. Consider a falsified/plagiarized report on
diagnoses/treatment of certain kinds of cancer--if a researcher
plugs in "cancer of the cervix" for "cancer
of the larynx" to modify a plagiarized article, how valid
are the results for a reported study which never occurred
in the first place?.
Less
seriously, but still quite a serious issue, potholes in the
interchanges of professional discourse impede progress. As
if scientific progress were not slow enough, these potholes
create further obstacles for scientists and researchers to
overcome (i.e. redundancy, inaccurate data, obfuscation).
And the publication of falsified reports risks cluttering
the scientific literature with the aimless babbling of fools
just wanting to see their names in print on as many publications
as possible. What a waste of paper and server space! What
an insult to the honorable labor of the men and women who
have laid the foundations of modern scientific inquiry!
Such
plagiarists and data fabricators deserve every bit of the
censure and publicized ignominy which results from their dishonorable
behavior.
...
...
Profiles
in Plagiarism: Science and Medicine
________________________________________________________________________________
|
|

A.P.
F.T.

Z.C.
|
|

Aihua Pan
Feng Tie
Zhangliang Chen
Lingyua Li
Biggen Ru
Meizhu Yang |
| |
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-1994-AP/MY/FT/LL/ZC/BR |
| Names:
|
Aihua
Pan; Meizhu Yang; Feng Tie; Lingyua Li; Zhangliang
Chen; Biggen Ru
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
Scientists,
Genetic Engineers
|
| Allegations: |
Plagiarism
in an article published by Plant Molecular Biology;
Research claimed to be based on actual experimentation,
but copied language was used to report the results,
another article being used as a language template
with results being "plugged in" to this
framework of copied language
|
| Results: |
Retraction
of published article; Lead author Pan Aihua claimed
to have copied article template due to "limited
knowledge of English"; Editorial investigation
concluded that original results had been reported
despite use of copied language chunks from another
published article on a similar topic.
|
| Known
for: |
Scientific
experimentation in genetic engineering at Peking University
|
| Overview: |
In
the mid-1990s, textual appropriation by scholars received
much publicity in China after a rash of plagiarism cases
(Xiguang Li and Xiong Lei 1996). One case involved what
appears to be a "plug in" framework approach
to the presentation of "original" research
results.
Pan Aihua and 5 co-authors presented the results of
a project investigating the potential for genetically
engineering heavy-metal tolerant varieties of tobacco
plants (1994 Plant Molecular Biology). The
Peking University scientists reported how they had created
a transgenic tobacco plant which was resistant to Cadmium
by introducing a cloned mouse metallothionein gene into
the plant's genetic structure. The resultant tobacco
plants, and their offspring, demonstrated the potential
for genetically engineering plants capable of withstanding
high amounts of Cadmium or other heavy metals. Such
plants would be useful in reclaiming heavy-metal contaminated
soils which would normally be unsuitable for agricultural
use.
Pan Aihua's project (1994) seemed to be a valuable contribution
to genetic engineering research. However, it was discovered
that the project was very similar to a project reported
in the 1989 issue of Theoretical Applied Genetics
(Misra and Gedamu 1989). Misra wrote to Plant Molecular
Biology editor Robert Schilperoot to inform the
journal staff as well as the scientific community that
Pan et al. had plagiarised from her (and Gedamu's) 1989
article.
After an investigation, Shilperoot concluded that Pan
(et al). had reported original research results from
several years of experimentation with tobacco plants,
but he also concluded that Pan (et al) had plagiarized
extensively from Misra and Gedamu.
This problematic reporting of research results by Peking
University scientists illustrates how a "plug in"
framework approach is used by researchers wanting to
publish in English, but lacking the needed proficiency
in written academic English to do so on their own. To
compensate for their English language deficit, they
had copied the structure and much of the wording of
a model research report, and they had inserted their
own data into the article template in order to report
the results of their own experimentations with the genetic
engineering of heavy-metal tolerant varieties of tobacco
plants.
The research by Pan (et al) had been conducted in Peking
University's National Laboratory of Protein Engineering
and Plant Genetic Engineering. Since there were slight
differences in the research methodology and procedures
used by Pan (et al) in their experimentation versus
the experimentation of Misra and Gedamu, it does seem
that Schilperoot was correct in concluding that language
had been plagiarized, but that the research data was
original.
For example, whereas Misra and Gedamu used a cloned
human metallothionein gene to introduce heavy-metal
tolerance to tobacco plants, the Peking University scientists
had used a cloned mouse gene. The derivative influence
in the Pan Aihua (et al) article is first evident in
the abstract and introduction. In the abstract, Pan
et al's statement "seeds from self-fertilised transgenic
plants were germinated on medium containing toxic levels
of cadmium and scored for tolerance/susceptibility to
this heavy metal" has been lifted from Misra and
Gedamu with only a slight change of media to
medium.
Next, shortly into the introduction, extensive verbatim
copying begins, as is evident in comparing the two articles.
It is clear from such comparison that extensive copying
has occurred. Pan (et al) have skipped several lines
in the source text here and there, and they have omitted
textual information such as Misra and Gedamu's explanation
of heavy metal binding/sequestration proteins.
The appropriation of Misra and Gedamu's results section
is also evident. Pan et al have appropriated the section
heading and much of the wording of the results presentation.
There are, however, several slight modifications. Misra
and Gedamu's section title "Construction of chimeric
gene encoding the MT protein" has been modified
to include the variant spelling for chimaeric,
and the indefinite article has been used: "Construction
of a chimaeric gene encoding the MT protein."
In describing the origin of the metallothionein gene
used in their study, Pan (et al) note that their mMT
(mouse metallothionein) was obtained using a process
developed by Palmiter, whereas Misra and Gedamu cite
Varshney and Gedamu (1984) for the isolation of their
human metallothionein gene (hMT). The description of
how the gene was inserted was copied practically verbatim
by Pan (et al) from Misra and Gedamu, but the Peking
University scientists report that they used a 335 bp
fragment rather than Misra and Gedamu's 320 bp fragment.
The language appropriation employed by Pan (et al) from
Misra and Gedamu in the reporting of their research
results is quite selective, skillful even, as these
scientists plug in their own results to the existing
language framework.
The derivative influence continues in the next section
where the section title has again been appropriated
with a slight modification. Pan (et al) have substituted
tobacco for Misra and Gedamu's N. tabacum.
But some original textual composing also seems to occur
in this section. Except for the first 2 sentences, the
following language has evidently been composed by the
Peking University scientists themselves. However, it
very well could be that they have appropriated fragments
and phrases from other sources as the Spanish scientists
in St. John's (1987) study did.
These Peking University scientists have appropriated
nearly the entire text structure of a research article
in a "plug in" framework approach, but a "jigsaw"
approach might have also been used in lifting key phrases
and sentences from other sources besides Misra and Gedamu.
In the next parts of this derivative article, it is
evident that Pan Aihua (et al) have again substituted
tobacco for Misra and Gedamu's Nicotiana tabacum.
Additionally, they have shortened Misra and Gedamu's
Agrobacterium tumefaciens to A. tumefaciens.
Some of these modifications may have been made by the
editorial staff of Plant Molecular Biology,
so it is not exactly clear how many of the modifications
were actually made by Pan (et al).
As with the preceding sections, derivation is also evident
in the section on "Transformation, selection and
regeneration of B. napus and N. tabacum." Shortly
thereafter,
another section heading has been appropriated, and additionally,
it is clear that nearly the entire section on inheritance
of the cadmium-tolerant phenotype has been lifted from
Misra and Gedamu, with only slight changes and omission
of several lines of Misra and Gedamu's text.
Skipping the first paragraph as well as part of the
second paragraph in Misra and Gedamu's section entitled
"Inheritance of the cadmium-tolerant phenotype",
Pan et al begin appropriating from the source text with
Misra and Gedamu's sentence "Seed progeny from
self-pollinated . . . ." Instead of calling the
self-pollinated transformants the S1 generation as did
Misra and Gedamu, Pan et al have labelled these transformants
as the R1 generation. It is also evident that Pan et
al (or the Plant Molecular Biology editors)
prefer the use of medium instead of Misra and
Gedamu's media. Pan (et al) also deviate slightly
from Misra and Gedamu in the Cadmium concentration which
they used in the medium on which the transformants and
control plants were germinated.
Pan et al then skip several more lines of the source
text, and toward the end of their section on the inheritance
of cadmium tolerance, they substitute X2 analysis for
Misra and Gedamu's Chi-square analysis.
The final sections of both articles, the discussion
sections, reveal further appropriation by Pan et al
on an extensive scale. The appropriation of Misra and
Gedamu's concluding comments are particularly disturbing
as the usefulness and potential application of their
genetic engineering research is parroted from their
fellow scientists.
Misra and Gedamu had demonstrated in their 1989 article
that genetic engineering of plants for heavy metal tolerance
held promise for "partitioning toxic metals in
unconsumed parts of the plant" and for facilitating
"reclamation of wastelands and mine spoils."
Pan (et al) appropriated the conclusions of Misra and
Gedamu as is glaringly evident.
The first paragraph of Pan et al's discussion section
seems to be mainly of their own construction. However,
beginning in the second paragraph, they appropriate
the wording of the second half of the third paragraph
of Misra and Gedamu's discussion section. Skipping the
fourth paragraph of Misra and Gedamu's discussion section,
Pan et al begin copying again from Misra and Gedamu's
ending paragraph, this time copying nearly the entire
paragraph with only the omission of several lines and
the omission of a reference to Sherlock and Van Bruwne.
Pan Aihua et al have borrowed the model framework of
Misra and Gedamu to "plug in" their own research
results for their 1994 article, and they have appropriated
the text structure, the presentation of results, and
the conclusions reported by Misra and Gedamu in the
1989 issue of Theoretical Applied Genetics.
When confronted, the Pan Aihua and colleagues agreed
that "There is a significant degree of identity
in the wording" but they refuted the charge of
plagiarism saying "we have all the original data"
(Xiguang Li and Xiong Lei 1996).
However, Plant Molecular Biology editor R.
Schilperoot's conclusion was that although original
results had been reported, "it is not acceptable
practice to copy text--not even small passages--from
published materials without reference." Later,
Pan Aihua, who had been the main author of the article,
claimed that the appropriation was a result of "his
limited knowledge of English." A language "plug-in"
framework was used to compensate for the fear held by
many Chinese scientists, obviously including Pan (et
al), "that they can't compete equally in Western
journals because of a problem with English" (Xiguang
& Xiong 1996).
It seems possible that these Peking University scientists
who had appropriated Misra and Gedamu's text had come
from a background (previous education as well as the
general academic climate of the early 1990s at Peking
University) which was somewhat tolerant of the use of
derivation/copying as a second language writing strategy.
In order to compete on "equal" footing with
native English speaking professionals, as Xiguang
Li and Xiong Lei note, many Chinese scientists
believe that copying the work of others and adding some
new material, as Pan (et al) have done, "is not
considered an aberration but part of an attitude that
says it's OK to copy as long as you've done the work
yourself."
[see also the Guo Jingming
plagiarism case for further discussion of linguistic
templates and derivation by second language writers]
References
End
Profile SCMD-1994-AP/MY/FT/LL/ZC/BR
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Anonymous
Research Center
|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-2000-ANON |
| Name:
|
Anonymous
Research Center
(and a contributing "author")
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
Governmental
Organization; Strategic Studies "Think Tank"
Anonymous "Expert"/"Author": Leading
Energy and Petroleum Economics Authority
|
| Allegations: |
Extensively
plagiarized manuscript submitted for publications
consideration in 1999-2000; Referees discovered the
extensive plagiarism and recommended against publication;
Five years later, against the earlier recommendations
of Publications Department staff, this institution
continued to accept contributions from a known plagiarist,
featuring an article containing further instances
of cut-n-paste by the plagiarist on their website
|
| Results: |
Plagiarism
appears to have been rewarded both monetarily and
professionally by this prestigious research center
|
| Known
for: |
This institution
is known for various publications, high-profile conferences,
and research training initiatives
|
| Overview: |
While conducting research on Famous Plagiarists, a serious
case of plagiarism at the professional level came to
the attention of the current researcher. This case seemed
to have all of the elements needed to illustrate the
disruptive nature of a discourse community interchange
where a writer has chosen to import an exterior text
into the reader-writer interaction and the space surrounding
the text, or the discourse community itself.
Unfortunately, the anonymity of both the research institution
and the plagiarist must be preserved due to the following
circumstances:
1) These
allegations have not yet been published in the professional
literature or public media
2) Legal
threats from--and a confidentiality agreement with--the
research center in question prohibit divulging specific
details
In this particular case, the discourse community comprised
a number of well known and prestigious research institutions
and government "think tanks". The Research
Center publishes a number of lectures, papers, and books
each year and serves as a focal point for discussion
and debate on issues of global importance.
The writer who had submitted a derivative compilation
of unacknowledged source texts as an "original"
manuscript for publications consideration back in 1999-2000
was a widely known scholar who will be referred to in
this profile by the pseudonym of Dr. Plagiarist
in the following discussion.
The initial readers in the interaction were referees
who evaluated Dr. Plagiarist's paper which
he had submitted for possible publication in an "Occasional
Papers" series published by the Center, and the
text itself was related to the impact of the petroleum
industry on the environment.
The derivative manuscript submitted to the publications
department of the Center was found to contain plagiarism
by a manuscript referee in the process of evaluating
the paper for possible publication as a monograph supposedly
representing research by a leading scholar on petroleum
and the environment. Here was a case of plagiarism which,
thanks to the examiner who discovered it, had been prevented
from creating a larger disruption to the discourse community
than the disruption already caused by its discovery
prior to publication. Out of three referees, one had
already (conditionally) recommended the article for
publication.
What might have happened had not the other perceptive
reviewer, a scholar with expertise in petroleum economics,
noticed the derivation due to his familiarity with the
sources cited by Dr. Plagiarist ? What if two
of the reviewers had recommended the paper for publication,
conditional or otherwise? Conceivably the disruption
to valid discoursal interchange could have been much
worse.
But why should this instance of plagiarism be seen as
a disruption to the discourse community in the first
place? For that matter, why should any instances of
derivation/plagiarism be seen as a disruption to a discourse
community? In attempting to answer these questions by
showing how such derivation/plagiarism does indeed constitute
a discourse community disruption, the case of Dr.
Plagiarist will be briefly analysed, and an analogy
will be made of certain ideology underlying particular
interpretations of plagiarism and plagiarations as forms
of postmodern disinformation and propaganda.
As such, plagiarism, and the poststructuralist propagandists/disinformers
in this Postmodern Age of Cut-n-Paste should
be given no quarter in the ideological warfare occurring
within discourse communities of scholars, researchers,
and intellectuals who wish to maintain the integrity,
vitality, and genuineness of their communicative interchange.
At stake is the very life of a discourse community.
If an attack is made on the texts and written communications
of a community, the lifeblood of genuine interchange
is spilled. And as the attack is, so should the response
be, one which will thwart the enemy's influence, one
which will preserve the lifeblood of dynamic and genuine
interchange, one which will strategically target the
supply lines, ammunition, and logistical support of
an enemy who hopes to gain in territory, power, and
superiority of influence while continuing a hostile
invasion of the domains of genuine, relevant, meaningful,
unfalsified, accurate, truthful, bona fide
scholarly interaction (in this case, one of the manuscript
referees explicitly stated his trust in the good
faith, or bona fide contribution, of the
author, who had in fact plagiarized).
Where the enemy has infringed and encroached, in the
journals, in the infiltrated institutions, in the subversive
indoctrination camps, these must remain until their
liberation from poststructuralist influence as the abode
of war, and warfare is always a very unpleasant reality.
As Todd Leventhal (1999) has explained in his study
of Iraqi propaganda and disinformation, "The harsh
