Plagiarism

Hi,

in October I posted here on comp.dsp that I though that
my work had been plagiarised. Thanks to some excellent
advice, especially from Rick Lyons, I was able to expedite
a swift and satisfactory reaction from IEEE. My allegation
was up held and the following notice of violation has been
attached to the digitally archived copy of the paper on
IEEE Xplore. Thanks to all who offered advice and
encouragement.

Donnacha

ps a search for "notice of violation" on IEEE Xplore turns up
11 documents, eight of  which appear to be have been
plagiarised, all since 2002 (maybe different IEEE guidelines
were in effect before then).

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Notice of Violation of IEEE Publication Principles

"Resilient adaptive wavelet packet modulation scheme for use in time
and frequency selective channels using a best tree search algorithm,"
Kaewmannee", P.; Ormondroyd, R.F.; Walters, C.R.;
Proceedings of the IEEE Military Communications Conference 2004 (MILCOM
2004), vol. 3, 31 Oct.-3 Nov. 2004, pp. 1566 - 1571, DOI
10.1109/MILCOM.2004.1495172

After careful and considered review of the content and authorship of
the above paper by a duly constituted expert committee, the principal
author of this paper has been found to be in violation of IEEE=BFs
Publication Principles.

This paper contains significant portions of original text from the
paper cited below. The original text was copied without attribution
(including appropriate references to the original author(s) and/or
paper title) and without permission. Due to the nature of this
violation, reasonable effort should be made to remove all past
references to this paper, and future references should be made to the
following article:

"Optimal wavelet packet modulation under finite complexity constraint,"
Daly, D.; Heneghan, C.; Fagan, A.; Vetterli, M.;
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and
Signal Processing 2002 (ICASSP =BF02), vol. 3, 13-17 May 2002, pp.
:III-2789 - III-2792, DOI 10.1109/ICASSP.2002.1005265

donnacha.daly@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in October I posted here on comp.dsp that I though that
> my work had been plagiarised. Thanks to some excellent
> advice, especially from Rick Lyons, I was able to expedite
> a swift and satisfactory reaction from IEEE. My allegation
> was up held and the following notice of violation has been
> attached to the digitally archived copy of the paper on
> IEEE Xplore. Thanks to all who offered advice and
> encouragement.
>
> Donnacha

They cut and pasted your text into their paper!?!? I look forward to
downloading both papers from IEEExplore and comparing.

Cheers,

Ross-c

in article 1138788716.775151.15140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
donnacha.daly@gmail.com at donnacha.daly@gmail.com wrote on 02/01/2006
05:11:

> in October I posted here on comp.dsp that I though that
> my work had been plagiarised. Thanks to some excellent
> advice, especially from Rick Lyons, I was able to expedite
> a swift and satisfactory reaction from IEEE. My allegation
> was up held and the following notice of violation has been
> attached to the digitally archived copy of the paper on
> IEEE Xplore.

i hope harsher consequences befall the "authors".

-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Ross Clement (Email address invalid - do not use) wrote:
> They cut and pasted your text into their paper!?!? I look forward to
> downloading both papers from IEEExplore and comparing.

Looking back at the past thread I see that I posted in it. That says
something about the quality of my memory :-(

Comparing the texts of the two papers, I'd have to agree that this is a
deliberate, not accidental, snatch. While the meanings of the texts are
the same, the diagrams for much of it are the same, and the pseudocode
the same, they've rearranged the words a bit. When I see similar
behaviour in student work, I usually assume that this is done to avoid
the plagiarism being found through web search, and would assume that
the author of the "other" paper fiddled with the syntax of the
sentences to avoid similar discovery.

In my postings in the original thread I mentioned some books on fraud
in science. In the case studies in those books people complaining about
plagiarism people making justified complaints found the process quite
daunting and found that there was a lack of enthusiasm on the part of,
erm, the academic community to investigate complaints in depth. I am
very encouraged by the rapid and positive outcome in your case. I'd be
very interested if you could give an overview of how things went during
the lifetime of the complaint.

Cheers,

Ross-c

> I am
> very encouraged by the rapid and positive outcome in your case. I'd be
> very interested if you could give an overview of how things went during
> the lifetime of the complaint.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ross-c

Well, since you asked....

after posting on comp.dsp I was given the impression that
this plagiarism was more serious a professional misdemeanour
than I was giving it credit for. In particular Rick Lyons, after
his own plagiarism case was adamant that I take action. I
contacted the president of Signal Processing society as he
suggested, and he referred the case to one of the signal
processing society's publication directors. I was also in touch
with a person of in ComSoc since MILCOM, where the plagiarism
occurred, is a dually sponsored conference. There were also
emails from Florida University where the conference was held,
and Lockheed Martin, where the conference chair worked. I was
talking to some big heads!

