3 ms·

I might be being dense here, but how is this different to plagiarism?

• weberc2 8y ago
  The idea is that plagiarism should be permitted in cases where the plagiarizer believes the plagiarizee is guilty of violating social justice norms. You're not missing anything; it's just a terrible idea.
• sp332 8y ago
  “If you can avoid teaching/discussing [Searle’s work], that may be the best strategy.” “In the case of a sexist jerk, you are often left without recourse: Cite him, or look like you don’t know what you’re talking about to reviewers and readers.” This is about removing the content, not just the credit.
  • modzu 8y ago
    tell me this "usher" person is not an actual academic, please. they sound 12...
    • sp332 8y ago
      Dr. Usher received her Ph.D. and MA from the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication and her AB from Harvard (magna cum laude) https://media.illinois.edu/nikki-usher https://media.illinois.edu/nikki-usher It probably helps to read the paper https://www.chronicle.com/article/Should-We-Still-Cite-the/244450 https://www.chronicle.com/article/Should-We-Still-Cite-the/2... and maybe her response to TFA https://twitter.com/nikkiusher/status/1058032795803639808 https://twitter.com/nikkiusher/status/1058032795803639808
      • modzu 8y ago
        ouch. didn't help (but thank you for the references)
  • dx87 8y ago
    Looks like it's about both. In one portion they say that they want to keep the content, but remove the citations after it's been reviewed. "Do what the editor wanted so that when he sent the revised manuscript back to reviewers, they would see I had followed their instructions and added the requisite citations. Then ... when I got the manuscript back before final publication, surreptitiously remove the citations."