glare of war throws the actions of states as well as
individuals into stark relief. War demands an all-out
effort that sweeps away niceties and illuminates what
may have previously remained hidden. Policies, practices
and people reveal themselves in extremis."
Such an observation would seem to have great relevance
for today's "War on Plagiarism" within the
Postmodern Age of Cut-n-Paste.
The case of plagiarism which infiltrated this particular
discourse community aptly illustrates the disruptive
nature of plagiarism and ideological warfare to genuine,
academic, scholarly interchange, and it provides a sort
of independent validation of certain observations made
in other cases of plagiary, particularly with regard
to the features of derivative text, and the (disruptive)
nature of (derivative) discoursal interchange. In this
case, a respected scholar had submitted a paper relating
to oil and the environment. The manuscript, under consideration
for publication as a monograph, was sent out for independent
evaluation to the first 2 out of 3 referees with expertise
in the subject area of the monograph. Referee 1 rejected
the paper on the basis of the unacceptable research
practice (plagiarism) which was evident in the manuscript.
The following is a summary of Referee 1's evaluation.
Referee 1 described the manuscript as lacking "the
organization, originality and established practices
in citing references and writing the bibliography."
He also highlighted the lack of topical organisation
(disjunctures), the extensive summary, and verbatim
copying using "exact wordings" from source
texts. The disjunctures observed, along with the irrelevant
information present in the manuscript, are described
by Referee 1 in detail:
. . . The
author then jumps abruptly to analyze the framework
of the oil market . . . The paper then jumps . . .
This lack of organization has affected the paper's
analytical value.
Errors of informational incongruency are also highlighted,
with reference to the author's use of two model cases
which have differing oil yield projections, but there
is "no attempt from the author to reconcile the
differences . . . ." Such errors of informational
incongruency are now recognized as a category of error
resulting from the copying and juxtaposition of source
texts, or from use of a text template which does not
quite fit the information or data being conveyed through
that framework.
Referee 1 notes that "Chapters two and six are
irreconcilable since they analyze two different models."
The discoursal flow of the derivative manuscript "jumps"
back and forth through a series of disjunctures and
poor transitions which have resulted from the source
text re-combination strategies of the author in forming
a hybrid language manuscript.
Most seriously, Referee 1 has highlighted the derivative
nature of the manuscript, the "outright copying
[of] paragraphs or texts from other papers and research
without proper reference or quotation." Referee
1's judgment on his fellow colleague and discourse community
member is no anaemic excuse for plagiarism on the grounds
of differing ideology, or the influence of culture (i.e.
the rote-learning of the Quran influence which certain
other discourse analysis experts have invoked). No,
this judgment by a fellow scholar, from within the same
culture and the same discourse community, is justly
scathing and harsh:
The lack
of Organization of the paper might have been overlooked
or dealt with accordingly had the paper exhibited
originality and thorough research. But, unfortunately,
the paper resorts to outright copying paragraphs or
texts from other papers and research and without proper
reference or quotation. This is an unaccepted research
practice . . . Relying exclusively on one reference
in supporting the author's argument is one thing and
outright copying of the argument and analysis is quite
another.
The first referee included copies of two specific source
texts from which the author had lifted text, and he
had highlighted the passages which had been copied (The
texts were (a) Ghanem, C., Lounnas, R., and Brennand,
G. (1999). "The impact of emissions trading on
OPEC" OPEC Review 23 (2), and (b) - - - (1997).
"Implications of the post-Uruguay round international
trading system for petroleum-exporting countries and
for international trade in petroleum and petroleum products."
UNCTAD).
Referee 1 also surmised that the "same pattern
of copying without proper references" could be
proven by consulting other sources listed by the author
in the bibliography. It seemed that the referee was
able to recognise the features of derivative text in
the author's manuscript in much the same way that teachers
are able to spot derivation in student work--obvious
clues give the game away.
Finally, Referee 1 pointed out the author's unconventional,
separate listing of his own publications "whether
relevant to the material or not" (Ironically, this
prideful act of the author resulted in the reviewer
(Referee 1) being able to identify the author in what
would have otherwise been a blind or anonymous manuscript
review).
The second referee's comments were much in line with
Referee 1's evaluation, although Referee 2 did not have
the benefit of realising just how derivative the manuscript
was. This paper might have been published had not Referee
1 discovered the plagiarism since Referee 2 had recommended
the manuscript for publication, conditional on revising
and rewriting. Had a third reviewer recommended the
manuscript, conditionally or otherwise, the paper would
have been accepted for publication as an "Occasional
Papers" monograph by the Center, but fortunately,
the discovery of plagiarism resulted in outright rejection
of the paper without it undergoing a review by a third
referee.
Referee 2, although he did not realise the extent of
the plagiarism, recommended that "Bibliographic
references should be included to suggest examples of
whom the author actually has in mind." He also
noted the serious disjunctures and lack of transitions
(resulting from the manuscript's having been compiled
from copied source text), and he wrote "I suggest
a reorganization of this work." He also gave an
extensive redrafting plan.
According to the evaluation of Referee 2, the manuscript
lacked "an ease of exposition . . . [and] the sorts
of transitions from one section to another, that make
for easy reading and contextualization." Referee
2 recommended that "[t]he analysis itself just
needs to be presented in a more flowing manner, so that
the reader does not have to work so hard to ascertain
the thought, and can spend more time on actually digesting
it." The manuscript needed a "re-drafting,
to improve continuity and thus also clarity".
An obvious lack of referencing and citation was also
evident to Referee 2, and he asked the author "to
expand the specific documentary references" advising
that "The actual citation of the material used
would add significant authority to his arguments."
Meanwhile, in making his recommendations, Referee 2
was trusting "the good faith of the author"
but unfortunately he was deceived into thinking that
this manuscript was a genuine, original contribution
to the strategic studies discourse community interchange.
In fact, it was not. The manuscript was a compilation,
a hybrid language text, a fraudulent representation
by the author of work which was not his own. This paper
represented a seriously deceptive product of an individual's
disinformation campaign, an attempt to gain monetary
remuneration (payment for published monographs amounted
to US$1500 at the time) and academic recognition which
were most emphatically undeserved.
In addition to the disjunctures, the lack of organization,
the missing referencing and source documentation for
very specific items of information, the manuscript contained
the type of errors which result from a mechanical, scribal
manner of copying from a text, and perhaps also resulting
from the copiest making slight changes in wording which
result in subtle ungrammaticalities due to the writer's
not possessing a native linguistic proficiency which
might permit a smoother recontextualisation and a less
noticeable style of text re-combination.
For example, at one point in the manuscript the author
copied from the UNCTAD paper "a balancing was not
supportable in Article III:4" omitting the word
that from the original text which read "a
balancing that was not supportable under Article III:4."
At another point, in copying from the same article,
the author wrote "Failing to use Method 2, use
data on quality post-1990 gasoline blendstock or gasoline."
The author has here slightly deviated from the wording
of the original which read "if the evidence in
this respect is not complete, they must use data on
the quality of blendstock produced in 1990 ('Method
2') or, failing that, use data on quality of post-1990
gasoline blendstock or gasoline."
In slightly changing the original phrasing, the author
has created a grammatically imperative construction
which does not fit with the preceding discourse. In
keeping with the preceding grammatical structures he
should have written "Failing to use Method 2, they
[referring to the antecedent individual refiners] must
use . . . ."
At another point, another error occurs with a slight
change in the original source text wording. The author
mistakenly omits the indefinite article in writing "Under
the last rule, domestic refiner must maintain . . .
."
Thus, there have been copying mistakes which resemble
very closely the copying mistakes made by college student-plagiarists
on occasion in their patterns of source text appropriation.
Also significant in this case, there is an extensive
pattern of appropriation, and an awkwardly implemented
fitting back together or recontextualisation of copied
source texts, very similar to other plagiarists' patterns
of appropriation. And as such appropriation is obvious
to teachers aware of a student's writing capabilities,
so the derivation in the EOP manuscript was obvious
to Referee 1, and the textual features of derivation
(but not the specific fact of plagiarism) were also
evident to Referee 2 (who trusted the "good faith"
of the author).
Through this author's submission of a derivative manuscript
to be considered for publication, a disruption was caused.
This disruption included a breach of trust between the
research center staff and the author, and between Referee
1 and the author. The publications department's view
was that if this paper had been published, it would
have potentially damaged the image and credibility of
the Center, and so as a result of this breach of trust,
the department recommended the following:
In view of
this and previous experience with regard to Dr.
Plagiarist, I would suggest that he should definitely
not be considered for any future publication/research
project by the center, whether as a contributor, author,
referee, or even as a conference presenter. [this
previous experience indicates that this 2000 case
was not the first instance of plagiarism discovered
by the Center staff. Previously, Dr. Plagiarist
had tried to submit as an individual research
project a report which, in fact, had been a collaborative
effort involving other researchers!].
In addition
to a breach of trust, the disruption also involved a
wasting of time in evaluating this derivative manuscript.
Within the Center's publications department (as within
any publishing house), many hours go into preparing
each manuscript for review, finding suitable referees,
posting the manuscripts, corresponding with referees,
and finally, reviewing their written evaluations. Much
money is spent as well, US$300 dollars being paid at
the time to each referee for the manuscript evaluation.
This amounts to US$900 dollars for the manuscript evaluation
process for one paper, not including the time spent
by internal staff in facilitating the review process.
Potentially, even more time and resources could have
been wasted in preparing this derivative manuscript
for publication, but fortunately it did not get to this
stage.
Conceivably, if fraudulent, plagiarised manuscripts
make it to the publications stage, more serious disruptions
to the discourse community might ensue. In the strategic
studies discourse community, information is important
in informing policy and decision-making at the highest
levels of government. If this information is false,
fraudulent, outdated, or misrepresented, then the
decision-making and policy-making process can be undermined.
Of course the extent of the damage done depends on how
extensive the plagiarism is, and on how dated, inaccurate,
and fraudulent the information is.
In this postmodern age of plunder (AKA The
Postmodern Age of Cut-n-Paste) , there
are some striking similarities that postmodernism's
propagation of ideology has with the forms of disinformation
and propaganda employed by ruthless governmental regimes
for whom untruthfulness, "lies, deceptions, half-truths,
forgeries and other forms of unscrupulous media manipulations"
(Levanthal 1999) are the means of maintaining totalitarian
control. In those parts of the postmodernist-influenced
academy which have been infiltrated by purveyors
of poststructuralist propaganda and disinformation,
whether at an individual or collective level, the subversion
continues.
By definition, propaganda involves "information,
arguments and images that appeal mainly to the emotions
of a target audience" (Levanthal 1999) for example,
the argument that the so-called Enlightenment engendered
construct of plagiarism is a tool of imperialism (Pennycook
1996).
Who would want to be accused of continuing the imperialist
era through imperialistic oppression of students in
former colonies? No one would, but the argument, for
all of its emotional appeal, is a form of propaganda
designed to invoke images of empire and colonial oppression,
but as Sower (1999) has argued, such propaganda "goes
beyond the justifiable trashing of the jingoism of a
darker era and crosses over into discounting the good-faith
efforts of educators trying to extend the knowledge
of the field."
Such "attempt[s] to induce guilt and shame"
can be "effective, emotion-based propaganda"
(Levanthal 1999), and the propaganda purveyors' (i.e.
Pennycook and Scollon) invocation of heavyweights such
as Barthes and
Foucault as primary
influences must not remain unignored. But the task of
confronting any form of propaganda is an unpleasant
one, for one must come to grips with emotionally-laden
issues, containing elements of truth, but nevertheless
underlying a vast and pervasive network of poststructuralist
influence, something akin to a regime who like ruthless
governmental regimes will "engage in all sorts
of lies, deceptions, half-truths" (Levanthal) toward
the ends of achieving power and control within academe.
Propaganda, or the use of emotionally-laden ideas, represents
an attempt to influence perceptions. In the case of
plagiarism and postmodernism, propagandists would have
the general populace in academe believe that the issue
of plagiarism is relative, that in certain times, in
certain cultures, in certain places, it might be all
right to plunder the ideas and hard work of others.
Disinformation, as opposed to propaganda, comprises
the falsifications and deceptions themselves, and thus
continuing the analogy of postructuralist ideology as
forms of disinformation and propaganda, the resultant
plagiarism and textual fabrications/falsifications are
forms of disinformation, deceptions "masquerading
as fact" (Levanthal 1999).
Levanthal, who served as Senior Policy Officer for Countering
Disinformation and Misinformation in the USIA (United
States Information Agency) from 1987 to 1996, correctly
notes that "it is important to recognize that if
disinformation claims go unchallenged--even if they
run counter to logic and known facts--they can be widely
believed and do tremendous, lasting damage." He
further illustrates in his monograph on the Iraqi disinformation
and misinformation campaign "how cheap and easy
it is to engage in disinformation."
How cheap and easy indeed! In some instances, the disinformation
or plagiarism is simply a matter of switching terminology,
such as exchanging
cervical cancer for throat cancer. In other instances
there is a simple "plugging
in" of scanty bits of research data (whether falsified
or genuine), or in other instances there might be
a payment for someone else to compose a text for submission
to the reader-writer interchange. And there also explanations
for plagiary which reference postmodern literary genres
as if verbatim *intertextuality* were just part and
parcel of postmodern literary composing:
As a writer,
I consider myself a postmodern regionalist, that is,
as an artist I have sought to marry the sense of Southern
place and identity found in the works of William Faulkner
and Flannery O'Connor with postmodern novels of cultural
information and fragmentation popularized by authors
such as Don DeLillo and Thomas Pynchon (Brad Vice
quoted in J. Sledge's "Plagiarism
charges pull prize-winner from shelves").
Thus, an investigation of the explanatory variables
and dynamic interactions involved in derivative writing
contexts reveals the necessity of countering the propaganda,
disinformation, and misinformation of the poststructuralists
and their ilk. It becomes vitally important to challenge
the cheapness of knowingly, fraudulently "contributing"
a plagiarised work to what should be a genuine discourse
community interchange.
What seems to be one of the best options for countering
postructuralist propaganda would be to isolate within
their own Wastelands
those who choose not to participate in discourse community
interchange according to the accepted standards and
conventions of the international discourse community.
To be able to maintain pockets of productive interchange
and interaction, uncorrupted by obfuscation, withstanding
the pervasive postmodernist influence, seems to be a
feasible goal, pockets of resistance against the enemy-Plagiarists.
More to the point in this case, why would a fairly reputable
research center continue to harbor an enemy-Plagiarist?
The plagiarist featured in this profile, although discovered
on at least several occasions to have engaged in some
rather extensive and quite serious instances of plagiarism,
has had feature articles posted on the Center's website
as recently as May 2005. In spite of the Publications
Department recommendation that this plagiarist "should
definitely not be considered for any future publication/research
project by the center, whether as a contributor, author,
referee, or even as a conference presenter", the
Center continues to collaborate with the Plagiarist-enemy.
This would seem to be more of an indictment against
the character of an institution (and its leadership)
rather than merely an individual plagiarist.
Note:
Dr.
Plagiarist is a pseudonym for the plagiarist in
this profile who must remain anonymous for the time
being due to legal threats and a confidentiality agreement.
References
End
Profile SCMD-2000-ANON
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Charles
J. Arntzen

