Plagiarism, citations, and fact checking 26 May 200922 Jun 2018 Some interesting things in the web lately. One is a new system that purports to find cases of plagiarism. Science reports on the new Dèjá Vu database [news summary here; both behind the Science paywall; check this and this if you don’t have access], which checks content of science papers for copied material. But there’s a controversy, of course, because many of the papers identified are review articles, which are supposed to have copied material. Also, papers cite each other and have to repeat the materials and methods when that is appropriate. So the database has added some categories: Distinct, which are unique papers; Sanctioned, in which reviews and similar papers are deemed appropriate copying; Update, in which previous papers are given updates; Unverified, which means what you might think. None of these are considered plagiarism (yet). And then there are papers that are considered Duplicate, which are inappropriate copying. Like all automated systems of referencing, this has problems and limitations. I really hope that employers don’t start using this as a metric the way other automated indices have been used. While talking about accuracy, the lawsuit against Jared Diamond and the New Yorker, reported by Stinkyjournalism.org, is apparently a case of inadvertent dishonesty and lazy fact checking by the New Yorker, in which Diamond used real names to report mass murder in the Papuan highlands, based on stories told to him by his local driver, all of which turn out not to be true, and which could have been checked according to the report. [Hat tip to Columbia Journalism Report, via Bioephemera, who notes that Diamond is using the defence “It wasn’t science”]. Diamond is most likely at fault here for being naive, but the New Yorker is evidencing the incredible decline in reliability and accuracy even of the high-end media outlets. The slander may very well lead to tribal violence, as a carefully negotiated settlement between tribal groups who had a conflict (but not mass murder) is threatened, and individuals, including Diamond’s informant, may be personally at risk. It pays to be critical of all sources. Media Science Technology
Ecology and Biodiversity There is no missing link 11 May 2009 Again, the press are talking about “the missing link“. Let’s get one thing clear. There is no missing link. Rather, there are an indefinite number of missing branches. To have a missing link, you need to visualise evolution as a chain. If there’s a gap in the chain, then you… Read More
Technology Why we’ll never be downloaded 4 Mar 2009 An interesting article is up at the New Atlantis by Ari Schulman, arguing that we will never be able to replicate the mind on a digital computer. Here I want briefly to argue there are other reasons for this. Read More
Censorship Some more on ISP filtering, and a rant on censorship in Australia 27 Nov 20084 Oct 2017 The Greens (who I am considering joining, despite their unreasonable opposition to nuclear power) have said they will oppose the “clean feed” proposal in the Senate, so unless the Coalition decides it is a good idea after all, or put it to a conscience vote (because let’s face it, a… Read More
“many of the papers identified are review articles, which are supposed to have copied material” Review articles are supposed to review concepts discussed in original research articles, but they should not repeat the content of those articles. The real exceptions are those articles that are supposed to be updates of previously published articles. Whenever an author reuses content published elsewhere, it’s plagiarism (whether the content was published by another author or by that author).
This is astonishing. This is the New Yorker, whose fact-checking is legendary. Perhaps a bit of a reminder, though, that Diamond is not an anthropologist nor a journalist. He’s a writer of popular books.