October 24, 2012
Write My Essay, Please! - The Atlantic
Study Shows Studies Show Nothing - Money Morning
"Let ρ = A. Is it possible to extend isomorphisms? We show that D’ is stochastically orthogonal and trivially affine. In [10], the main result was the construction of p-Cardano, compactly Erdös, Weyl functions. This could shed important light on a conjecture of Conway-d’Alembert."
"For the abstract, I consider that the author can’t introduce the main idea and work of this topic specifically."
Editor Money Morning
October 17, 2012
How to find Plagiarism in Dissertations - Copy, Shake, and Paste
And I have laryngitis and can't talk. I have journalists pleading with me to explain how the "magic" VroniPlag Wiki software works. The problem is, there is no magic software. The method used to find plagiarism in dissertations (or any other written work) is called "research". Just normal research.
But since so many people need to know how this is done, here's a crib sheet with 10 easy steps:
- Obtain the thesis. If you are just trying to find the dissertation of a particular person who did their doctoral work in Germany, give the German National Library a try. Type in the name and see what it comes up with. Then use the catalog of your local library (often called an OPAC, online public access catalog) or a union catalog to try and locate a copy. Most German states have a union catalog, in Berlin it is the KOBV. If there is none in your locality, you can obtain a library card and then have the thesis sent to you using inter-library loan.
- Read the thesis. There is no royal road. The so-called plagiarism detection software can turn up the odd reference, but only if the sources are online. The best bet is to start reading it, and look for shifts in writing style, or places where the writing turns Spiegel-esque, or for sudden useless details, or misspellings, or just wrong content.
- Google. I've given up on other search machines. Just belly up to the search bar and type in three to five words from a sentence or paragraph and see what turns up. If you get a lead through Google Books, use step 1 to obtain a copy of the book. If you get lucky and the first paragraph is taken from the FAZ or the NZZ -- paydirt! Don't just try one paragraph, take a few from different parts of the book.
- Follow the footnotes. University teachers do this when teaching their students how to footnote, and it scares the daylights out of students when they see that the professor found out that they were just making up the footnotes. Does the reference exist? Is the thing being said found on that page? Is the whole paragraph taken from the reference with the quotation marks "forgotten"? Does the chapter in the dissertation continue on after the footnote without a further reference? Is this paragraph perhaps just a translation of the reference?
- Browse the bibliography. What is the most recent source used? Is it five years older than the dissertation? In some fields, this would sound an alarm. Is there some strange or obscure literature listed? Obtain it! Do you need journal articles? Germany had a wonderful listing of the holdings of all libraries nationwide, the Zeitschriftendatenbank. It will tell you where they can be found, and many can even be delivered to your email account as a pdf for a few Euros. Many libraries also subscribe to digital libraries that can be used when sitting at the library. A walk would do you good, anyway, so get over there and have a look.
- Digitize. If you have already found a source plagiarized in a dissertation, the chance is that there is more. Have a good look at each, and now digitize the relevant portions. Use a book scanner in the library to get a high-quality scan of the pages as a PDF. You lay the book flat under the camera, press a button, turn the page, press a button, until you are done. Experienced scanners can do over 100 pages per hour. Now use an optical character recognition (OCR) software on the PDF. There are free ones like Google's Tesseract or professional versions such as the one built into Adobe's Acrobat or OmniPage or Abbyy Fine Reader.
- Compare. This is one if the few software systems the VroniPlag Wiki people use. It is a text comparison tool that is based on the free algorithm of Dick Grune. The tool marks identical passages in two documents that it is comparing. Put the dissertation in one side, the source in the other, and press "Texte vergleichen!". Don't forget to make a screen shot if the results turn out colorful.
- Document. If you find anything, document it exactly. Page and line numbers from the dissertation, URL or page and line numbers from the source, and a copy of each. A two-column side-by-side has proved easy to understand when showing the results to others.
- Need help? If you have already found some nasty text parallels, drop in at the VroniPlag Wiki chat or use the drop if you want to be discreet. You might be able to interest someone in working on the case. But remember, they are all volunteers. Or you can continue on yourself, and then inform the ombud for good scientific practice at the university in question.
- Publish. If you feel that it is necessary to publish your results, you can either choose a wiki, such as the GuttenPlag Wiki or the VroniPlag Wiki, which makes it easier for others to help you with the documentation, or you can publish on a blog, like the SchavanPlag blog, which gives you complete control of what is published. Or you can print up a book, like Marion Soreth did in 1990 when she documented the dissertation of her colleague Elisabeth Ströker.
October 12, 2012
Scientific fraud: a sign of the times? - The Guardian
An investigation of retractions from the biomedical scientific literature database PubMed published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA (PNAS) found that a whopping 63.2% of health- and life-science related retractions were due to fraud, suspected fraud or plagiarism, with good old honest error retractions in the sound minority. This sounds scary – especially the 'suspected fraud'. Is this just the tip of the scientific deceit iceberg? Just how many lies are lurking in the scientific literature?