|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-2004-CJA |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
Professor
of Plant Biology, Arizona State University
|
| Allegations: |
Verbatim
appropriation without acknowledgement of his student's
work
|
| Results: |
Formal complaint
filed with Arizona State University after student
Dwayne D. Kirk found himself excluded from ASU research
projects following his informal allegations of plagiarism
against Arntzen
|
| Known
for: |
Pioneering
edible vaccine development; former editorial board member
for Science; appointed by President George
W. Bush to the President's council on Science and Technology
|
| Overview: |
Many
graduate students have made important discoveries and
contributions to scientific research only to have their
work appropriated by an adviser or senior colleague
with more clout and weight to throw around. Such students
find themselves with little recourse, and if they do
raise their voice in complaint, they may find themselves
facing severe recriminations for daring to question
the plagiaristic behavior of a tenured, powerful, and
corrupt scientific overlord.
All of a sudden, the lowly graduate student finds himself
cut out of the deal for important researh projects.
He finds himself out of laboratory space, out of a research
assistantship, out of a job, and maybe even out of a
career. Such sob stories are not just out of the ordinary,
scare-mongering urban legends. Horrific experiences
have befallen numerous graduate student researchers
bold enough to let out so much as a peep of protest
against the greedy usurpation of their hard labor by
a senior researcher.
The case of Dwayne D. Kirk at ASU seems to have had
a happier outcome than the ongoing saga of Michael
Pyshnov at the University of Toronto. As reported
by T. Bartlett and S. Smallwood in the Chronicle
of Higher Education, Kirk discovered that his mentor
and adviser, Professor Charles J. Arntzen, had lifted
portions of a paper which Kirk had authored individually
for publication in a book on Genetically Modified
Foods. Arntzen appropriated this material verbatim
from Kirk's article for use as part of a cut-n-paste
composing strategy in a chapter which he submitted for
publication in Vaccines: Preventing Disease and
Protecting Health. About one third of Arntzen's
chapter in this book came from Kirk's article, and the
rest of the text was lifted, or self-plagiarized, from
another published article written in collaboration with
another ASU colleague.
Arntzen even admitted his "cutting and pasting"
strategy, justifying his behavior by claiming that such
derivation and recycling of text is a common phenomenon
in the scientific discourse communities!
Arntzen tried to throw in a few distracting elements
to disguise the serious issue of plagiarizing a colleague's
work. For example, he claimed that the issue was just
a personal misunderstanding between himself and his
former student. He also claimed that he had intended
to insert Kirk's name as a co-author when the galley
proofs arrived for a final proofread, and because those
proofs never came, this final change was never made.
In fact, the proofs were sent to Professor Arntzen as
book editor Ciro A. de Quadros insisted, supporting
Kirk's version of this plagiarism incident.
Kirk filed a formal complaint with the ASU when he found
himself excluded from important research projects. As
a result of such cases, critics have called for greater
accountability in the scientific disciplines. Graduate
students and junior researchers deserve credit and recognition
for their contributions to scientific advancement, and
as demonstrated by other notable cases of scientific
misconduct, the potential for corruption of the scientific
and professional discourse should not be taken lightly.
Straightforward observation of the scientific misconduct
phenomenon demonstrates that scientific researchers
who get away with the first few instances of misconduct
may be in the fastlane toward becoming career plagiarists,
fabricators, and/or falsifiers capable of contributing
hundreds of questionable articles and research reports
to the professional literature over the course of a
fraudulent career (cf. J.W. Grove 1996 and other cases
reported in this webspace).
References
End
Profile SCMD-2004-CJA
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Bruno
Bettelheim

