3 ms·
This article actually frustrates me. I rarely comment but for some reason this stirred me to comment. The fact is: the research is important not the wording.
by rosspackard 12y ago
This article actually frustrates me. I rarely comment but for some reason this stirred me to comment. The fact is: the research is important not the wording. Many academics 'plagiarize' wording but change it to fit the experiments that they actually ran. Especially foreign ESL researchers who want to convey similar information. Ex/ Performing the exact same experiments just with different chemicals. The papers could be almost exactly the same wording but the data and graphs would be different. This doesn't make the research or experiments fake or any less meaningful. I do understand that this could be used as an indication that the research is not novel but by no means is it definitive proof.
- thesumofall 12y agoI do agree. They do bring up additional evidence, though (late changes of authorship for example).
- biot 12y agoIf you're looking for proof, we can always run the research through a Begger's funnel plot and graph the results; the outliers should then be revealed as plain as day!
- notahacker 12y agoThe linked original research into textual similarity[1] offers more compelling examples than those in the Scientific American article (which could plausibly be the innocent consequence of researchers diligently following a Chinese language "how to structure a publishable meta analysis study" guide and incorporating a few turns of phrase from the example papers) Especially, the use of a definition copied verbatim from Wikipedia... [1]http://blog.thegrandlocus.com/2014/10/a-flurry-of-copycats-on-pubmed http://blog.thegrandlocus.com/2014/10/a-flurry-of-copycats-o...