欢迎! 登陆 注册

高级搜索

The Academic Misconduct Assessment Panels: The Verdicts (2821 查看)

November 09, 2012 09:21AM
The First Verdict


Dec. 30, 2010


As a result of the allegation by Dr. Yue Dongxiao that Dr. Fang Shi-min plagiarized Dr. Stanton Braude’s paper, this panel is convened by Dr. Ke Hua, the coordinator of China Academic Integrity Review, to assess whether the accusation is true. The panel consists of five members, three of them hold advanced degrees in biology or medicine, the other two are in the profession of legal justice.

Before this assessment, Dr. Fang was offered an opportunity to defend himself and he did not dispute Dr. Yue’s allegation. Nevertheless, the panel has made an independent and careful examination of the material evidence and makes the following finding: Dr. Fang’s Chinese article, The Predicted Animals (《推测出来的动物》), published on Jan. 16, 2008, in Chinese Youth Daily (《中国青年报》), is a translated version of Dr. Stanton Braude’s paper, The Predictive Power of Evolutionary Biology and the Discovery of Eusociality in the Naked Mole Rat, published in the July-August issue of 1997’s Reports of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE Reports.) Dr. Fang did not acknowledge this fact in his article.

Based upon the copyrights laws of both China and the United States, as well as the consensus definition of plagiarism, hold by the government agencies and academic institutions and professional organizations around the world, this panel has unanimously reached the following verdict: Dr. Yue’s allegation is true, and Dr. Fang did commit plagiarism. As for the copyrights violation issue, this panel urges Dr. Ke Hua to notify the related parties and agencies.

The Academic Misconduct Assessment Panel
China Academic Integrity Review




The Second Verdict


January 22, 2011


As a result of the allegation by a registered member of China Academic Integrity Review, Hong Qiao, that Dr. Shimin Fang (aka Fang Zhouzi) plagiarized the serial articles by Drs. John J O'Connor and Edmund F Robertson of University of St Andrews, this panel is convened by Dr. Ke Hua, the coordinator of China Academic Integrity Review, to assess whether the accusation is true. The panel consists of three members, they are a Ph.D. in mechanics and aeronautics, a Master in computer science, and a research professor in electronics respectively.

Before this assessment, Dr. Fang was offered an opportunity to defend himself and he did not response to the offer. Nevertheless, the panel has made an independent and careful examination of the material evidence and makes the following finding: Dr. Fang’s Chinese article, The Truth behind a Great Feud in Mathematics History (《数学史上一个大恩怨的真相》), published on Sept. 23, 2006, in a Chinese newspaper, Economic Observer (《经济观察报》), is a translated version of articles written by Drs. John J O'Connor and Edmund F Robertson. Dr. Fang did not acknowledge this fact in his article.

The articles being plagiarized are:

[www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk]
[www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk]
[www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk]
[www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk]

Based upon the copyright laws of both China and the United Kingdom, as well as the consensus definition of plagiarism, hold by the government agencies, academic institutions, and professional organizations around the world, this panel has unanimously reached the following verdict: The allegation is true, and Dr. Fang did commit plagiarism. As for the copyright violation issue, this panel urges Dr. Ke Hua to notify the related parties and agencies.

The Academic Misconduct Assessment Panel
China Academic Integrity Review




The Third Verdict


February 1, 2011


Dr. Ke Hua,

On 01/12/2011, Dr. Ke Hua, the coordinator of China Academic Integrity Review called on a three person panel (the Panel) to review the complaint filed by Mr. Hong Qiao (the Complainant) that Dr. Fang Zhouzi, (the Accused) in his essay“A well-known Case in the History of Science: The Death of Galois,”published on 03/30/2009 in Economic Observation copied the relevant entry of Wikipedia, an on-line encyclopedia, and relevant webpage of Princeton University, the United States, and San Andrews University, the United Kingdom. See the Suspected Plagiarism Case No. 3, at [www.2250s.com]. The Panel involved one individual, who holds a PhD in behavioral science, an individual who holds a PhD in Chemistry, and an individual who has engaged in legal profession in the United States.