|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-1976-BB |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
Psychotherapist,
professor, and author |
| Allegations: |
Instances
of plagiarism in Bettelheim's book The Uses of
Enchantment (1976) and other works; Fabrication
of credentials and experience; False claims regarding
successful treatment of autistic children
|
| Results: |
Bettelheim
committed suicide in 1990, and very quickly his reputation
and career were exposed as a sham by former student-patients,
scholars and other experts; Little credibility is
given today to the work of Bruno Bettelheim
|
| Known
for: |
Surviving
the Buchenwald and Dachau concentration camps; Thought
to be a specialist on the treatment of autistic children;
Research on and "successful" treatment of
mentally disturbed children in his Orthogenic School
at the University of Chicago; Better known now for terrorizing
and abusing many of his student-patients; A Jew himself,
Bettelheim is also known for accusing fellow Jews of
"ghetto thinking" (i.e. blaming Jews themselves
for anti-Semitism because they did not assimilate)
|
| Overview: |
Several
biographies of Dr. Bruno Bettelheim have been written
since Bettelheim's suicide in 1990: Richard Pollak's
The Creation of Dr. B: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim
and Nina Sutton's Bettelheim: A Life and a Legacy.
In the opinion of reviewer Molly Finn, only one of these
is worth reading.
In Finn's well-informed
view, Sutton "is so 'understanding' that the question
of truth becomes almost irrelevant . . . [she] displays
so little regard for the truth that her book is not
worthy of serious consideration." As a "fervent
Freudian", Sutton's disregard for truth can be
seen as an attempt to partially salvage the reputation
of a "charlatan whose life was based on falsehood
and self-aggrandizement". For Finn, the mother
of an autistic child who realized as early as 1967 that
Bettelheim's claims were bogus, Sutton's mincing of
the truth and mollycoddling of a charlatan are unacceptable.
Bettelheim's absurd claims and outright falsifications
with regard to autism pointed the finger of blame at
the parent, a claim known today to be completely without
basis.
Pollak's biography results from a study which grew out
of his brother's experience at the University of Chicago's
Orthogenic School which Bettelheim directed. Pollak's
brother died in a tragic accident while on leave from
the school, and Bettelheim insisted that the accident
had been a suicide despite Pollak's having been present
when the accident happened at a farm in Cassopolis,
Michigan, his brother falling from a hayloft through
a chute covered with hay. In an interview with Bettelheim
later in life, Pollak endured firsthand the bizarre
accusations and twisting of truth so characteristic
of the reknowned doctor--including a "gutteral
assault" against his mother which painted her as
a villian--an uncaring, unloving, selfish parent.
Pollak's subsequent research would document a life and
career based on falsified credentials, shoddy research,
bogus claims to authority, and serious contraventions
of professional accountability. Shortly after Bettelheim's
suicide in 1990, accusations abounded from former students
and fellow scholars. Accusations which utterly demolished
Bettelheim's towering reputation as a successful psychoanalyst-therapist.
Former students of the Orthogenic School accused Bettelheim
of physical and sexual abuse while from the scholarly
quarter the allegations encompassed plagiarism and lack
of scientific rigour.
With regard to specific allegations of plagiarism, it
was discovered that Bettelheim had developed a composing
strategy comprising the "mining" of sources
and the employment of secretaries to edit and revise
his shaky manuscripts. Newsweek went so far
as to re-name the eminent psycho-therapist as Bruno
Borrowheim, an unkind play
on words which reflected Bettelheim's unacknowledged
textual debts.
As a non-native speaker of English, Austrian native
Bettelheim was at a definite disadvantage when writing
in his second language. Chapter seven of Pollak's biography,
"The Feast-Day Garment" gives some rather
detailed insights into Bettelheim's second language
composing strategies: "Hunting and pecking in his
second language late into the night and on weekends,
Bettelheim had produced at least thirty published articles,
co-authored eleven more, seen 'Extreme Situations' reprinted
three times, and turned out two books."
But in weaving
his "garment of prose" the famed doctor required
"the constant and devoted help of skilled seamstresses,
women he hired over four decades to rescue his manuscripts.
He could write well when he tried, as his letters sometimes
showed, but the rush of words that he produced each
night that he spent holed up in his office usually lacked
structure and concision; and he sometimes stumbled over
the hurdles of English grammar and idioms."
In addition
to these devoted English language "seamstresses",
verbatim derivation was another composing strategy employed
by the famous psycho-therapist. Just how derivative
certain of his works actually were would not come to
light for many years, and the plagiarism would be glossed
over by some critics, indeed, even by an author whose
work was stolen by Bettelheim.
One of these
derivative works was Bettelheim's The Uses of Enchantment,
a work which had significant influence through an insightful
discussion of fairy tales told by parents to their children.
Pollak notes that this book was named by the New York
Public Library as "one of the 159 most influential
and frequently requested 'Books of the Century' putting
it in the company of the Bible, Ulysses, 1984 .
. . " and others.
It was Joan
Blos who first publicized her discovery that Bettelheim
had plagiarized significant components of Julius Heuscher's
A
Psychiatric Study of Fairy Tales: Their Origin, Meaning,
and Usefulness (1963).
Adapting and copying important chunks of Heuscher's
research, Bettelheim curiously omitted A Psychiatric
Study of Fairy Tales from the bibliography of his
Uses of Enchantment !
Pollak identifies other sources as well which "Bettelheim
failed to credit": Géza Róheim and
Otto Rank, for example. And while citing other authorities
in an offhand manner, authorities such as Erich Fromm,
Bettelheim simply repeats the points which these other
researchers have made as if they were his own discoveries.
Pollack likens this sort of derivation to being lost
in a forest, "scrambling for nuts and berries that
would give him something to say about concentration
camps or parenting or autism or the kibbutzim or the
youth culture . . . ". Pollak also likens Bettelheim
to "hungry Hansel" of the Hansel and Gretal
fairy tale. Lost in the forest, he comes across the
work of Julius Heuscher, "rich with psychological
gingerbread, and, like the hungry Hansel, Bettelheim
helped himself."
As a second language writer, Bettelheim might be forgiven
for occasionally relying too heavily on the words and
phraseaology of previously published sources. This is
something that many second language writers do (see,
for comparison, the cases of Pan
Aihua et al, Vijay
Soman, and Andrzej
Jendryczko). But the extent of derivation by an
acknowledged scholar with an earned PhD (just one PhD,
not the three which Bettelheim claimed on his CV) is
by no means justifiable. And beyond such language derivation
lie the more disturbing patterns of falsification and
fabrication which cannot be excused: academic degrees
listed on his CV that he had never earned; works listed
that had never been published; associations claimed
which never existed (i.e. claims to have known Freud
and to have received his "blessing" on his
own research).
And beyond the falsifications and plagiaries of Bruno
Bettelheim, "[i]t remains to hold those who sustained
and promoted Bettelheim's reputation accountable for
their carelessness and irresponsibility. There was an
almost universal failure to look behind the facade,
to ask even the simplest and most obvious questions
that would uncover the shoddiness of the structure Bettelheim
created." Why did the University of Chicago and
the Ford Foundation support the work of Dr. Bruno Bettelheim
without any apparent mechanisms for oversight and maintenance
of professional accountability? (To their credit, one
advisor to the Ford Foundation stated a reservation,
wanting to see more "scientific sophistication
and rigor" at Bettelheim's Orthogenic School).
But by and large the academic establishment as well
as the popular media believed the myth and legacy which
Bettelheim had woven to portray a positive image of
himself (Molly Finn, "In the Case of Bruno Bettelheim").
Truths which
were repressed in Bettelheim's lifetime have re-emerged
with renewed vigor, the most intricate details of his
life being subjected to the rigorous external review
which was denied to the subjects of Dr. B's own bogus
studies in psycho-therapy at the University of Chicago's
Orthogenic School (with the financial support of the
Ford Foundation). The life story of Bruno Bettelheim
is a tragic case study in social maladjustment to the
norms of behavior governing interpersonal relationships
so as to honestly represent one's true identity and
motivations within those relationships--colleague to
colleague, doctor to patient (and patients' relatives),
author to reader, and family member to family member.
References
End
Profile SCMD-1976-BB
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Michael
Briggs
|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-1985-MB |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
Formerly
Professor of Human Biology with Deakin University,
Australia; Researcher and Adviser on contraceptive
use for the World Health Organization
|
| Allegations: |
Scamming
and falsifying pharmaceutical industry funded reports
on numerous occasions over nearly a decade of research;
"cobbled together" (J.W. Grove 1996) research
which appropriated unpublished reports from other
scientists
|
| Results: |
Retired in
ignominy to Costa Del Sol, Spain
|
| Known
for: |
Research
on the effects of contraceptive pills and advising on
related issues with the World Health Organization; Serving
as a spokesman for pharmaceutical industry products
at international symposia; Also widely known for his
research fraud in scientific circles, the Briggs case
being one of the most serious instances of pharmaceutical
industry related fraud
|
| Overview: |
In
"The Morality of Scientists Revisited", J.W.
Grove discusses the case of Michael Briggs and the research
fraud perpetrated while his hands--and the hands of
his wife--were deep in the pockets of the pharmaceutical
industry. He was the researcher, and his wife was a
family planning doctor, and together this duo waltzed
hand-in-hand with the moneyed interests of drug companies
such as Schering and Wyeth.
A well known expert on contraception, Briggs authored
numerous papers with his wife as an occasional co-author.
These papers were presented at conferences sponsored
by the pharmaceutical industry, but as Grove points
out, few of these were ever published in refereed medical
science journals. Briggs also served as an adviser for
the World Health Organization, and his fraudulent research
was to eventually corrupt the pharmaceutical literature
on a massive scale since his conference disseminated
research came to be relied on by family planning
clinic doctors and staff.
Grove observes that "[w]hen he was finally exposed,
it became plain that much of the research he reported
as his own was cobbled together from unpublished work
done by others, that some of it had not been done at
all, and that some of his alleged tests were impossible
to perform." The substance of Briggs' research
evaporated under closer scrutiny. Deakin University
simply did not have equipment needed to perform research
which Briggs claimed to have performed at Deakin. Research
which incorporated a certain hormone product could not
have been performed as reported by Briggs because that
hormone product could not have been obtained in Australia.
There were just too many irregularities in Briggs' reported
research to go un-noticed.
Briggs resigned from Deakin University in 1985 and went
into retirement in Spain. The Sunday Times
of London interviewed the fraudster turned early retiree
at his home on the Costa Del Sol, and he freely
admitted to having engaged in rather serious research
misconduct which had extremely serious ramifications
for the millions of women taking contraceptive products
such as Microgynon, Eugynon, Ovran, Ovranette, Trinordial,
Logynon, and others. The perceived safety of these contraceptives
was based at least in part on the fraudulent research
reports of Michael Briggs (Brian
Deer, "The Pill: Professor's Safety Tests Were
Faked"; "Research Reveals Birth Pill Risk
for 2M British Women").
Isn't that what background checks are for? Isn't science
supposed to be self-correcting? Too many doctors and
scientists and industry supported researchers today
seem to think in modern money-minded parlance . . .
self-enriching, self-serving, self-aggrandizing,
. . . self-promoting . . . at the expense of their
colleagues, their students, their patients, and even
their own souls.
References
End
Profile SCMD-1985-MB
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Jorge
Bucay

|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-2005-JB |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
    
Red: Severe Risk
|
| Occupation: |
Psychiatrist,
Psychotherapist, and best-selling author of "self-help"
books
|
| Allegations: |
Plagiarizing
60 pages nearly verbatim from Spanish philosopher
Mónica Cavallé in his book Shimriti
|
| Results: |
Bucay's plagiarism
became a media sensation in the Spanish press and
he was asked by Cavallé to make a "symbolic
reparation" ["reparación simbólica"]
by admitting his "error" in an article published
in the Spanish magazine Healthy Mind [Mente
Sana] for which Bucay serves as Director; the
book in question was pulled from the shelves in most
countries with the exception of Argentina
|
| Known
for: |
Self help
books and expertise in psychotherapy and mental illnesses
["especializó en enfermadades mentales"]
|
| Overview: |
Argentinan
psychiatrist and psychotherapist Jorge Bucay caused
quite a sensation in the Spanish media after it was
found that his latest book borrowed heavily from the
work of Spanish philosopher Mónica Cavallé.
A popular author of best-selling books in the "self-help"
genre, Bucay specializes in mental ilnesses and is a
frequent guest on radio and television shows. Julio
Díaz de Alda describes Bucay's plagiary as "a
grain of sand on the beach of impostures" ["un
grano do arena en la playa de las imposturas"],
an apt metaphor for the seemingly endless cases of fraud
and deception in texts across genres of modern genres
of communication ("Tú plagia que algo queda").
According to Bucay, if his version of events can be
trusted, he didn't even realize that he had lifted nearly
60 pages verbatim from Cavallé's Wisdom
Recovered [La Sabiduría Recobrada]
until a friend pointed out the similarities between
Bucay's and Cavallé's texts (Martinez, J.P. "Bucay
reconoció que plagió obra").
After the discovery of Bucay's recycling of Cavallé's
nuggets of wisdom, the popular Argentinan author made
a "symbolic reparation" ["reparación
simbólica"] by admitting his *inadvertent*
"error" in an article published in the Spanish
magazine Healthy Mind [Mente Sana]
for which Bucay serves as Director, and the book Shimriti
was pulled from the shelves in most countries . . .
. . . except for bookstore shelves in Argentina.
Self-help for
plagiarists anyone?
How about a 12-step program
along the lines of Plagiarists Anonymous
for treatment of the pervasive variants of Textual
Abuse Syndrome. Ask
Dr. Lesko--that's the doctor's self-help prescription
for this all too frequent malady of the Postmodern Age
of Cut-n-Paste.
References
End
Profile SCMD-2005-JB
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Shervert
Frazier

|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-1988-SF |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
Psychiatrist,
Medical Administrator, Founder of the Shervert Frazier
Research Institute
|
| Allegations: |
Plagiarized
paragraphs discovered by a graduate student in published
articles
|
| Results: |
Frazier resigned
his position as adjunct professor with the Harvard
Medical School; Continued to raise funds for important
research and went on with his career at the Harvard
affiliated McLean Hospital
|
| Known
for: |
Dedication
to a number of different projects with McLean Hospital
including the recruitment of researchers and financial
supporters for work on psychiatric illness, substance
abuse, neuroscience, and the psychiatry of violence;
Has also held positions with the Mayo Clinic, Columbia
University, Baylor University, the National Institute
of Mental Health; Founded the Shervert Frazier Research
Institute
|
| Overview: |
It
was a perceptive and zealous graduate student--perhaps
too zealous suggests J.W.Grove--who first discovered
the plagiarized paragraphs in the published research
of Dr. Shervert Frazier. The detective work of Paul
Scatena in 1988 uncovered a number of instances of verbatim
lifting from sources such as Scientific American.
After Scatena sent the results of his detective work
to the Dean of the Harvard Medical School, an official
investigation found that Frazier had lifted text from
other researchers in four of his published papers.
As J.W. Grove (1996) indicates, Frazier's lifting of
text from the Scientific American for use in
a review of psychiatric does not seem to constitute
as serious of an infraction as plagiarism in an article
which is supposed to represent primary research findings.
Such verbatim lifting of text is still unacceptable
according to scholarly convention, but it seems to be
a lower level sort of plagiary when contrasted with
cases in which wholesale lifting of an article's text
is accompanied by insertion of fabricated data.
Frazier's post-plagiary contributions to the medical
and psychiatric profession might be seen as an atonement
of sorts for wrongdoing to which he admitted and for
which he took responsibility. Apologizing for his actions,
Frazier resigned from his position with the Harvard
Medical school, but continued to work for the Harvard
psychiatric affiliate McLean Hospital where he has led
a distinguished career involving the recruitment of
researchers and financial supporters for work on psychiatric
illness, substance abuse, neuroscience, and the psychiatry
of violence.
Described as a "champion of research at McLean",
Frazier has helped to attract millions of dollars in
support for the McLean research endeavor. Named after
Frazier and founded by him, the Shervert Frazier Research
Institute at McLean Hospital conducts important studies
and attracts world-class researchers: "Shervert
Frazier had the foresight, dedication and wisdom to
create the Frazier Institute, which has added immeasurably
to McLean's ability to attract and support world-class
neuroscientists and promising young investigators"
(Bruce Cohen, President and Psychiatrist in Chief for
Mclean Hospital in "Frazier Institute Supports
Researchers").
Time well spent in plagiary-purgatory. Move on up a
level closer toward the habitation of the Author.
References
End
Profile SCMD-1988-SF
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Vishwa
Jit Gupta

