My training in medieval history had acquainted me with the practice of identifying dependencies among manuscripts by tracing the repetition of errors. By analogy, I thought, if there were additional idiosyncratic errors on my Web site that also appeared in the book, each instance would be a discrete piece of evidence showing that the volume had lifted material from my work.I found myself in the unusual position of hoping that I had made more mistakes. Could I find more evidence than just two bizarrely placed asterisks?
Search this blog
Profile
I am the Online Community Manager at PLoS ONE. My scientific specialty is chronobiology (circadian rhythms and photoperiodism), with additional interests in comparative physiology, animal behavior and evolution. I am not an MD so I cannot diagnose and treat your sleep problems. This is a personal blog and opinions within in no way reflect the policies of PLoS ONE. You can contact me at: Coturnix@gmail.com
Join us at ScienceOnline'09
Buy the 2007 Science Blogging Anthology:
Buy the 2006 Science Blogging Anthology:
Recent Posts
- The Open Laboratory 2008 - all the submissions fit to print
- Today's carnivals
- ScienceOnline'09 on the Radio!
- Plant a Seed in every classroom
- New and Exciting in PLoS this week
- My picks from ScienceDaily
- Recuerdos de la Alhambra
- Today's carnivals
- Clock Quotes
- The Best of November
Recent Comments
- John Dupuis on Plant a Seed in every classroom
- Scott Leslie on If you share something, is it useful and educational?
- Sandra Porter on 2008 Edublog Awards - time to start nominations
- Danica on Why does Impact Factor persist most strongly in smaller countries
- Mike Haubrich, FCD on What's wrong with Google Blogsearch?
- Coturnix on The summary of the Science Blogging Meme
- Stuart on The summary of the Science Blogging Meme
- Mimi on The summary of the Science Blogging Meme
- Bjoern Brembs on Why does Impact Factor persist most strongly in smaller countries
- Colugo on Twilight
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
Blogroll
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
My Old Stuff
Make Me Happy
Add Scienceblogs to your Technorati Favorites!
Make Me Solvent
I Support
Bloggie Stuff
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
« Congratulations to Rob! | Main | Nursing PLoS »
An interesting case of plagiarism
Category: Academia
Posted on: July 18, 2007 12:37 AM, by Coturnix
Comments
Fascinating. A couple years ago I compiled a list of snakes of a country for a Wikipedia article. I later found the list reproduced on that country's biodiversity management agency's website. Since I had based it on a single book, and the webpage credited the same source, how do I know that they copied the list from Wikipedia (without acknowledgement)? Because of the way the list was formatted. The formatting was reproduced exactly.
Posted by: Ian | July 18, 2007 1:20 AM
"I found myself in the unusual position of hoping that I had made more mistakes."
We've suffered this in the field of genealogy. Some people have added false information, so that if/when their work is plagiarized, they'll recognize it.
Posted by: nbm | July 18, 2007 8:53 AM
Interesing. However, I think he made a mistake in not pointing out the intellectual laziness (to put the best face on it) of the authors of the book.
Posted by: Mark P | July 18, 2007 8:53 AM