I had sent the authors an email and never got a reply, but once
the IEEE got on the case, they were very quick replying!
I had sent a detailed account of my allegation to IEEE and they
took matters from there. After contacting the authors, (who were
from the Royal Military Academy in Wiltshire), they received an
"apology" from one of the authors (not the primary author).

He said that the primary author, his student, was entirely responsible
for any issues with the paper. But then he said he had known about
problems with their paper for over a year, but had been unable to
contact the primary author, because he had left the academy and
was not answering emails or calls. However, he said that he did
not think the first author intended plagiarism, and even if he did it
had nothing to do with the other two authors. The third author by
the way was only added because they needed someone to present
the paper, because the first author had already scarpered by
the time of the conference ;-). The Professor (author 2) said he is
a respected academic with over 130 publications, and he would
never engage in plagiarism.

Well, having a student pull the wool over your eyes is one thing.
But the fact that he knew about the possibility of plagiarism
for over a year, and did not contact me or the IEEE really
pissed me off. I really would have accepted the apology
otherwise, but this didnt pass for an apology, and I told the
IEEE so.

The IEEE committee decided that plagiarism had occurred, and
informed everyone involved that the digital archive would be
changed to show such. However, the secondary authors insisted
that the record show that only the first author was guilty, which
you can see if you read the paper.

Well, it was very satisfactory, and I have a nice sense of closure
on the issue. 

And thats the story!

donnacha.daly@gmail.com wrote:
> > I am
> > very encouraged by the rapid and positive outcome in your case. I'd be
> > very interested if you could give an overview of how things went during
> > the lifetime of the complaint.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Ross-c
>
> Well, since you asked....

...

> He said that the primary author, his student, was entirely responsible
> for any issues with the paper. But then he said he had known about
> problems with their paper for over a year, but had been unable to
> contact the primary author, because he had left the academy and
> was not answering emails or calls. However, he said that he did
> not think the first author intended plagiarism, and even if he did it
> had nothing to do with the other two authors. The third author by
> the way was only added because they needed someone to present
> the paper, because the first author had already scarpered by
> the time of the conference ;-). The Professor (author 2) said he is
> a respected academic with over 130 publications, and he would
> never engage in plagiarism.

...

> And thats the story!

And a sad story it is. I can't help being puzzled by the consistent
pattern that professors are never to blame when stuff goes wrong;
it's always the students.

Good to see that everything worked out in the end, though.

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:
> donnacha.daly@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I am
> > > very encouraged by the rapid and positive outcome in your case. I'd be
> > > very interested if you could give an overview of how things went during
> > > the lifetime of the complaint.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Ross-c
> >
> > Well, since you asked....
>
> ...
>
> > He said that the primary author, his student, was entirely responsible
> > for any issues with the paper. But then he said he had known about
> > problems with their paper for over a year, but had been unable to
> > contact the primary author, because he had left the academy and
> > was not answering emails or calls. However, he said that he did
> > not think the first author intended plagiarism, and even if he did it
> > had nothing to do with the other two authors. The third author by
> > the way was only added because they needed someone to present
> > the paper, because the first author had already scarpered by
> > the time of the conference ;-). The Professor (author 2) said he is
> > a respected academic with over 130 publications, and he would
> > never engage in plagiarism.
>
> ...
>
> > And thats the story!
>
> And a sad story it is. I can't help being puzzled by the consistent
> pattern that professors are never to blame when stuff goes wrong;
> it's always the students.

The pattern still puzzles me, but it may be to stretch it too long to
require
the professors to keep track of everything all their students write;
some
level of confidence must be present to get anything done.

Maybe the 2nd and 3rd authors should have acted on the plagiarism
issue themselves, once they became aware that there might be
a problem. In that case they may have had somewhat more credibility
when they blamed it on the student.

> Good to see that everything worked out in the end, though.
> 
> Rune

Rune

in article 1139016830.102617.248560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, Rune
Allnor at allnor@tele.ntnu.no wrote on 02/03/2006 20:33:

> 
> Rune Allnor wrote:
>> donnacha.daly@gmail.com wrote:
...
>>> The Professor (author 2) said he is a respected academic with over
>>> 130 publications, and he would never engage in plagiarism.
...
>> I can't help being puzzled by the consistent pattern that professors
>> are never to blame when stuff goes wrong; it's always the students.
> 
> The pattern still puzzles me, but it may be to stretch it too long to
> require the professors to keep track of everything all their students
> write; some level of confidence must be present to get anything done.
> 
> Maybe the 2nd and 3rd authors should have acted on the plagiarism
> issue themselves, once they became aware that there might be
> a problem. In that case they may have had somewhat more credibility
> when they blamed it on the student.