|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-1987-VJG |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
At the time,
Gupta was a professor of geology and researcher at
Punjab University (Chandigarh)
|
| Allegations: |
Spectacular
fabrication of research findings and plagiarism (of
the fossil images of other researchers) spanning an
entire career of geological research in the Himalayas
(Kasmir to Butan), Pakistan, Iran; Level of deceit
considered by paleontologists to be on a par with
the Piltdown Hoax
|
| Results: |
"tarnished
[a definite understatement] the scientific prestige
of the country before the international scientific
community" ("Plagiarising Research Data",
The Hindu); Brought into question an entire career's
worth of geological findings, necessitating a total
re-evaluation of the geology of the Himilayas and
other regions "studied" by Gupta; Gupta
vigorously denied the allegations and accused John
Talent of being a "Pakistani spy" at one
point; Any and all research associated with Gupta's
name in the paleontological literature is suspect
|
| Known
for: |
Sensational
geological findings using plagiarized fossil images
and other fossils which were stolen, purchased in shops
and flea markets, or otherwise acquired from colleagues
and other sources instead of discovered in situ as claimed
|
| Overview: |
As one of the most spectacular cases of a career devoted
to fabrication and plagiary, the case of Vishwa Jit
Gupta ranks right up there with the likes of the notorious
"Piltdown Hoax" ("the most serious case
of its kind since the Piltdown hoax", W.K. Stevens)for
the sheer number of fabricated and concocted research
articles which resulted from Gupta's scientifically
perverse machinations.
These fabrications and plagiaries were published in
some of the most prestigious scientific publications.
The sensational findings of Gupta were reported as fossil
"discoveries", and and Gupta's articles included
pictures of the micro- and macro-fossils which he claimed
to have found during primary fieldwork expeditions.
But as the University of Macquarie's (Australia) John
Talent would reveal, much of the evidence submitted
by Gupta consisted of other researchers' fossil images,
fossils purchased in shops and flea markets, or fossils
which were obtained in other locales far removed from
where Gupta claimed to have discovered them. Vague and
imprecise descriptions of locations made it nearly impossible
for anyone to check up on Gupta's sensational "finds".
The fossil record of the Himalayas would have to be
entirely re-evaluated due to the immense, spectacular
proportions of Gupta's deceptions. He had hoodwinked
the scientific community from 1964 to the late 1980s,
publishing nearly 500 articles at an astounding rate
of nearly 18 per year! (Molina, Eustoquio, "The
Fraud of the Recycled Fossils . . . "
Moreover he seems to have convinced other researchers
to sign on as co-authors for some of these articles,
most of these unwitting colleagues likely not aware
of the fraud being perpetrated by Gupta. And in his
articles, Gupta brought in as support for his "findings"
big names in the respective areas of specialization,
even though these individuals had not always examined
and verified the research "findings" as claimed
by Gupta.
H.K. Erben was one such researcher drawn into co-authoring
a paper with Gupta. He "expressed astonishment"
at apparent fossil findings which normally did not occur
where Gupta reported finding them, and he questioned
the "remarkable similarity of his specimens to
the preservation of comparable material from southeastern
Morocco." Gupta evidently lied to Erben, assuring
him that "he [had] personally collected these specimens
at the Himalayan locality." As Erben reports, "Under
these circumstances I took his word for granted and
I agreed to study the material and to join him as coauthor".
After Gupta's fraud came to light, Erben felt it necessary
to publish his own view of "this highly detestable
affair" (1989, "Statement concerning a paper
on Devonian allegedly Himalayan ammonoids").
The Indian scientific community's international standing
and prestige suffered greatly from the wide publicity
which followed revelations detailing the extent of Gupta's
fraudulent research.
Among cases of scientific fraud in the 20th century,
this is truly one of the most shocking and blatant examples
of what an individual scientist is capable of doing
without adequate oversight and a system of checks and
balances to independently verify research discoveries.
References
End
Profile SCMD-1987-VJG
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Mostafa
M. Imam
|
|


|
| Profile: |
SCMD-2004-MMI |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
Formerly
a teacher with the Scientific Department of the College
of Education, Al Madina Monawara, Saudi Arabia; Micro-Palaeontologist
of Egyptian nationality
|
| Allegations: |
Producing
a number of evidently fraudulent papers by lifting
photographs used in papers by other researchers
|
| Results: |
Fraud undetected
for years until J. Aguirre spots Imam's fabricated
research as a peer reviewer for the Revista Española
de Micropaleontología; Imam claimed to
have used other researchers' photos because he did
not have the equimpment and skills to produce his
own; Imam's fraud "affects researchers working
on the regional geology of North West Africa"
(J. Agguirre); Imam initially called the allegations
"lies", suggesting some of his article text
and pictures had been changed by the publisher; A
colleague of Imam reports that Imam died of a heart
attack in 2004
|
| Known
for: |
In
the field of micro-paleontology, Imam was known for
important discoveries as published over two decades
in the palaeontological literature related to his supposed
specialty in fossil algae of North Africa and environs;
made "an industry of copying other author's work
in his papers."
|
| Overview: |
Reminiscent
of the Vishwa Jit Gupta case of
paleontological fraud ("the most serious case of
its kind since the Piltdown hoax", W.K. Stevens),
a Saudi Arabia-based paleontologist has been accused
of falsifying and corrupting the paleontological literature.
For over 20 years Mostafa M. Imam published papers based
on plagiarized photos which he had lifted from the articles
of other micro-palaeontologists. These papers, written
on subjects such as fossil algae, went undetected for
years in numerous submissions to journals such as The
Journal of African Earth Sciences and Neues
Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie.
Such fraud
is particularly disturbing to palaeontologists as Imam
had made some important contributions (so it was believed
anyhow) to the palaeontological literature related to
his supposed specialty in fossil algae of North Africa.
This fraud "affects researchers working on the
regional geology of North West Africa [since] Imam has
established the timing of sediments cropping out in
different places of North West Africa, and interpreted
the paleoenvironmental settings based on microfacies
and calcereous algal assemblages." Such was the
observation of Julio Aguirre, a perceptive University
of Granada paleontologist who reviewed a paper submitted
for consideration to Revista Española de
Micropaleontología by Imam (Xavier Bosch,
"Plagiarism in Paleontology"). As it turned
out, Aguirre noticed that Imam had appropriated some
of his own pictures of Pliocene algae from
Spain which Imam falsely represented as being Miocene
algae from Egypt.
Imam may have slipped his fraudulent articles past other
peer reviewers, but despite his diabolic "ingenuity",
he had made a grave miscalculation in sending a paper
to a journal for review by one of the scientist's whose
very work he had stolen.
After
discovering this attempt by Imam to pass off a fraudulent
paper to Revista Española de Micropaleontología,
Aguirre did some further investigation into Imam's
publishing record and found a disturbing pattern showing
that Imam had "repeatedly been plagiarizing pictures
of diverse organisms previously published by other authors"
(Xavier Bosch, "Plagiarism in Paleontology").
The peer review process in the journals where Imam published
was apparently not sufficient to prevent these sham
articles making it to press, even though the pictures
should have been recognized by the "experts"
as not corresponding to the fossils being discussed
in the articles.
Aguirre reported the results of his investigations in
"Plagiarism in Palaeontology. A New Threat Within
the Scientific Communiy" (Revista Española
de Micropaleontología), giving specific
information on Imam's history of publications "involving
plagiarism of images and duplications of photos in different
papers supposedly dealing with sediments and fossils
from different areas and of different ages."
As Aguirre was to discover, Imam simply re-used the
same pictures of coralline alga "in almost all
the published papers" which he wrote: "Imam
has been using the same pictures in the different papers
that he has published concerning different areas and
rocks of different ages" (J.Aguirre as quoted by
Xavier Bosch in "Plagiarism in Paleontology").
In addition to pictures of coralline algae, Imam also
lifted pictures of microfacies and foraminifers. Plate
by plate, Aguirre analyzes Imam's pattern of appropriation,
exposing how he "made an industry of copying other
author's work in his papers . . . [with] results and
conclusions . . . based on false and plagiarised data"
(J. Aguirre).
A very remote possibility is that Imam's reports were
genuine, with only the pictures having been appropriated,
as paleontologist Bruno Granier suggested (Xavier Bosch,
"Fallout from fraud"). This seems to be an
extremely remote possibility. What seems to
be more likely is that Imam completely falsified and
fabricated his supposed research reports, possibly involving
language plagiarism from other articles as well, although
no one has yet offered definite proof of this.
Paul Copper suggests that such fraudulent practices
are more common in "journals published in the Third
World, where perhaps the perpetrators calculate they
will not be caught in a foreign language" (Xavier
Bosch, "Fallout from fraud"). As J. Aguirre
concludes "Plagiarism in Palaeontology", the
sort of fraud committed by Mostafa M. Imam affects everyone
within the scientific discourse communities from readers
to editors and reviewers: "We all together are
forced to struggle among fraudulent and dishonest practices
in Science."
References
End
Profile SCMD-2004-MMI
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Andrzej
Jendryczko


|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-1994-AJ |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
    
Red: Severe Risk
|
| Occupation: |
Former Professor
of Biochemistry at the Silesian Medical University
of Katowice, Poland; Professor and Deputy Director
of the Czestochowa Polytechnic Institute
|
| Allegations: |
"[M]ass-produced
plagiarized papers over many years"; More than
50 papers determined to be plagiarized/fabricated
out of a career total of 125 published over a span
of 13 years
|
| Results: |
Denial of
allegations--"The action of a number of editors
amounts to covering up plagiarism" (M. Wronski);
Plagiarism publicly condemned by SMU, but Jendryczko
was never officially disciplined due to Polish legal
limitations; Status as an independent researcher at
SMU revoked before his resignation and transfer to
Czestochowa Polytechnic; Proposal by Marek Wronski
to create a Polish national committee for scientific
misconduct
|
| Known
for: |
Various "research"
agendas encompassing areas outside his area of bio-chemical
engineering
|
| Overview: |
In
the mid to late 1990s,
it was discovered that the plagiarism by Silesian Medical
University scientist Andrzej Jendryczko spanned a research
career of thirteen years. Evidence of extensive plagiarism
was found by a medical researcher in both English and
Polish language publications of Jendryczko.
The plagiarism and scientific misconduct was investigated
by Marek Wronski, director of neuro-oncology research
at Staten Island University Hospital. Wronski followed
up on a note in the Danish Medical Bulletin
by Jan Fallingborg who discovered that Jendryczko had
plagiarized an article of his on the topic of selenium
concentrations in ulcerative colitis patients. Jendryczko
had published a nearly identical version of Fallingborg's
paper in a Polish medical journal. Simply translating
this article by Danish scientists, Jendryczko published
it under his own name in Przeglad Lekarski,
giving no acknowledgement to the Danish researchers.
After following up on the note in the Danish Medical
Bulletin with some intensive sleuthing,
Wronski discovered an absolutely astonishing number
of plagiarized/fabricated research publications by Jendryczko.
Over thirteen years, Jendryczko had published 125 papers,
and as Wronski would learn, over 50 of them were identified
as having been pasted together from other scientific
articles with data fabricated when necessary to suit
the topics of these faux research reports!
Powerful functions such as the "find related articles
function" were used by Wronski to uncover the incredible
number of previously undetected plagiarism incidents
by Jendryczko. Thanks to the growth of the Internet
in the 1990s, powerful new tools for plagiarism sleuths
became available for use in tracking down textual plunderers
in the digital age. Today, millions of documents can
be scanned, nearly instantaneously, for linguistic matches,
which as Wronski has demonstrated, can can help bring
to light the sort of scientific misbehavior discovered
in the Jendryczko case.
As Wronski would learn, Jendryczko had published 125
papers, many of them on medical subjects--and
as a chemical engineer, Jendryczko was not even a medical
doctor! Wronski reported how he used the Internet and
the National Library of Medicine's Medline service to
investigate Jendryczko's suspicious research publications.
Using the PubMed access gate and the "find related
articles" function, Wronski had a powerful search
engine for identifying similar wording between Jendryczko's
articles and other articles on related subjects. What
Wronski found was the absolutely astounding current
total of 50 fabricated research publications (and very
likely there are more) which plagiarized the wording
and content of other previously published scientific
publications.
These counterfeit articles published by Jendryczko in
both Polish and English language journals reported research
"on mitochondrial DNA and ageing, estrogen and
myocardial infarction, neonatal growth, zinc and copper
in cancer tissue, cholesterol and hypertension, antioxidant
enzymes in the placenta, intracellular responses to
cancer, menopause, the effects of selenium, the effects
of ionizing radiation" (Marshall 1998) and so on.
The similarity of the Jendryczko case to the case involving
the Peking University genetic researchers
has to do with both the fact that the lifting was done
by non-native speakers of English, and with the fact
that both Jendryczko and Pan (et al) used a type of
"plug-in" template framework approach to their
textual appropriation. However, whereas it seems that
the Peking University researchers were reporting original
research data within a borrowed linguistic research-publication-template,
Jendryczko was almost certainly not reporting original
research results in his counterfeit academic publications.
In one particular article published in the German (English
language medium) journal Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie,
Jendryczko and co-author Marian Drozdz reported the
supposed research results from their investigations
of uterine cervical cancer in their 1991 article. The
troubling truth behind this supposed research is that
Jendryczko and Drozdz lifted an earlier article published
in 1979 in the Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery.
Jendryczko and Drozdz simply lifted the 1979 article
on cancer of the larynx, and substituted cervix
for larynx throughout the article with other
slight modifications such as adjustments in the ages
and the gender of the study population. This substitution
of key terminology throughout the article masked the
grave scientific misconduct being foisted upon the medical
discourse community.
It is clear in comparing the two articles that Jendryczko
and Drozdz have employed a strategy quite similar to
the "plug-in" template approach of the Peking
University researchers. However, it is also clear
that the Polish researchers were not reporting original
research data as the Chinese scientists had done.
In another instance of alleged plagiarism, Jendryczko
employed what Marshall called a "composite"
article strategy in which portions of a 1989 article
from the British Medical Journal were combined
with portions of a 1992 article published in the New
England Journal of Medicine. Jendryczko's composite
paper incorporating these two articles was published
in a 1993 issue of Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie.
This composite article approach has been observed in
other settings by second language acquisition researchers
working with students who appropriated large "chunks"
of source text without acknowledgement and re-joined
them together to form what Yao (1991) has termed a "hybrid-language"
text.
Why would a top Polish scientist like Jendryczko resort
to plagiarism throughout the course of his professional
career? Wronski and the investigative committee of the
Polytechnic Institute of Czestochowa finished their
inquiry into Jendryczko's alleged research fraud, but
the three year statute of limitations under the Polish
laws governing higher education meant that Jendryczko
could not be formally disciplined, and he has since
retired from the Silesian Medical University, transferring
to and then resigning from the Czestochowa Polytechnic
Institute.
Proposals have been made by Wronski for procedures and
committees to deal with future cases of such grievious
misconduct in the Polish scientific community. The Jendryczko
case is definitely one of the worst cases of plagiarism
and science fraud in recent years.
Might it be that Jendryczko, early in his research career,
faced the same language proficiency related lack of
confidence experienced by the Peking University scientists
as described by Xiguang and Xiong (1996), and also mentioned
by St. John (1987)? These scientists felt that their
English language weaknesses hindered their ability to
publish in English.
After a few "successes" in publishing composite
articles, feeling secure with initial "successes",
Jendryczko may have been tempted by the easy route to
publication which involved bypassing language difficulties,
and which required only the minimal editing and altering
of pre-existing publications.
Of course he was also bypassing the difficulties involved
in conducting original and genuine research projects.
An ominous question must be asked when such cases surface:
"How many other such scientists and professionals
have been doing this?" Kelley Rivoire quotes Paul
Friedman's insight that "Nobody arrives at fraud
as the first thing they ever do . . . . They got there
by doing little things and getting away with it."
Jendryczko is definitely not the only scientist to have
engaged in such mass-production of plagiarized and fabricated,
composite, faux research reports.
With powerful tools such as the "find related articles"
function of the PubMed Medline service, and related
database search functions, research fraud is now more
likely to be discovered. Marshall suggests that since
a number of co-authors were involved in Jendryczko's
case, there may have been others who condoned such fraudulent
research in the upper echelons of the Polish scientific
community. Wronski found that knowledge of the Jendryczko
case was widespread, but "nobody said a word .
. [and research fraud was] protected by the old guy's
network." There seems to have been a professional
background/context and a plagiarism network which encouraged
such behavior.
Indeed, the acknowledgements made by Jendryczko and
Drozdz at the end of their article tend to support the
view that there might have been such a "plagiarism"
network. Jendryczko and Drozdz wrote, "We are indebted
to Prof. Dr. J. Tomala and Prof. Dr. L. Dzieciuchowicz,
III Department of II Clinic of Ostertrics [sic] and
Gynaecology, Silesian Medical School, Katowice, Poland,
for their invaluable help in gathering the patients
and control group."
Such fraudulent misuse of position and resources deserves
the harsh light of publicity which plagiarism sleuths
such as Wronski focus on such shameful, fraudulent misconduct
within the scientific community. As Donald Kennedy has
put it, "If the benefits of authorship are enjoyed
jointly and severally by all the authors, shouldn't
the liability be shared in the same way?" This
case clearly cuts deeper than Jendryczko alone--it implicates
the "old guys network" which allowed such
fraudulent behavior to exist undetected, unchallenged,
until the mid 1990s.
References
End
Profile SCMD-1994-AJ
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Ellen
Larsen

