Hello DSP'ers, I have reason to believe that a paper I gave at an ICASSP conference was later plagiarised by other authors. Do you have any advice about what I should do? Whole sections of my original text, including diagrams, equations, and (biggest giveaway) mistakes are lifted verbatim to this new paper which has made no reference to the original text. My paper was published at ICASSP 2002, and the "new work" was published at MILCOM 2004. These are both IEEE conferences so I should probably go through there. The authors of the second paper seem to be from a reputable university. It was very bizarre reading this paper over coffee this morning and seeing my own words staring me in the face! I'm not sure what kind of redress I'd like out of any action I might take. I'm not particularly vindictive, even if they had put in a reference to my work, I wouldn't have minded the wholesale copying so much. What usually happens in the case that plagiarism is acknowledged? Donnacha
Plagiarism
Started by ●October 25, 2005
Reply by ●October 25, 20052005-10-25
donnacha.daly@gmail.com wrote:> Hello DSP'ers, > > I have reason to believe that a paper I gave at an ICASSP conference > was later plagiarised by other authors. Do you have any advice about > what I should do? Whole sections of my original text, including > diagrams, equations, and (biggest giveaway) mistakes are lifted > verbatim to this new paper which has made no reference to the original > text. My paper was published at ICASSP 2002, and the "new work" was > published at MILCOM 2004. These are both IEEE conferences so I should > probably go through there. The authors of the second paper seem to be > from a reputable university. It was very bizarre reading this paper > over coffee this morning and seeing my own words staring me in the > face! I'm not sure what kind of redress I'd like out of any action I > might take. I'm not particularly vindictive, even if they had put in a > reference to my work, I wouldn't have minded the wholesale copying so > much. What usually happens in the case that plagiarism is acknowledged? > > > Donnacha >In theory the IEEE would be on this like flies on -- well, you know. IIRC the IEEE spells out a code of ethics and what they'll do in various cases. I'd search around on their website to see what you can find, there should be someone who handles this kind of stuff. If nothing else the organizers of MILCOM should be deeply interested. Given the amount of congruence sending copies of both papers should be all the proof you need. Perhaps before you do that (or at least simultaneously) you should send a copy of your paper along with a copy of their paper to the MILCOM authors and ask them what's up. Honest (but still embarrassing) reasons could range from not knowing that what they did constituted plagiarism (particularly if they're not from the States) to lazy profs and dishonest grad students. Ultimately there are only a few dishonest reasons, but if you get an explanation it'll be one that could be interpreted as honest, no doubt. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●October 25, 20052005-10-25
donnacha.daly@gmail.com wrote:> Hello DSP'ers, > > I have reason to believe that a paper I gave at an ICASSP conference > was later plagiarised by other authors. Do you have any advice about > what I should do? Whole sections of my original text, including > diagrams, equations, and (biggest giveaway) mistakes are lifted > verbatim to this new paper which has made no reference to the original > text. My paper was published at ICASSP 2002, and the "new work" was > published at MILCOM 2004. These are both IEEE conferences so I should > probably go through there. The authors of the second paper seem to be > from a reputable university. It was very bizarre reading this paper > over coffee this morning and seeing my own words staring me in the > face! I'm not sure what kind of redress I'd like out of any action I > might take. I'm not particularly vindictive, even if they had put in a > reference to my work, I wouldn't have minded the wholesale copying so > much. What usually happens in the case that plagiarism is acknowledged? > > > Donnacha >I would persue it. It's not being vindictive. These people who plagarised your work are in competition with other honest students. Chances are that this is not the first time they were dishonest.
Reply by ●October 25, 20052005-10-25
donnacha.daly@gmail.com wrote:> Hello DSP'ers, > > I have reason to believe that a paper I gave at an ICASSP conference > was later plagiarised by other authors. Do you have any advice about > what I should do? Whole sections of my original text, including > diagrams, equations, and (biggest giveaway) mistakes are lifted > verbatim to this new paper which has made no reference to the original > text. My paper was published at ICASSP 2002, and the "new work" was > published at MILCOM 2004. These are both IEEE conferences so I should > probably go through there. The authors of the second paper seem to be > from a reputable university. It was very bizarre reading this paper > over coffee this morning and seeing my own words staring me in the > face! I'm not sure what kind of redress I'd like out of any action I > might take. I'm not particularly vindictive, even if they had put in a > reference to my work, I wouldn't have minded the wholesale copying so > much. What usually happens in the case that plagiarism is acknowledged?Seems like a reasonable course of action is to contact IEEE first (their legal department should be the ones to handle communication with you), and perhaps also contact a lawyer -- I assume you work as a researcher at some university or research institution? They should have a legal department that you should be able to contact for advice; even if your original publication was done as a student, the university where you obtained your degree should offer legal advice on this. HTH, Carlos --
Reply by ●October 25, 20052005-10-25
Hi Tim, I did send them a mail. There are three authors on the paper. I looked up their webpages. Two of the authors are Dr./Prof, and seem to hold positions of some responsibility. The first author doesn't have a webpage. I have a feeling he may be the dishonest grad student who, has since scarpered with degree in hand. I read the IEEE guidelines on plagiarism, and they have a sliding scale of plagiarism, 1-5. Top of the scale is more than 50% paper copied verbatim and uncredited. I come in about scale 2 which is still pretty significant (<50% but large parts). Offending parties are barred from IEEE for five years, and the fraudulent PDF is digitally watermarked on IEEEXPlore. They dont actually delete the document so that the digital record matches the print record. Donnacha
