I work in the area of thin film materials research, and I can confirm that boiler plate text describing methods is often copy pasted by academic researchers working together, since it's nearly the least important part of a paper.
Plagiarism of the discussion section and analysis would be one thing, but a list of methods or materials is a nothing burger.
(it's an analogous to listing the constituents of your bread recipe, and it's compassion on your reader not to rewrite these constituents in a new way every time.)
I saw her speak once at a technology and art conference and I remember getting the sense that much of what she was saying was hot air skillfully applied to draw in grants from companies who want to have partnerships with the prestigious brand of MIT.
She apparently plagiarized another 250+ words from the same source[1] in addition to the 120-word paragraph indicated above and various passages from wikipedia[2].
Very hilarious that her husband started this slap-fight just to shut down critics of Israel and now it's the only thing that shows up when you look at his wifes name.
I haven't read the details on the recent plagiarism dramas, either Claudine Gay's or Neri Oxman's, but does anyone know how original were the parts they plagiarized?
Eg, was it a key original idea central to the work's thesis, in which they may have stolen someone else's breakthrough insight? Was it an important bit of supporting information, but not a core part of the thesis? Or was it background/extraneous stuff that's not really important?
Every example I saw of Gay’s plagiarism actually directly cited the work she pulled from, she just didn’t put quotations around them. There was no way you’d read the passages and not understand where the ideas came from, you’d just have thought Gay rephrased them, which she didn’t.
Maybe there were other more egregious examples I didn’t see, but that seems like an editing or style error more than what I’d consider plagiarism.
(Obviously students, who are being assessed directly on the writing itself, have very rigid requirements they need to meet)
So … there’s millions spent to give profs the technology to perform plagiarism checks on their students (with all the annoyance, false positives, etc) but nobody runs the same technology against the universities own archive corpus.
So you're admitting this has nothing to do with actual concerns about academic integrity, and instead is about an "oncoming storm" to purge woke social justice lunatics?
Sounds about right. Glad you have no "agenda" though.
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|2 years ago|reply
Plagiarism of the discussion section and analysis would be one thing, but a list of methods or materials is a nothing burger.
(it's an analogous to listing the constituents of your bread recipe, and it's compassion on your reader not to rewrite these constituents in a new way every time.)
[+] [-] cyanydeez|2 years ago|reply
as a engineering consultant, the most valuable assets are the reports I can pull and reuses.
while original research and academics should reference text, even M&P should reference where it came from.
knowing what deviated and what adheres to any given procedures are still important.
if this were some consultant report, then go nuts.
also, keep in mind the context that this person, her husband and I believe Harvard are a discussion about "plagiarism"
[+] [-] g42gregory|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway1o24|2 years ago|reply
My colleague (another grad student) innocently showed them their work and was very open with them.
[+] [-] eureka-belief|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Geekette|2 years ago|reply
[1]https://twitter.com/sTeamTraen/status/1745950571687792967
[2]https://www.businessinsider.com/neri-oxman-plagiarize-wikipe...
[+] [-] 082349872349872|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KenArrari|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lern_too_spel|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SkyMarshal|2 years ago|reply
Eg, was it a key original idea central to the work's thesis, in which they may have stolen someone else's breakthrough insight? Was it an important bit of supporting information, but not a core part of the thesis? Or was it background/extraneous stuff that's not really important?
[+] [-] ethanbond|2 years ago|reply
Maybe there were other more egregious examples I didn’t see, but that seems like an editing or style error more than what I’d consider plagiarism.
(Obviously students, who are being assessed directly on the writing itself, have very rigid requirements they need to meet)
[+] [-] gmerc|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Proven|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] SomeoneFromCA|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] infamouscow|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lukev|2 years ago|reply
Sounds about right. Glad you have no "agenda" though.
[+] [-] SomeoneFromCA|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gremlinunderway|2 years ago|reply