|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-1987-EL |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
Genetics
Researcher and Professor, University of Toronto
|
| Allegations: |
Plagiarism
and stealing of experimental results relating to "Analysis
of cell packing and its relationship to morphogenesis
in fruit fly imaginal discs"; Appropriation of
authorship rights of a graduate student: "My
research is stolen"
|
| Results: |
Decades of
frustration and conspiracy theorizing by Larsen's
former graduate student Michael Pyshnov; "The
University [of Toronto] considers the matter closed"
(former President R. J. Birgeneau).
|
| Known
for: |
Genetics
research
|
| Overview: |
Something
definitely went wrong in the working relationship between
University of Toronto graduate student Michael Pyshnov
and his graduate supervisor, Ellen Larsen, University
of Toronto genetics researcher and professor.
At his "University
of Toronto fraud" website, former PhD candidate
Michael Pyshnov tells his horrifying tale of being "outed"
by a supervisor who wanted to rob him of his research
findings and experimental techniques: "the credit
for my work and my discoveries was stolen by the professor-supervisor
and three other people. I received no degree."
The website is a rant against the University of Toronto,
Professor Larsen, the President of the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada,former Ontario
Minister A. Brzustowski, and several other professors
as well as the President of the University of Toronto,
R. Birgeneau (no longer with U of T). Pyshnov claims,
"The University of Toronto had soon crossed the
line separating a university from organized crime."
To a disinterested observer, it is somewhat difficult
to determine exactly what happened back in the mid-1980s
to make Mr. Pyshnov so embittered against a university
system which he believes to have cheated him out of
authorship rights to his research on "Analysis
of cell packing and its relationship to morphogenesis
in fruit fly imaginal discs." Some of the conspiracy-minded
ideas might result from his having emigrated from the
former Soviet Union, an "Evil Empire" in the
famous words of Ronald Reagan which became known for
incredible levels of corruption and abuse of citizens'
rights.
That having been said, looking past the invective and
seething hatred at Mr. Pyshnov's online diatribe seems
to suggest a few irregularities in the publications
process by which a professor reported the experimental
results of a student's work (Words used by Mr. Pyshnov--"sadistic";
"barbarous"; "criminal sham"; "Here
[University of Toronto], a communist professor was a
fraud. And she, the Jewish female, brought the holocaust
upon a scientist . . . Ellen Larsen-the politically
correct substitute of a professor, the sadistic criminal
and the prostitute of science is still teaching students";
"unconscionable fraud" ; "Jews, communists,
'lesbians', feminists and marihuana addicts, all, unfortunately
for me, had a representation in the figure of Professor
Larsen . . . the cunning professor-criminal used political
corruption . . . ").
Mr. Pyshnov has clearly not helped his case--if, indeed,
he has one--by resorting to such invective and diatribe
against the "system". "Just
Response" interviewed Pyshnov, giving him a
forum which, as he indicates, other media outlets have
denied him, perhaps because of his outspoken racist
remarks.
Pyshnov's case involves the termination of his PhD program
for reasons which are somewhat controversial. He reports
that Professor Larsen then went on to publish the results
of his research projects resulting from over 5 years
of experimentation. In the ensuing controversy, Larsen
and the University of Toronto took the position that
Pyshnov's research was being "salvaged", yet
as Pyshnov maintains, why would his work be considered
worth "salvaging" by publication in prestigious
journals when his position had essentially been terminated
by Larsen? Why was he not allowed to continue on, finish
his PhD studies, and maintain the authorship rights
to his innovative and original work?
Larsen did retract one paper after Pyshnov's objections,
and there are other seeming irregularities which suggest
Mr. Pyshnov's authorship rights might have been infringed
upon. But this is very difficult to substantiate more
than 20 years later. Pyshnov's career has come to a
halt, and this is a great tragedy when a gifted researcher
becomes no longer able to make quality contributions
to scientific advancement (recovery may be in progress--see
Federov and Pyshnov's
Cell Division Program).
Rumours abound of graduate students in similar situations,
although not quite as sensational as Pyshnov's case--their
work having been appropriated by their mentors and supervisors,
which the students only discover after it is too late
to do much about it. The "poor man's copyright"
as it has been called, circumventing the process of
registering discoveries with the Copyright or Patent
Office, is to use registered mail to send a draft of
such discoveries to oneself in a sealed envelope. In
case questions ever arise, this constitutes proof of
the date of discovery as verified by the postal date
on the un-opened envelope. Graduate students and researchers,
be on guard against greedy mentors and supervisors helping
themselves to your work!
References
End
Profile SCMD-1987-EL
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| David
A. Latif
|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-2004-DAL |
| Name:
|
|
| War
on Plagiarism Threat Level: |
 
Blue: Guarded Risk
|
| Occupation: |
Associate
Professor, Department of Biopharmaceutical Sciences,
Shenandoah University
|
| Allegations: |
Plagiarism
of an editorial previously published by another professor
|
| Results: |
Published
retraction and acknowledgement of "deep regret"
for lack of "proper attribution"
|
| Known
for: |
Research
involving the moral reasoning of pharmacists
|
| Overview: |
Janis
P. Bellack became suspicious when she saw an opinion
piece very similar to an editorial she had written in
the Journal of Nursing Education. The plagiarism
was skillfully done--according to her own analysis--with
the text having been carefully manipulated to conceal
detection.
The "chunks
and patterns" which she saw replicated in Latif's
plagiarized piece were enough to convice her that he
had borrowed the very thesis of her own text. Upon investigation
by the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,
the editors concurred with Bellack's allegations, and
a retraction was published by David A. Latif admitting
that he "should have given proper attribution to
Bellack for the article."
The moral reasoning
behind a professor's lifting a colleague's work remains
a baffling phenomenon. Clearly more research is needed
to investigate cases in academia where moral reasoning
has apparently been skewed!
References
End
Profile SCMD-2004-DAL
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Jose-Luis
Ortiz (and student Pablo Santos-Sanz)
|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-2005-JLO/PSS/K40506A |
| Name:
|
Jose-Luis
Ortiz
(and student Pablo Santos-Sanz)
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
Astronomer
with the Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia
|
| Allegations: |
"Hacking"
into the publicly accessible observation log of the
SMARTS telescope to obtain information leading to
"discovery" of the 10th planet, a trans-Neptunian
object which Michael Brown and colleagues claim to
have discovered prior to Ortiz's announcement
|
| Results: |
"The
spectacular allegation has flummoxed the International
Astronomical Union" (D. Overbye, "One Find,
Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl")
|
| Known
for: |
Astronomical/Astrophysical
Research
|
| Overview: |
Has the 10nth planet in the solar system recently been
discovered? And if so, who should be credited with the
discovery of 2003 UB313, the temporary name given by
the International Astronomical Union to the trans-Neptunian
object whose discovery has recently caused such a stir
among astronomers?
In "One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl"
(New York Times, Sept. 13), Dennis Overbye
presents the details of an apparent lapse of ethics
involving Jose-Luis Ortiz, a researcher with the IAA
(Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia). While
the P-word (plagiarism) is not specifically mentioned,
Brown strongly suggests that his research results have
been lifted by Ortiz:
. . . the
standards of scientific ethics are also clear: any
any information used from another source must be acknowledged
and cited. One is not allowed to go to a library,
find out about a discovery in a book, and then claim
that discovery as your own with no mention of having
read it in a book. One is not even allowed to first
make a discovery and then go to the library and realize
that someone else independently made the same discovery
and then not acknowledge what you learned in the library.
Such actions would be considered scientifically dishonesty.
It is not clear from the timeline precisely what Ortiz
and Santos-Sanz knew or how they used the web-based
records. They were required by the standards of science,
however, to acknowledge their use of our web-based
records if they accessed them ("The
Discovery of 2003 UB313, the 10th Planet").
And according
to the web traffic logs of the telescope being used
by Brown and his colleagues, someone from the IAA did
access the web-based records in question.
Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology,
along with Chad Trujillo (Gemini Observatory) and David
Rabinowitz (Yale University) claim that they discovered
the 10nth
planet in the solar system. But before they could
publish their discovery, Ortiz and his student announced
to the world that they had discovered 2003
UB313 through their work at IAA, and they offered
as proof images of the object which they had taken several
years previous to their announcement.
Undermining the credibility of Ortiz's "discovery"
is an alleged "hacking" (term is in dispute
since the telescope observation logs were
on the Web) incident in which someone from the IAA accessed
the publicly accessible observation log of the same
telescope which Brown had been using to track the movements
of 2003 UB313. This access to the log
would have given the coordinates needed to find out
exactly where the telescope had been pointing, essentially
giving away the tracking of the 10nth planet by Brown
and his research team.
Brown had code-named his discovery as K40506A,
a reference code which appeared in public abstracts
(designed to whet the public's appetite prior to the
announcement accorting to Brown), but also appearing--to
Brown's later dismay--in the Internet accessible observation
logs of the SMARTS (Small and Moderate Aperature Research
Telescope System) telescope. Unless Ortiz or someone
else at the IAA was simply checking these logs for confirmation
of his own discovery, it might appear that a planet
discovery had been plagiarized . . . unless there is
a different explanation for Ortiz's actions . . .
Ortiz claimed in an interview that Brown et al were
"hiding their findings" in order to monopolize
research on newly discovered trans-Neptunian objects:
With technology
many times more advanced than our own, Brown's team
had discovered three big objects many months ago,
but they were hiding their findings from the international
scientific community, as they did before with Quaoar
and Sedna . . . This secrecy was useful to Brown,
as it allowed him to study the object in detail and
exclusively [exclusivity?]. But his actions harm science
and don't follow the established procedures that imply
notifying the existence of a new object to the astronomical
community as soon as it's discovered (Ricardo J. Tohmé,
"10th Planet Controversy").
Seen in this
light, Ortiz's actions might be considered as a way
to thwart one group's monopolization of scientific discovery.
As astronomer Dr. Javier Licandro stated, "The
group of Dr. Brown decided, as in previous cases, not
to make public its detection until they finished their
observations and their research work, and until the
object was in conjunction with the Sun so that other
people couldn't observe it" (Ricardo J. Tohmé,
"10th Planet Controversy"). By forcing Brown
et al to reveal their discoveries, Ortiz was, in effect,
preventing the Caltech researcher from stalling until
2003 EL61's conjunction with the sun, and this would
mean that other astronomers would have an opportunity
to target this newly discovered 10th planet with their
own telescopes while viewing conditions were still favorable.
Nothing wrong with that. Where's my telescope?
References
End
Profile SCMD-2005-JLO/PSS/K40506A
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Constantine
Papadopoulos
|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-1995-CP |
| Name:
|
Constantinos
Papadopoulos
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
At the time,
C. Papadopoulos was a PhD student in Computer Science
at the University of Piraeus (Greece)
|
| Allegations: |
Early use
of the Internet to copy professional research papers
for submission to professional conferences and journals
|
| Results: |
|
| Known
for: |
Use of Internet
in the early 1990s as part of an apparent plagiarism
strategy toward professional advancement in computer
science
|
| Overview: |
In
one of the early cases of the Internet being used as
part of a *professional* plagiarism strategy, PhD student
Constantinos V. Papadopoulos was found to have submitted
verbatim copies of previously published papers for consideration
to the conference organizers of EURO-PAR '95, an annual
conference on parallel processing.
Referees noticed the verbatim replication in Papadopoulos'
derivative manuscripts, and an investigation brought
to light a number of other cases in which this PhD student
had copied papers by other researchers with only slight
modifications of the titles, and a listing of these
works in his CV as if they were the product of his own
mind!
It appears that Papadopoulos had a history of such plagiaristic
use of others' work--he was evidently expelled from
the National Technical University of Athens for instances
of plagiarism. The EURO-PAR
'95 webpage on the Papadopoulos case contains a
lengthy list of papers on various topics which were
published and/or submitted to publications venues including
the following:
- IEEE Proceedings
of the 14th International Conference on Distributed
Computing Systems
- Journal
of Computer Systems Science and Engineering
- Parallel
Algorithms and Application Journal
- Proceedings
of Parallel Languages and Architectures Europe
- 5th Hellenic
Informatics Conference
- EUROMICRO-95
- Discrete
Applied Mathematics
Also listed
on this webpage were a number of other papers which
were listed on Papadopoulos' CV, but which had not yet
been conclusively proven to contain plagiarism. Following
the listing of plagiarized papers was a warning to the
computer science community to "beware of C.V. Papadopoulos."
What is clear is that Papadopoulos had gotten off to
a running start in what might have been a lengthy career
comprising such fraudulent contributions. The cases
of Andrzej Jendryczko, Mostafa
M. Imam, Michael Briggs
and other career plagiarists illustrate what
might have become of Papadopoulos had his plagiaries
not come to light early on in his career as a computer
scientist.
As was concluded
by the Steering Committee of the EURO-PAR Conferences
(and as is widely acknowledged today in the broader
academic and scientific communities), the Computer Science
community, in 1995, was in need of "measures and
techniques, of new refereeing methods, tools, etc.,
that may prevent such phenomena [i.e. plagarism] in
the future."
References
End
Profile SCMD-1995-CP
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Raj
Persaud
|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-2005-RP |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
   
