« Pick Your Stench |
Main
| Eating A Whole Bunch of Random Compounds »
January 23, 2013
Coincidence, No Doubt. Well, Some Doubt.
Posted by Derek
Has anyone happened to read this paper, from 2009, or this one, from this year? Well, Shawn Burdette of WPI has, and he noticed that (to a significant extent) they're the same paper. Prof. Valerie Pierre of Minnesota, author of the first paper, is reportedly not too amused, and I don't blame her. But hey, the 2013 authors did at least cite her paper. . .in reference 14d. So at least there's that.
Update: but wait, there's more!
Comments (12)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › AstraZeneca's Move To Hot, Happening Cambridge
- › Stealing A Compound, To Set Up in China
- › Tecfidera's Price
- › Novartis Loses the Glivec Patent Fight in India
- › ChemBark Closing Down (Update: Not Really!)
- › Fake Journals - But They'd Like Real Money
- › Chemical Probes Versus Drugs
- › Two New Books
College chemistry, 1983
The 2002 Model
After 10 years of blogging. . .
1. Ricky Connolly on January 23, 2013 10:38 AM writes...
Poppycock! The abstract figure has been rotated 180 degrees; totally original work by our friends at Beishida!
Permalink to Comment2. Tom Lehrer on January 23, 2013 11:08 AM writes...
I am never forget the day I first meet the great Lobachevsky.
In one word he told me secret of success in mathematics:
Plagiarize!
Plagiarize,
Permalink to CommentLet no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -
Only be sure always to call it please 'research'.
3. nitrosonium on January 23, 2013 11:27 AM writes...
apologies for not following all the twitter feeds back through the history of this and right back to the source but I have few questions:
Permalink to Comment1) was see-ArOh the 1st to catch this? if so (or not) how was this caught? if by coincidence, how can this be expected to be caught in every case? or is that last one just not possible??
4. Chemjobber on January 23, 2013 11:37 AM writes...
3: It sounds like Professor Pierre was informed of it somehow, and passed it along to Professor Burdette. It was Prof. Burdette who informed the rest of the world via Twitter. SAO was first to post with a conclusion.
Permalink to Comment5. Anonymous on January 23, 2013 12:57 PM writes...
Yan Xi worked in Chuan He's lab from ~2007-2009. I am not surprised that he plagiarizes.
Permalink to Comment6. Anonymous on January 23, 2013 1:25 PM writes...
@ 5. (Anon) - Why are you not surprised that he plagiarized Prof. He's work? I don't quite understand your point. Are you suggesting that all who previously worked in Prof Chuan He's lab go on to do this, or are you suggesting that this is encouraged in Prof. He's lab? Maybe you could elaborate further?
Permalink to Comment7. The Iron Chemist on January 23, 2013 1:49 PM writes...
@5: I'd have to echo the sentiments of #6. I personally have nothing but respect for He and his work. Could you clarify whether or not your comment based on personal knowledge of Yan?
Permalink to Comment8. dearieme on January 23, 2013 5:24 PM writes...
What sort of muttonhead would plagiarise from JACS? Surely you should pick on something from an obscure foreign language journal and bury it in a different obscure foreign language journal?
Permalink to Comment9. dearieme on January 23, 2013 5:25 PM writes...
What sort of muttonhead would plagiarise from JACS? Surely you should pick on something from an obscure foreign language journal and bury it in a different obscure foreign language journal?
Permalink to Comment10. chacao on January 23, 2013 6:25 PM writes...
#8: If you will plagiarize, might as well plagiarize a good article. Or do you want people to believe that your group does crappy science?
Permalink to Comment11. dearieme on January 24, 2013 6:16 AM writes...
But you'll get caught, #10, sure as eggs is eggs.
Permalink to Comment12. XY on January 24, 2013 8:04 AM writes...
#8: If you will plagiarize, might as well plagiarize a good article. Or do you want people to believe that your group does crappy science?
Permalink to Comment