2007 Plagiarism Ring Affair

Jerry · #1 (**permalink**) 20-November-2007, 10:31 PM

http://www.eurekajournalwatch.org/in...sm_Ring_Affair

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eureka

In August of 2007, the technology-oriented website Ars Technica[1] revealed that the arXiv was withdrawing a set of seventeen physics papers due to plagiarism. These papers had been written by a group of graduate students at the Middle East Technical University (METU) in Ankara, Turkey. After detecting the plagiarism, METU faculty began a process which Ars Technica called "damage control", requesting that the Journal of High Energy Physics withdraw a fraudulent article,[2] and working with arXiv administrators to further the removal process.[3] The total number of withdrawals eventually rose to sixty-five articles by fourteen authors,[4] at four Turkish institutions.[5]

Throughout this article, papers and eprints designated as "plagiarized" have been marked so by arXiv administrators or other sources external to EUREKA.

Sad. This clearly hurts the University, but I bring it up here because of Eureka author's statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eureka

Members of the physics community are still uncertain how severe the damage from this incident will transpire to be. Paul Ginsparg, a physics professor and central figure behind the arXiv, contended that the derivative nature of the plagiarized work minimized the harm it could bring about: "There's little effect on science, since the people who produce high quality work don't need to plagiarize, and the people who do need to plagiarize don't produce high enough quality work to affect anything.

I point this out because there is another, more subtle harm caused by copycat papers, whether they qualify as plagiarism or not.: The more papers that seem to reach the same conclusion, the greater the belief placed in the conclusion of the paper(s) by the community at-large.

I don't think there is a lot of this kind of thing going on, but this is just one more reason to be cautious of the bandwagon effect: As much as possible you should draw your own conclusions about a topic, and not just follow the most generally accepted line bindly and without reason. Obviously we can't all be experts on everything, but we can try to avoid blindly beating the drum when no one is really sure of the correct cadence.

stutefish · #2 (**permalink**) 21-November-2007, 01:27 AM

Unless you're claiming that there's a conspiracy to promote bad astronomy by means of plagiarized papers, shouldn't this be in General Science or OTB or something?

Jerry · #3 (**permalink**) 21-November-2007, 03:15 AM

Since this involved a large number of scientists and/or students and an even larger number of papers, this case of plagiarism clearly involves conspiracy.

To the extent that papers are published that rehash existing data and draw the same conclusions, all of us need to be aware that sticking your hand in someone elses back pocket does not increase the material wealth of the society, or in this case, the body of scientific knowledge. (At least that is my theory

Kesh · #4 (**permalink**) 21-November-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

Since this involved a large number of scientists and/or students and an even larger number of papers, this case of plagiarism clearly involves conspiracy.

That's a novel use of the term "conspiracy." Unless all these scientists and/or students were working together in an attempt to promote some cause by publishing these plagiarized papers, you do not have a conspiracy. Do you plan on examining those papers and proposing a proper conspiracy theory here?

Quote:

To the extent that papers are published that rehash existing data and draw the same conclusions, all of us need to be aware that sticking your hand in someone elses back pocket does not increase the material wealth of the society, or in this case, the body of scientific knowledge. (At least that is my theory

… that's your "theory"? All you've done is say "stealing is bad, mmm'kay?" That's not a theory.

Please either post a coherent conspiracy theory on this subject, or withdraw your claims.

Matherly · #5 (**permalink**) 21-November-2007, 06:52 PM

Forgive me, but could someone please explane why the hostility to Jerry's post. O.K., it might not meet the dictionary definition of conspiracy and may, in fact, belong to a diffrent part of the board. But I hardly think that's cause to ask him to put-up-or-shut-up.

Or is there some history that I'm unaware of that is in play here?

stutefish · #6 (**permalink**) 21-November-2007, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matherly

Forgive me, but could someone please explane why the hostility to Jerry's post. O.K., it might not meet the dictionary definition of conspiracy and may, in fact, belong to a diffrent part of the board. But I hardly think that's cause to ask him to put-up-or-shut-up.

Or is there some history that I'm unaware of that is in play here?

I assure you that I have no intention to express any hostility in my posts.

As far as "put-up-or-shut-up", the rules for this subforum are pretty clear about that: it's explicitly a put-up-or-shut-up subforum.

And where's the "put up", anyway? Jerry, your second post is even more inane than your first. Did you really start up a whole new offtopic thread just to tell us that

Quote:

all of us need to be aware that sticking your hand in someone elses back pocket does not increase the material wealth of the society, or in this case, the body of scientific knowledge

?

captain swoop · #7 (**permalink**) 22-November-2007, 09:21 PM

Is it a hint that the minstream is a conspiracy of Plagiarised work?

Jerry · #8 (**permalink**) 23-November-2007, 01:46 AM

Collaborating to produce a scientific paper that is based upon bogus evidence in order to advance ones career in science is a scientific conspiracy. In this case, it is no longer theoretical, it actually occurred. It happens, but rarely are so many authors from one local all implicated - I would have to say that it is reasonable to theorize that the authors did conspire.

It is a cautious observation that a paper parroting a popular prospective is more likely to find its way into publication than a less mainstream paper that may have taken the author decades to develop.

JayUtah · #9 (**permalink**) 23-November-2007, 05:07 PM

Plagiarism is not something "based on bogus evidence," but rather to copy something that someone else has done and to claim it as one's own. Typically the victim of plagiarism is legitimate research, not bogus research.

Plagiarism is not to "parrot a popular perspective." The more well-known the original work, the less likely you are to successfully plagiarize it. The victims of plagiarism are typically lesser-known or forgotton works, which places them by definition toward the fringe, not in the mainstream.

It sounds to me like you're looking at one well-defined, isolated incident and trying to force-fit it into a broad agenda of criticism against all mainstream science. Am I right?

dockeen · #10 (**permalink**) 23-November-2007, 08:53 PM

I have seen a number of fringe types who try to point to various failings in the peer review process as evidence that it somehow a rigged process that favors the status quo and keeps true creativity (such as theirs) from coming to light.

Wayne

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mars Odyssey images and news (title edited)	ToSeek	Space Exploration	14	14-May-2007 09:41 PM
A New Model for the Evolution of Supernova 1987A	ChrisColes	Against the Mainstream	12	11-April-2007 05:58 AM
The Elemental Energy Wave/Particle; definitely Against the Mainstream	Bogie	Against the Mainstream	358	30-January-2007 01:05 AM
2005-6 "EARTH" quakes +		Against the Mainstream	72	14-January-2006 04:30 PM
Cassini is now in orbit of Saturn	yaohua2000	Space Exploration	259	08-July-2005 11:11 PM