Then there are the stories. Professor Marc Hauser (formerly) of Harvard was accused by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services's Office of Research Integrity of inventing results to support his idea of a biological foundation for cognition in monkeys – specifically if they could recognize changes in sound patterns like human babies can. Hauser was a popular scientist too; he even has a best-selling book: Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong where he somewhat ironically argued that "policy wonks and politicians should listen more closely to our intuitions and write policy that effectively takes into account the moral voice of our species." Which worked out in his case; he was busted for scientific misconduct. His book also tells us that "our ability to detect cheaters who violate social norms is one of nature's gifts". Nature's gifts or not, his students and research assistants blew the whistle.
And this isn't just in life science, it's everywhere. Physics has its high profile cheaters too! There is Jan Hendrik Schön, the physicist who made up his data – 26 of his papers have been retracted and he has been stripped of his doctoral degree. And then there is the cold fusion boys who, to be fair, are probably more victims of faulty equipment and sticking to your beloved theory despite the facts, than perpetrators of actual fraud. Psychology is not immune either; Dirk Smeester, whose results seemed too good to be true, has also been caught just making stuff up.
Is no scientific discipline safe? Are scientists just incapable of keeping their modern houses clean? It has been argued that because of recent pressure for scientists to publish groundbreaking results that change the world, the temptation to commit fraud is perhaps bound to increase, implying that there was a simpler, more honest time for science. Dewy-eyed, there is a temptation to believe that scientists back in the day were only of high moral character and were purely duty-bound to pursue the truth. But this isn't really true. Fraud in science isn't new, just like fraud in anything isn't new.>>>
October 2, 2012
Misconduct, Not Error, Found Behind Most Journal Retractions - THE CHRONICLE
Research misconduct, rather than error, is the leading cause of retractions in scientific journals, with the problem especially pronounced in more prestigious publications, a comprehensive analysis has concluded.
The PNAS finding came from a comprehensive review of more than 2,000 published retractions, including detailed investigations into the public explanations given by the retracting authors and their journals.>>>
Random Posts
What are the consequences of scientific misconduct?
Yun Xie What happens after a scientist has been found guilty of misconduct such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or fabrication of results? Does a guilty verdict mean permanent exile from the scientific community, or is there room for forgiveness? >>> READ MORE>>
Editorial Announcement: Withdrawal of Chin. Phys. Lett. 24 (2007) 355
CHIN.PHYS.LETT.Vol. 25, No. 8 (2008) 3094This paper was submitted on 13 October 2006 and appeared in the February issue of 2007 in Chinese Physics Letters. Later it appeared also as arXiv: grqc/0704.0525 in April 2007.As noted recently by the arXiv administrator, this paper plagiarized an earlier ar... READ MORE>>
Editorial Announcement: Withdrawal of Chin. Phys. Lett. 24 (2007) 1821
CHIN.PHYS.LETT.Vol. 25, No. 8 (2008) 3094This paper was submitted on 1 February 2007 and appeared in the July issue of 2007 in Chinese Physics Letters. Later it appeared also as arXiv:grqc/ 0707.1776 in July 2007.As noted recently by the arXiv administrator, this paper plagiarized an earlier arXiv p... READ MORE>>
Detecting Scientific Fraud : The Chronicle Review
Dan Greenberg Fraud, fakery, or larceny is what ordinary people would call it. But in the sciences’ refined venues the proper term is “misconduct,” and there’s a lot more of it than official figures show, according to a report in Nature (19 June), “Repairing research integrity." >>> READ MORE>>
Allow me to rephrase, and boost my tally of articles: THE
Rebecca AttwoodScholars are passing off old work as new to drive up publications counts. Pressure to publish is pushing many academics to plagiarise large volumes of their own work by "dressing up" their old research to appear as if it were new, a study has found.Researchers using text-matching s... READ MORE>>
Publish or perish, but at what cost?
J Clin Invest. 2008 July 1; 118(7): 2368. doi: 10.1172/JCI36371. Ushma S. Neill, Executive EditorThe academic scientific enterprise rewards those with the longest CVs and the most publications. Under pressure to generate voluminous output, scientists often fall prey to double publishing, self plagi... READ MORE>>
Repairing research integrity : COMMENTARY: NATURE
A survey suggests that many research misconduct incidents in the United States go unreported to the Office of Research Integrity. Sandra L. Titus, James A. Wells and Lawrence J. Rhoades say it’s time to change that.>>> READ MORE>>
Popular Posts
-
This guest post is from Kayhan Kantarlı, a retired professor of physics from the University of Ege in Turkey. He published a first versio...
-
Jeffrey Beall This is a list of questionable, scholarly open-access publishers. I recommend that scholars not do any business with these pu...
-
The Yomiuri Shimbun Turkish national Serkan Anilir, recently stripped of the doctorate he obtained from the University of Tokyo over plagiar...
-
Richard Knox Many online journals are ready to publish bad research in exchange for a credit card number. That's the conclusion o...
-
When Robert Barbato of the E. Philip Saunders College of Business at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) heard he was being accused of p...