Reply by ●October 25, 20052005-10-25
donnacha.daly@gmail.com wrote:> I did send them a mail. There are three authors on the paper. I looked > up their webpages. Two of the authors are Dr./Prof, and seem to hold > positions of some responsibility. The first author doesn't have a > webpage. I have a feeling he may be the dishonest grad student who, has > since scarpered with degree in hand. > > I read the IEEE guidelines on plagiarism, and they have a sliding scale > of plagiarism, 1-5. Top of the scale is more than 50% paper copied > verbatim and uncredited. I come in about scale 2 which is still pretty > significant (<50% but large parts). Offending parties are barred from > IEEE for five years, and the fraudulent PDF is digitally watermarked on > IEEEXPlore. They dont actually delete the document so that the digital > record matches the print record.The guy's degree is as phony as one from a diploma mill. My first inclination is to make an example of him, but there's probably a better way. Maybe Rick Lyons will chime in on this. IIRC, he had a similar experience. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●October 25, 20052005-10-25
in article TNidnZf8LNd738PeRVn-oQ@web-ster.com, Tim Wescott at tim@seemywebsite.com wrote on 10/25/2005 10:37:> Honest (but still embarrassing) reasons > could range from not knowing that what they did constituted plagiarism > (particularly if they're not from the States) to lazy profs and > dishonest grad students. Ultimately there are only a few dishonest > reasons, but if you get an explanation it'll be one that could be > interpreted as honest, no doubt.i cannot possibly imagine an "honest" reason for including a large segment of text, verbatim,, with diagrams, equations, and mistakes, without explicitly citing the source. of course due process should be followed, but i just can't imagine any excuse other than some monkey was at the computer and cut and pasted some text (but don't they read the manuscript they submit?). the secondary authors might be innocent (but lazy and clueless, they should be reasonably familiar with the topic and prior publication) if the primary included the material without telling them. it's dishonest (and embarrassing, but only if one gets caught). long ago, i was review a paper for JAES that purported to be about wavelets and audio and had some photos/diagrams that were identical to another paper that i happened to see and no credit given. i made a note of that in the review and the paper was never published (i can't say for certain that was the reason the editor made). also, in 1995, i published a paper in JAES where i used a drawing of a vocal tract from a paper of Perry Cook's (why draw my own?) and put in the caption that it was "stolen" from whatever particular paper with a reference cite at the end. the editors replaced "stolen from..." with "taken from...". i guess i can understand why. -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by ●October 25, 20052005-10-25
Jerry Avins wrote:> > donnacha.daly@gmail.com wrote: > > > I did send them a mail. There are three authors on the paper. I looked > > up their webpages. Two of the authors are Dr./Prof, and seem to hold > > positions of some responsibility. The first author doesn't have a > > webpage. I have a feeling he may be the dishonest grad student who, has > > since scarpered with degree in hand. > > > > I read the IEEE guidelines on plagiarism, and they have a sliding scale > > of plagiarism, 1-5. Top of the scale is more than 50% paper copied > > verbatim and uncredited. I come in about scale 2 which is still pretty > > significant (<50% but large parts). Offending parties are barred from > > IEEE for five years, and the fraudulent PDF is digitally watermarked on > > IEEEXPlore. They dont actually delete the document so that the digital > > record matches the print record. > > The guy's degree is as phony as one from a diploma mill. My first > inclination is to make an example of him, but there's probably a better > way. Maybe Rick Lyons will chime in on this. IIRC, he had a similar > experience. > > Jerry > -- > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. > �����������������������������������������������������������������������Sad. Apparently the guy thought he could get away with it because Donnacha's group is across the Atlantic. Reminds me of Joe Biden plagiarizing an Irish politician.
Reply by ●October 25, 20052005-10-25
Well, the accused are from Britain! Not that they dont have a history of plundering from the Irish :-) I also wrote to the chair of MILCOM 2004, so hopefully the ball will start rolling. Donnacha
Reply by ●October 25, 20052005-10-25
robert bristow-johnson wrote:> in article TNidnZf8LNd738PeRVn-oQ@web-ster.com, Tim Wescott at > tim@seemywebsite.com wrote on 10/25/2005 10:37: > > >>Honest (but still embarrassing) reasons >>could range from not knowing that what they did constituted plagiarism >>(particularly if they're not from the States) to lazy profs and >>dishonest grad students. Ultimately there are only a few dishonest >>reasons, but if you get an explanation it'll be one that could be >>interpreted as honest, no doubt. > > > i cannot possibly imagine an "honest" reason for including a large segment > of text, verbatim,, with diagrams, equations, and mistakes, without > explicitly citing the source. of course due process should be followed, but > i just can't imagine any excuse other than some monkey was at the computer > and cut and pasted some text (but don't they read the manuscript they > submit?). >The very concept of plagiarism, much less the idea that it's bad, is a recent development in Western culture and is not even pervasive here. In fact the whole notion that ideas can constitute "property" is peculiar to modern Western culture. If the researchers in question were from China or other far-eastern country and had not been briefed then I could understand. Given (from another sub-thread) that they were Brits they have no excuse.> the secondary authors might be innocent (but lazy and clueless, they should > be reasonably familiar with the topic and prior publication) if the primary > included the material without telling them.For the sake of definition I was considering negligence to be an honest (although not excusable) mistake. Many would consider not actively seeking the true facts to be dishonest, and we could have a stimulating philosophical discussion about this -- but I doubt that I'd disagree with any suggested penalties, regardless of how the infraction is labeled. I could see a conversation going "Did you do that literature search?" "Yessir" (crossing his fingers) "I did, and I didn't find _anything_". -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