Orange: High Risk
|
| Occupation: |
Well known
British psychiatrist and mental health expert; Radio
presenter; Prolific *writer* ; "Britain's most
ubiquitous psychiatrist" (Pidd, H. "'He
took paragraphs from my work, word for word' - psychiatrist
faces plagiarism charge." The Guardian)
|
| Allegations: |
Pilfering
the work of American scholar Thomas Blass without
acknowledgement for use in the article "Why the
Media Refused to Obey" published in the journal
Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry ; A
previous instance of plagiarism from Blass is also
alleged to have occurred
|
| Results: |
Investigation
by journal publisher and retraction of article in
question; Negative publicity; Effects on Dr. Persaud's
career remain to be seen
|
| Known
for: |
Dr. Persaud
has been called the "Frasier Crane of UK Media"
(Momin, S. Daily News and Analysis India);
A well regarded psychiatrist and mental health expert,
Persaud has appeared on numerous radio and TV programs,
and he has authored numerous articles in various scholarly
and popular publications with regular columns appearing
in magazines such as Cosmopolitan and Men's
Health; He is also a Fellow of the Royal College
of Psychiatrists and the Director of the Institute of
Psychiatry's Centre for Public Engagement in Mental
Health Sciences
|
| Overview: |
The well known mental health expert Dr. Raj Persaud,
"Britain's most ubiquitous psychiatrist" (Pidd,
H.) and the "Frasier Crane of UK Media" (Momin,
S.), has come under criticism for pilfering the work
of American professor Thomas Blass (Professor of Psychology,
University of Maryland).
In February of 2005, Persaud's article "Why the
Media Refuses to Obey", appeared in the journal
Progress
in Neurology and Psychiatry (Volume 9, Issue
2). It was subsequently discovered by Blass that Dr.
Persaud had appropriated about fifty percent of the
article content from Blass's work ("The Man Who
Shocked the World" Psychology Today, March
2002). Allegedly the second time that Persaud
has pilfered content from the same author without acknowledgement!
Blass claimed in an interview with the Guardian
that "He [Persaud] had taken paragraphs from my
work, word for word. Over 50% of his piece was my work,
which I have spent more than 10 years researching. I
felt outrage, disbelief, and incredulity this could
happen . . . " (Pidd, H. "'He took paragraphs
from my work, word for word' - psychiatrist faces plagiarism
charge." The Guardian).
As reported by the Guardian and other media
sources (The Asian Age, Daily News and
Analysis India . . . )Persaud's article was retracted
by Wiley Interface Ltd., the journal publisher, with
Persaud himself attributing the alleged plagiarism to
nothing more than an inadvertent omission:
I am happy
to apologise for the error, which occurred whereby
when I cut and pasted the original copy, the references
at the end were inadvertently omitted.
Virtually the
same excuse Persaud used the first time in blaming the
unacknowledged derivation on "subeditors"
who for some reason felt the need to remove Persaud's
citations, so Persaud claims anyway.
The cut-n-paste temptation strikes again, this time
at the career of "Britain's most ubiquitous psychiatrist".
The death of yet another
plagiarist! The Author writes back with
a vengeance to re-claim what writefully belongs to him.
References
End
Profile SCMD-2005-RP
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Chittaranjan
Purandare
|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-2005-RP |
| Name:
|
Chittaranjan
Purandare
(and his students)
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
   
Orange: High Risk
|
| Occupation: |
|
| Allegations: |
"certifying
the plagiarised theses of six students of the prestigious
College of Physicians and Surgeons" (Marpakwar,
P. "Top Doctor Suspended for Signing on Copied
Theses"); "abetting plagiarism" ("Doctor
Accused of Abetting Plagiarism May Sue College")
|
| Results: |
Suspension
of Purandare from the Medical Education Department;
Students "debarred from appearing for any examination
conducted by CPS for two years" (Marpakwar, P.
"Top Doctor Suspended for Signing on Copied Theses");
Dr. Purandare has threatened legal action against
the College of Physicians and Surgeons and "alleged
that CPS was conducting a vendetta against him"
("Doctor Accused of Abetting Plagiarism May Sue
College"); After the plagiarism incident became
public, Dr. Purandare took a 3 month medical leave
|
| Known
for: |
Leadership
and research in India in the field of gynaecology
|
| Overview: |
A
leading gynaecologist in India has been suspended from
the Medical Education Department after it was revealed
that he might have been complicit in a plan to assist
his students by dishonestly "certifying the plagiarised
theses of six students of the prestigious College of
Physicians and Surgeons" (Marpakwar, P. "Top
Doctor Suspended for Signing on Copied Theses").
As a teacher for students preparing to take the CPS
exam in midwifery and gynaecology, Dr. Purandare was
also responsible for overseeing the students as they
prepared theses toward their medical qualifications.
However, instead of submitting original theses which
they themselves had researched and written, these medical
students of Dr. Purandare had "copied entire theses
of MD (Gynaecology) students from Mumbai University"
as the external examiner Dr. Rekha Daver would confirm
after having "a hunch she had seen the [students']
work before". As a result of Dr. Daver's discovery,
Dr. Purandare was suspended from the Medical Education
Department and his students have been "debarred
from appearing for any examination conducted by CPS
for two years" (Marpakwar, P. "Top Doctor
Suspended for Signing on Copied Theses").
For his part, Dr. Purandare maintains his innocence,
claiming that he had no idea his students had copied
theses from Mumbai University. "How was he to know?"
seems to be his attitude as he promptly took a 3 month
medical leave after the scandal surfaced. Other professionals
are not convinced that Dr. Purandare has been fully
forthcoming about the details of this case, suggesting
that his "actions were still quite doubtful"
as did Sudhakar Sane of the College of Physicians and
Surgeons ("Doctor Accused of Abetting Plagiarism
May Sue College").
Is this an isolated instance? How many such students
have been able to slip by the external examiners without
their fraudulent work being found out? This case involving
Dr. Purandare and his students would seem to lend strong
support to S.M. Sapatnekar's description of the dissertation
ritual in India which indicts both students and
faculty:
In India,
quite often the ritual of dissertation for a Master's
degree in Medicine or Surgery begins with a search
of library archives for copy of a dissertation older
than three years, and ends with a typist to make a
ditto copy. And yes, there are faculty members who
actively encourage such practices ("Plagiarism".
JAPI, vol. 52, 527-530).
Shameful! Downright
shameful that medical practitioners in training would
resort to such means of getting their degrees and that
any faculty member would be a part of such dishonest
connivance.
Note: c.f. the case of the
3 V's below.
References
End
Profile SCMD-2005-RP
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Vijay
Soman (and co-author Philip Felig)