it depends on the division of labor (i.e. how much of the actual original
research and writing of the paper was done by the secondary authors,
sometimes, other than honorary mention for being the prof and perhaps for
"directing" the research, i dunno why some secondary authors are listed at
all) i suppose they may legitimately evade some responsibility for the
plagiarized work (from "ignorance", but then that begs the question of why
they are listed as authors).  of course, in any case, the primary authors
must be held responsible for every sentence in the paper, even those written
by the secondary authors.  the primary needs to be astute and familiar
enough to know the material contributed from the secondary and what is also
the other published research in the field so if a secondary slips in some
unattributed "quote", the primary should be able to catch it.  but then, i
would hope that a secondary, who happens to be more experienced and
established in the field would do the same regarding the paper totally
written by the primary.

i've co-authored two papers (and solely authored maybe about 4 others, i'm
not prolific), one as the secondary (with Duane Wise) where the primary
wrote the whole paper but i contributed some ideas that made it more
complete, and another as the primary where the secondary author was included
as a professional courtesy (i don't particularly regret it, but it was
basically my paper).  in both cases i felt utterly responsible for the
factuality and veracity of the whole paper.  i sure as hell didn't want
anyone accusing anything with my name on it as being either garbage or
stolen.

i think the professor should have taken more responsibility or more should
have been heaped upon him involuntarily if he didn't.  if he suspected
plagiarism, he should have checked it out (and if he couldn't find anything,
he can take responsibility for ignorance of the subject he claims some
credit for being an expert in by signing his name to the paper).  if he knew
of any particular plagiarized words/sentences, he had no excuse in putting
his name on the paper (and adding it to his 130 count beadgame) and not
saying anything until being found out (and then claiming he had suspicions
only to deflect blame to someone else).  he just cannot have it both ways.

there really are way too many papers published, way too many PhDs. awarded,
way too many people trying to take credit for and get into the club of the
very few bona fide scholars who really do discover new knowledge.  used to
be (say 50+ years ago) that the Ph.D. was a degree rarely awarded and nearly
every one was for truly significant (if esoteric) and original discovery of
knowledge.  now it seems that everybody and their dog is getting it and the
market is glutted.  plagiarism, self-plagiarism (repeated recycling of
something one has done to get the most mileage out of it), mathematically
hyping up a "lessor" concept into a "more sophisticated" one, and
irrelevancy are so much the norm in scholarship today that it's hard to tell
when a really good paper comes out (without really reading it).

grumble, grumble, lament, lament...

-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

robert bristow-johnson wrote:

   ...

> there really are way too many papers published, way too many PhDs. awarded,
> way too many people trying to take credit for and get into the club of the
> very few bona fide scholars who really do discover new knowledge.  used to
> be (say 50+ years ago) that the Ph.D. was a degree rarely awarded and nearly
> every one was for truly significant (if esoteric) and original discovery of
> knowledge.  now it seems that everybody and their dog is getting it and the
> market is glutted.  plagiarism, self-plagiarism (repeated recycling of
> something one has done to get the most mileage out of it), mathematically
> hyping up a "lessor" concept into a "more sophisticated" one, and
> irrelevancy are so much the norm in scholarship today that it's hard to tell
> when a really good paper comes out (without really reading it).

People were saying that 50 years ago too. In a sense the plaint is like 
fusion reactors in reverse. I've been hearing since the late 50s that 
fusion is 20 years away.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> in article 1139016830.102617.248560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, Rune
> Allnor at allnor@tele.ntnu.no wrote on 02/03/2006 20:33:
>
> >
> > Rune Allnor wrote:
> >> donnacha.daly@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> >>> The Professor (author 2) said he is a respected academic with over
> >>> 130 publications, and he would never engage in plagiarism.
> ...
> >> I can't help being puzzled by the consistent pattern that professors
> >> are never to blame when stuff goes wrong; it's always the students.
> >
> > The pattern still puzzles me, but it may be to stretch it too long to
> > require the professors to keep track of everything all their students
> > write; some level of confidence must be present to get anything done.
> >
> > Maybe the 2nd and 3rd authors should have acted on the plagiarism
> > issue themselves, once they became aware that there might be
> > a problem. In that case they may have had somewhat more credibility
> > when they blamed it on the student.
>
> it depends on the division of labor (i.e. how much of the actual original
> research and writing of the paper was done by the secondary authors,
> sometimes, other than honorary mention for being the prof and perhaps for
> "directing" the research, i dunno why some secondary authors are listed at
> all) i suppose they may legitimately evade some responsibility for the
> plagiarized work (from "ignorance", but then that begs the question of why
> they are listed as authors).

