I agree with your comments Ginny.
On a very personal note, while plagiarism is, of course, academic theft etc, I was never
so flattered as when, as a very junior faculty member, I was told that someone at one of
our very reputable universities, was in deep trouble for having plagiarised a key
concept from an article I had written with someone else. I was delighted a) that anyone
had read the article and b) that someone thought it worthy of copying and c) that as a
complete non-entity, my work was at least noted as being copied at such a respectable
institution.
Was there an article on academic ethics (especially in the context of journal
submissions where these issues truly are significant because of the blind review process
and lack of ability to trace -- the nasty stories of reviewers and/or editors stealing
concepts and rejecting articles etc etc) in one of our journals or was it the JBE?
Sally
"Virginia Maurer (MAN)" wrote:
> I'm weighing in with the "what plagiarism?" school of thought. I've
> never been aware that plagiarism was a problem in the ALSB, and
> anyway it is so easily detectible, especially in an electronic age, that
> it's hard to see how it could be much of a problem.
>
> Peter's thoughts on "sharing" are intriguing. When one presents an
> idea - the thesis of the paper, for example - at an academic
> meeting, it becomes part of the body of knowledge. That does not
> disturb the obligation of all to credit the author with the idea and
> contribution. Perhaps it is the "taking" of ideas that is more
> troublesome than the copying of text and notes. The solution to that
> is to present well-developed ideas that are well on their way to
> widespread dissemination. But this concern does not seem new,
> and the effect of rapid transmission of ideas seems to cut both ways.
>
> The other concern might be that presenting a paper on a subject
> that reflects one's hard-won research efforts gives others writing in
> the subject a short-cut to the sources one has used. But, as Peter
> observes, that's what academia is about, that's why universities
> subsidize the research we do: So that we contribute to the body of
> knowledge and increase human knowledge. If our research efforts
> help other researchers find the best ideas and evidence for ideas
> that they, too, can use, then we're doing what we're supposed to do.
> I guess that from the standpoint of academic self-preservation, it has
> always made sense to try out nascent thoughts on a smaller group
> of trusted people who won't take the idea and run with it before you
> have a chance to get it on paper and into print.
>
> Help me: Is this a set of values and understandings that are widely
> shared? Is this a valuable line of discussion?
>
> Ginny
>
> Date sent: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:57:31 +0100
> Send reply to: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: papers, diskettes
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> What a subtle debate is being developed here - between the sharing
> community that is (no?) the very reason for the existence of the Academy
> and the trembling fear of theft!
>
> I think I'd be more worried about the mindset of anyone who wanted to nick
> my stuff!!!
>
> hey ho
>
> autumn draws on - trousers too.
>
> Peter
>
> ___________________
>
> Peter Shears
> Director of Professional Studies
> Department of Accountancy & Law
> Plymouth Business School
> University of Plymouth
> Drake Circus
> Plymouth
> PL4 8AA
> England
>
> Tel 01752 23 28 22 (desk)
> Tel 01752 23 28 55 (message)
> Fax 01752 23 28 53
>
> INTERNET (MIME accepted): [log in to unmask]
>
> PAGER: numbers or up to about 15 words: 04325 382541
>
> Frank Cross
> <[log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask]
> EDU> cc:
> Sent by: "Academy of Subject: Re: papers, diskettes
> Legal Studies in
> Business (ALSB)
> Talk"
> <[log in to unmask]
> UOHIO.EDU>
>
> 02/10/00 02:04
> Please respond to
> "Academy of Legal
> Studies in Business
> (ALSB) Talk"
>
> Sounds good to me Ginnie.
>
> I'm a little concerned about the plagiarism concern. Unless somebody's
> got actual knowledge of it's occurrence, I don't think the assertion
> should be mentioned. If they do have actual knowledge, I think it's fair
> to provide specifics. I find it highly unlikely that this is a legitimate
> concern.
>
> At 06:49 PM 10/2/2000 EST, you wrote:
> >Hi list --
> >
> >Many thanks for all these reactions and ideas.
> >
> >Here's my [as usual] long-winded set of thoughts, which as program
> >chair I guess I'll implement unless between now and then a better
> >idea comes along or the executive committee really doesn't like it.
> >
> >My inclination is continue the requirement that at least some number
> >of hard copies be brought to the paper session because I think
> >some substantial part of our membership expects to touch and feel
> >hard copy when they hear a paper. It is also a sort of a "statute of
> >frauds" - like thing -- maintaining a high quality of papers was a
> >major major concern in the membership survey, and I wonder about
> >the effects of not needing to produce a hard copy at all would have
> >on quality, since we do not require advance submission of the paper
> >in most cases but referee from the abstract.
> >
> >The rest of my inclination -- at least as a first departure from
> >tradition -- is to let the paper presenter decide how to handle extra
> >copies beyond X required number of hard copies (5? 10?). The
> >presenter could keep bringing 25 hard copies or bring X hard
> >copies + 25 - X diskette versions. Maybe someday we'll be able to
> >install airports and just zap them to the audience's laptops as we
> >speak, so to speak. [aside: Our son has installed an airport in our
> >house; the DSL line will be installed Thursday; wireless high speed
> >internet service from anywhere in the house and the yard, including
> >under the magnolias. Does everybody else already have this and I
> >am just behind the times, as usual, or is this cool ???]
> >
> >A table for sale of papers idea would be attractive if we had the
> >person power to do it. It would make it a little harder to obtain a copy
> >of a paper one has seen presented. And, alas, we might be throwing
> >out more paper than we do now.
> >
> >The web site poses some issues like the one Royce raised. Having
> >the proceedings on the web would not pose those problems. Maybe
> >it is on the web. Maybe I ought to know. Help, Dan.
> >
> >The common computer scenario raises virus issues, I am told. We
> >had thought that seemed like an excellent solution.
> >
> >I'm a little surprised by the plagiarism concerns, too. Another reason
> >for omitting footnotes (which I have done) is to keep the length and
> >weight reasonable, and footnotes shouldn't be all that important to
> >the casual reader at a meeting. Those concerned about having their
> >footnotes napstered (see, it's a verb now -- I napster, you napster,
> >he napsters, we napster, ya'll napster, they napster) can do text-only
> >electronic versions.
> >
> >Will this model be acceptable to the membership?
> >
> >Ginny
> >
> Frank Cross
> Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
> CBA 5.202
> University of Texas at Austin
> Austin, TX 78712
|