|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-1978-VS |
| Name:
|
Vijay
Soman
(and co-author Philip Felig)
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
Formerly
an endocrinologist, lab researcher, and associate
professor at the Yale University School of Medicine
|
| Allegations: |
Plagiarism
of language and research data from an article by Helena
Wachslicht-Rodbard as it was going through the peer
review process for possible publication in The
New England Journal of Medicine; Further fraud
and destruction of relevant data discovered as a result
of the plagiarism charges
|
| Results: |
Dr. Wachslicht-Rodbard
relentlessly pursued justice for the violation of
her authorship and intellectual property rights, and
this determination resulted in further discoveries:
"premature destruction of evidence by Soman,
the manipulation of data, and the suppression of disconfirming
evidence, all on a substantial scale" (J.W. Grove
1996); Soman was forced to resign in disgrace from
the Yale University School of Medicine; Wachslicht-Rodbard
also resigned from the NIH as a scientific researcher
and went into active medical practice
|
| Known
for: |
Research
in endocrinology under the supervision of Dr. Philip
Felig; Known also for one of the most serious and blatant
instances of plagiarism and scientific fraud--the scientific
fraudster who "shook the world of science"
(Morton Hunt 1981, New York Times).
|
| Overview: |
The
case of Vijay Soman (and co-author Philip Felig) is
known as the case of plagiarism and fraud that "shook
the world of science" (Morton Hunt 1981, New
York Times) back in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
What was most appalling about the particular aspects
of the plagiarism in this case was the way in which
an article was first rejected for publication by Soman
and his supervisor, Philip Felig, and then copied for
publication in another journal.
NIH endocrinology researcher Dr. Helena Wachslicht-Rodbard
had submitted an article for publications consideration
to The New England Journal of Medicince under
the title of "Insulin Receptors in Anorexia Nervosa."
One of the reviewers was Dr. Philip Felig, then the
head of endicronology research at Yale University's
School of Medicine. Felig evidently showed Vijay Soman
the paper, or perhaps even asked him to review the paper
as well, and Felig then recommended against the paper's
publication, the only reviewer to do so, and doing so
without declaring the obvious conflict of interest (i.e.
an identical study being conducted by Soman and Felig).
Shortly after receiving her paper back from The
New England Journal of Medicince,
Dr. Wachslicht-Rodbard set about revising her paper
according to the recommendations of the reviewers who
had advised for publication of her paper. While she
was working on these revisions, her supervisor, Jesse
Roth, asked her to review a paper sent from The
American Journal of Medicine. To her great surprise,
that paper closely resembled her own manuscript both
in language content and in a "formula she had devised
for working out the number of receptor sites per cell."
In a fury,
Dr. Helena Wachslicht-Rodbard accused the Yale researchers
of plagiarism, "a shy, soft-spoken Brazilian, had
been transformed into a feminine version of Dumas's
vengeful Edmond Dantès"(M. Hunt 1981).
Attempts were made to reach a settlement satisfactory
to both Dr. Helena Wachslicht-Rodbard and Yale researchers
Philip Felig and Vijay Soman. As part of the investigation
into the similarity of the two papers, Editor Arnold
Relman of The New England Journal of Medicine
called Felig to find out how and why Felig and Soman
had submitted a paper so close in content to Wachslicht-Rodbard's
manuscript "after Felig had received and
read her paper [emphasis in original]" (M. Hunt
1981). Felig claimed that he and Soman had indeed completed
a similar study, but acknowledged that he should have
declared his conflict of interest. Felig offered to
add a reference to Wachslicht-Rodbard's paper, giving
her the claim to precedence, withholding publication
of their own paper until the questions had been resolved.
Wachslicht-Rodbard would have none of it, refusing to
sign the agreement worked out between her supervisor
and Felig, and even claiming to have been intimidated
and threatened with dismissal by Dr. Jesse Wroth.
Back at the lab, Felig confronted his junior researcher,
and Vijay Soman admitted having lifted various phraseology
and the important formula from a copy he had made of
Wachslicht-Rodbard's manuscript. He claimed to be uncomfortable
"with the English language and felt under pressure
to get his paper published soon" (M. Hunt). But
he still claimed to have conducted the relevant research,
and Felig believed him. Meanwhile, Wachslicht-Rodbard
continued to exert pressure, demanding an independent
audit of Felig and Soman's work, and also threatening
to publicly denounce the duo at an upcoming meeting
of the American Federation of Clinical Research.
That review was finally conducted by Harvard endocrinologist
Dr. Jeffrey Flier, and the results of this review revealed
that Soman could not back up his research findings with
experimental data. The data were missing. The evidence
was lacking for insulin-binding claims made in Soman's
plagiarized paper. In other words, he had "fudged",
"trimmed" or otherwise "cooked"
the data on which his paper was based. As this "fudging"
and falsification came to light, Dr. Flier reported
that "The situation had begun to seem strange and
unreal to me. Vijay grew more and more disordered and
irrational in his thinking and started to say peculiar
things" (M. Hunt 1981).
When further investigations began to investigate 14
other papers which Soman had written, it came out that
Soman had destroyed the records and data books for the
experiments upon which these articles and reports were
based. As J.W. Grove (1996) observes, it was the language
plagiarism which actually resulted in the discovery
of the more serious instances of data falsification
in Soman's research record.
Had not a determined woman kept insisting on an independent
audit, the extent of this incident of fraud at Yale
University's School of Medicine would likely have gone
undiscovered. And what this case seems to indicate is
that minor instances of language plagiarism might be
a strong indicator of further problems with reported
scientific research. In the 1990s, genetics
researchers at Peking University also claimed, like
Soman, to have actually done the research as reported.
And also like Soman, they claimed that it was a difficulty
with the English language which influenced their decision
to appropriate text from another published article.
Whenever language plagiarism is discovered in scientific
discourse reporting the results of research which has
supposedly been conducted, other information becomes
immediately suspect, because as the Vijay Soman case
demonstrates, fudging and falsification of data may
lurk beneath the surface structure of the derivative
language used to report experimental results.
References
End
Profile SCMD-1978-VS
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| A.V.
|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-2003-AV/AV/AV |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
Institute
of Sleep Medicine Researchers
|
| Allegations: |
Textual re-incarnation;
Overt plagiarism of an article by Eve Van Cauter et
al in a JAPI (Journal of the Association of Physicians
of India) article entitled "Sleep in Type
II Diabetes"
|
| Results: |
Investigation
and a published "Notice of Retraction" of
the article in question; Referral of the case to the
Governing Body of Association of Physicians of India
to take "appropriate disciplinary action"
|
| Known
for: |
Research
at the Institute of Sleep Medicine (India)
|
| Overview: |
When
Eve Van Cauter, Professor of Medicine at the University
of Chicago, and the co-authors of an article on "Sleep
in Type II Diabetes: A Survey Study" complained
to the Journal of the Association of Physicians
of India that their article had been plagiarized
by A.V., they must have felt like someone who has had
a prank pulled off on them while their back was turned.
But this wasn't
India's Bollywood version of "The Three Stooges".
A.V., A.V., and A.V. were actually researchers at the
Institute of Sleep Medicine in Hyderabad, India, and
they were guilty of much more than poking people in
the eyes and slapping the tops of their collegues' heads
as Larry, Curly and Mo became famous for in their comedy
routines.
Nyuck, nyuck,
nyuck! If it was a prank at all, the dishonest trick
nearly pulled off by the three V's was a plagiaristic
sort of tomfoolery thwarted by the authors' complaint.
The publication of a lifted medical paper in the Journal
of the Association of Physicians of India was discovered
by the true authors of the article, and after Van Cauter's
complaint was received, JAPI Editor Dr. Shashank R.
Joshi and the editorial board published a "Notice
of Retraction (JAPI, vol. 52, July 2005, P.
530) following "scrutiny of the claim & [obtaining
of a] third party opinion." Part of this retraction
reads as follows:
. . . the
article entitled "Sleep in Type II Diabetes"
by {A.V., A.V., A.V.] of Institute of Sleep Medicine
. . . ammounts to overt plagiarism. The board therefore
has decided to retract the article and follow a course
of action as a deterrent against such misconduct in
research.
Therefore,
the plagiarized article stands retracted. Journal
of the Association of Physicians of India has placed
ban on accepting any communication for Publication
by all the authors of the tainted article till further
notice. The matter is now referred to the Governing
Body of Association of India for appropriate disciplinary
action by the organization.
In the same
journal, just prior
to this retraction notice, a generally insightful editorial
on "Plagiarism" by S.M. Sapatnekar (JAPI,
vol. 52, 527-530) analyzed the state of scientific discourse
in India. In a form of written English which is common
to English texts published in India, replete with localized
expressions and "Hinglish" [Hindi + English
= Hinglish] phraseologies, Sapatnekar correctly
characterized plagiarism as a "dishonest practice
that has become trendy after digital revolution".
He further noted that "To do it [plagiarism] efficiently
qualifies as an expertise; since ultimate success of
a theft essentially lies in the theft passing undetected."
In other
words, the less expert plagiarists are found out for
their plagiaries, while the more skillful ones seem
to be getting away with their thefts. Just how pervasive
these thefts are is anyone's guess--but such forms of
plagiarism seem to be fairly widespread within India's
scientific and medical communities. Sapatnekar's description
of a dissertation ritual indicts both students and
faculty:
In India,
quite often the ritual of dissertation for a Master's
degree in Medicine or Surgery begins with a search
of library archives for copy of a dissertation older
than three years, and ends with a typist to make a
ditto copy. And yes, there are faculty members who
actively encourage such practices. [!!!]
Speaking of
faculty, consider the case of a professor at
Vardhman Open University where eight cases of plagiarism
occurred under the supervision of one professor. Curiously,
eight students under this professor managed to write
exactly the same article under slightly different titles!
("Researchers' Plagiarism", Khaleej Times).
Well before Sapatnekar's 2004 JAPI editorial, a number
of other plagiarism cases had made a few ripples within
India's scientific community as reported in "The
Sucheta Dala Column". In this column, cases
such as the following were listed:
- The plagiarism
of a graduate student's thesis by a professor in the
Cardiology Department of Safdarjung Hospital
- Plagiarism
of a research paper by two professors at Poona University--the
lifted paper featured in the Indian Journal of
Microbiology.
- Further
professorial plagiarism of a chapter from a student
thesis by a "scholar" from the Tata Institute
of Fundamental Research
- Plagiarism
of thesis content by the head of Delhi University's
geology department for an article which was submitted
to the Journal of the Geological Society of India
(the professor was supposed to be evaluating
this student thesis!)
The Hindu
as well, India's national newspaper, lamented the "despondent
picture of our research community" and the danger
of "further chaos in Indian science" in a
2001 article on "Plagiarising Research Data".
But one has to read between the lines to understand
the full implications of this article in The Hindu.
Names of the offending plagiarists and other fabricators
are "withheld to avoid embarrassment". Those
familiar with some of the institutions and basic history
of Indian science might be able to connect the dots,
realizing, for example, that the "fossil fraud
perpetrated by a geologist of Punjab University (Chandigarh)
. . . [which] tarnished the scientific prestige of the
country before the international scientific community",
is a reference to the case of Vishwa Jit Gupta of Panjab
University, whose fossil forgeries and falsifications
spanned nearly an entire career's worth of professional
fakery brought to light in the late 1980s by John Talent
of Macquarie University.
Y.P. Gupta's (probably no relation to V. Gupta) article
in The Hindu, while publicizing the fact that
"in India, such dubious practices [plagiarism/fabrication/falsification]
have mostly gone unchallenged though not unnoticed and
mostly . . . unpunished", falls short of outright
condemning these "dubious practices" by failing
to publicly name plagiarists for what they are for fear
of "embarrassment" [this decision to maintain
plagiarists' anonymity is apparently an editorial decision
by The Hindu and not Y.P. Gupta].
This fear of publicly condemning textual re-incarnation
specialists, except when the threat to international
prestige requires otherwise, serves only to ameliorate
the consequences of plagiarism. Scientists who plagiarize,
fabricate, or falsify the research data as reported
in the ongoing discourse of the scientific community
deserve at the very least a very public, and a very
audible dis-honorable mention . . . and the resultant
embarrassment.
Note:
Profile anonymized upon request of these young
researchers who write:
We would
like to bring to your notice certain facts about this.
We were medical students, volunteering at the Institute
of sleep medicine during summer vacations; and our
only role was to observe at the Institute. We were
young and enthusiastic students and did not even know
the nitty gritties of compiling an article let alone
plagiarizing it. Our names were included in the article
without our permission, by the Institute. We had no
knowledge that the mentioned article was published,
let alone our names included in it. Honestly we "felt
like someone had pulled a prank off, while our backs
were turned"
After finding the article on your website, we took
action against the Institute of sleep medicine. It
took us two years to obtain a verdict. The court declared
in its judgment that the publication of the article
titled "Sleep in Type 2 Diabetes" published
in the JAPI in May 2003 was "illegal, bad, not
binding on our names and that our names are not to
be associated with the institute of sleep medicine
or the article" in September 2007. These proceedings
were also reported to the JAPI.
We are young people, yet to start our careers .We
understand that plagiarism is bad and you are doing
a great job of bringing to light such misdeeds people
commit. We have had major repercussions in our careers
and have undergone a lot of stress, anxiety, mental
and professional instability over the last 5 years.
We are writing to you because we understand that you
are a compassionate, understanding person, and have
helped people in similar plights. This has given us
the courage to write to you. We have learnt a valuable
lesson of ethical and moral conduct and shall never
forget it. As mentioned on your Webpage "If medical
practitioners rely on the information reported in
such a skewed/falsified report, lives might literally
hang in the balance", we understand and value
the meaning this conveys.
We request you to understand our plight and help us
start anew, both emotionally and professionally .
. .
References
End
Profile SCMD-2003-AV/AV/AV
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Reiner
Protsch von Zieten

|
|
| Profile: |
SCMD-2005-RPVZ |
| Name:
|
Reiner
Protsch von Zieten
|
| War
on Plagiarism Threat Level: |
    
Red: Severe Risk
|
| Occupation: |
Professor
of Anthropology
|
| Allegations: |
Plagiarizing
the research of colleagues, falsification of research
data, and various other dishonest/unethical practices
(i.e. trying to sell ape skulls which didn't belong
to him)
|
| Results: |
|
| Known
for: |
Anthropological
research on Neanderthals, excavations in East Africa
|
| Overview: |
Skulduggerer
extraordinaire! Caught in the act of trying to sell
the University of Frankfurt's ape skull collection to
buyers in the US, Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten
has apparently been involved in other underhanded dealings
as well, including plagiarism and data falsification/fabrication.
His name itself--von Zieten being added to
sound more "aristocratic"--would appear to
be a concoction, a bogus component of the identity constructed
by a flamboyant professor with a penchant for Porsches,
Cuban cigars, and association (if only in his students'
minds) with celebrities and aristocracy.
Every twist
that unravels in this case only compounds the confusion.
According to those familiar with the case, von Zieten
didn't even know how to operate his own Carbon-14 dating
machine! So instead of accurately reporting the data,
he made it up as he went along, dates included! Anthropologists
are dismayed by these fabrications--billed as the "German
Piltdown" in some reports. A complete revision
of the history of man will now be required since many
interpretations of this history were based on certain
"sensational finds" of Professor von Zieten.
The bizarre
antics of this dishonest academic seem to have resulted
from base greed, ambition, and a lust for professional
recognition. Missing skulls, mysteriously shredded documents
from Nazi era "scientific" experiments, and
plagiarized texts combine to make this a rather intriguing
case study in the pathological behaviors which frequently
accompany plagiarism.
References
End
Profile SCMD-2005-RPVZ
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| 
Found
something useful at this site? Want to see the
public naming/databasing of plagiarists continue?
Please consider dropping a bit of spare change
in the hat via secure PayPal in support of the
Famous Plagiarists Research Project (web hosting,
database management, ongoing research).
|
back
to top
Disclaimer:
All of the famous plagiarists featured in this webspace remain
“alleged plagiarists”, the documented allegations
having been made by others in the professional literature
and/or the popular media. Further details relating to these
allegations will be forthcoming in the book edition of Famous
Plagiarists. Although Dr. Lesko is a professor at Saginaw Valley State University, the Famous Plagiarists Research Project represents the individual research of John P. Lesko, plagiarologist, and SVSU accepts no responsibility for the content of these pages. Comments or questions should be directed to

|