That's a very interesting question. To the extent I have co-authored
anything (some 10 conference articles), there is a student who did the
"dirty" work, the TA or superviser who did the day-to-day following
up of the student, and the prof who was responsible for bringing in
the project from external sources. Every now and then an engineer
who might have helped us with data is included as well.

> of course, in any case, the primary authors
> must be held responsible for every sentence in the paper, even those writ=
ten
> by the secondary authors.

In the reports, papers and theses I have been involvd in, I have always

structured the writing process as an excercise in academic writing.
I require students to send me drafts, that I correct or comment on,
and they have to re-write. It's a tedious process, but I start it early
on in the thesis period (around week 4 in a 12-week thesis project).
By that time, the students have a vague idea about what the project
is all about, and I want them to start writing notes.

Maybe the end text is heavily influenced by a few papers, but the
any claim of plaigiarism will be very hard to defend.

> the primary needs to be astute and familiar
> enough to know the material contributed from the secondary and what is al=
so
> the other published research in the field so if a secondary slips in some
> unattributed "quote", the primary should be able to catch it.  but then, i
> would hope that a secondary, who happens to be more experienced and
> established in the field would do the same regarding the paper totally
> written by the primary.

At least when students are involved, I think the text ought to be
screened by TA and/or prof. I am not sure that I will go so far as to
claim these will have to have read everything the student might have
read, in order  to catch plagiarism, but if these guys are worth
their money, they will have a screening/reviewing process that
avoids the problem.

> i've co-authored two papers (and solely authored maybe about 4 others, i'm
> not prolific), one as the secondary (with Duane Wise) where the primary
> wrote the whole paper but i contributed some ideas that made it more
> complete, and another as the primary where the secondary author was inclu=
ded
> as a professional courtesy (i don't particularly regret it, but it was
> basically my paper).  in both cases i felt utterly responsible for the
> factuality and veracity of the whole paper.  i sure as hell didn't want
> anyone accusing anything with my name on it as being either garbage or
> stolen.

That's the attitude that makes the system work. Or ought to make it
work.

> i think the professor should have taken more responsibility or more should
> have been heaped upon him involuntarily if he didn't.  if he suspected
> plagiarism, he should have checked it out (and if he couldn't find anythi=
ng,
> he can take responsibility for ignorance of the subject he claims some
> credit for being an expert in by signing his name to the paper).  if he k=
new
> of any particular plagiarized words/sentences, he had no excuse in putting
> his name on the paper (and adding it to his 130 count beadgame) and not
> saying anything until being found out (and then claiming he had suspicions
> only to deflect blame to someone else).  he just cannot have it both ways.

Blame it on the system. On the local level, the money follow the
students. On the grander scale, funding is awarded based on the
number of entries in the publication list. Anything that increases
the count of both, means income. No one in their right mind will
flunk a grad student that is worth a $2000 expendables margin in
next year's budget.

> there really are way too many papers published, way too many PhDs. awarde=
d,
> way too many people trying to take credit for and get into the club of the
> very few bona fide scholars who really do discover new knowledge.  used to
> be (say 50+ years ago) that the Ph.D. was a degree rarely awarded and nea=
rly
> every one was for truly significant (if esoteric) and original discovery =
of
> knowledge.  now it seems that everybody and their dog is getting it and t=
he
> market is glutted.  plagiarism, self-plagiarism (repeated recycling of
> something one has done to get the most mileage out of it), mathematically
> hyping up a "lessor" concept into a "more sophisticated" one, and
> irrelevancy are so much the norm in scholarship today that it's hard to t=
ell
> when a really good paper comes out (without really reading it).
>
> grumble, grumble, lament, lament...

I don't know how much of this seeped across the pond, but a few weeks
ago
a Norwegian researcher was caught fabricating results that he got
published
in Lancet and a couple of other high profile medical journals.

An English summary article is here,

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1204063.ece

The guy was caught on a ridiculous technicality, as the medical data
register he cited as source for his data, was not in operation at the
time
he claimed he had recieved the data he "analyzed". He basically
made up every piece of data himself.

The scandal went on to claim this guy had got lots of money. The first
reports said $10 millions from some US research institution. Later this

was modified to say that the $10 mill was granted a large project in
which the researcher got some $300000 for his own work.

The really interesting comment about that, is given here (sorry for the

Norwegian language, couldn't find an English transcript):

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1202947.ece

The ingress, which is a quote by head of Oslo Police Department,
Gjengedal, goes as "Dersom en forsker s=F8ker om penger til et
prosjekt og vet at han vil jukse, kan det rammes av straffelovens
bedrageribestemmelser."

In my very crude translation, this becomes "a researcher who
applies for funding while being aware he will fabricate results,
may be liable to criminal prosecution under the charge of fraud."

Apparently, the Police Department awaits other investigations
in the months to come, before they decide whether to press
charges against the researcher.

Rune