Prior to the review by the Panel, China Academic Integrity Review forwarded the complaint to the Accused , requesting his defense or rebuttal. However, the Accused has not responded to the request.

The Panel members, having individually reviewed the complaint and all corroborating evidence, unanimously agreed that the complainant supplied clear and convincing evidence, which surpassed the standard of preponderance of evidence, and therefore, fulfilled his initial burden of proof as required.

The Complainant provided the essay written by the Accused in the Chinese language and all related sources of information (the Material). The Panel further verified those sources and found them to be accurate and credible. Further, the Panel found that the contents of the essay by the Accused did not extend beyond those sources.

Therefore, the Panel established that it is reasonable to review the complaint and determine whether the Accused copied the Material without attribution to the sources, or whether his act as displayed in his essay constituted that of plagiarism, by comparing his essay and the Material.

The complainant compared and analyzed the essay by the Accused and Material he allegedly plagiarized. The Panel repeated the same approach and came to concur with the Complainant’s finding: The Accused in his essay not only copied above mentioned Material in terms of textual construction, but also rhetorical elements, particularly the essay by Tony Rothman. For example, in his essay, the Accused put: “The romantic prose inspired many young people to engage in the study of mathematics. Obviously, this passage was lifted from Tony Rothma’s quotation from Freeman Dyson’s work as the following : “the romantic prose of E.T. Bell’s Men of Mathematics, ... has awakened many people of my generation to the beauties of mathematics. ... The legend ... has fired the imagination of generations of mathematics students.”(Disturbing the Universe,New York: Harper and Row, 1979, p14.)

The Panel further established that most sentences and phrases which the Accused constructed in his essay were sufficiently similar, if not identical, to the Material, so as to lead to the determination that those sentences and phrases were copied from the Material. Some paragraphs appeared different, but were obviously translated from the Material. Whether those paragraphs were copied or translated, the Accused should have properly acknowledged the sources. However, the Accused did not do so. Therefore, the Accused’s act as displayed in his essay constituted plagiarism.

The Panel also noted that, as the complainant observed, the Accused made several errors in his essay as a result of his misreading of the Material. The panel concurred with the Complainant that the Material the Accused copied remained secondary sources. If the Accused relied on primary sources while writing his essay, he would have not made such “common sense” errors. However, in light of the fact that the Accused made no indication that he ever used any primary sources, the Panel could only come to the conclusion that he only indirectly relied on secondary sources. Further, no matter whether he used primary sources or secondary sources, the Accused was expected to acknowledge his sources. However, the Accused failed to do so.

Finally, the Panel established that the Accused’s plagiarism, which appeared like a translation, but carried no acknowledgement of his sources, may be seen as a classical example of “interlingual plagiarism.”

China’s copyright laws, and relevant laws and regulations in the United States and the United Kingdom all have similar provisions concerning translations of foreign language works. These laws and regulations all stipulate similarly that verbatim, unacknowledged translation, with no attribution given to the original author constitute plagiarism and violation of the author’s copyright. In this connection, the Panel urges Dr. Ke Hua to notify relevant organizations of Mr. Fang’s violation of copyright laws.

The Academic Misconduct Assessment Panel
China Academic Integrity Review




The Fourth Verdict


February 17, 2011


To: Dr. Ke Hua, The Coordinator of AIR-China
RE: Fang’s plagiarism case number 4

Dear Dr. Ke Hua:

As a result of the allegation by Dr. Yi Ming that Dr. Shimin Fang (aka Fang Zhouzi) plagiarized a book, Yes, We Have No Neutrons (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997. pp.180), by Dr. Alexander Keewatin Dewdney, a professor at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, this panel is convened by Dr. Ke Hua, the coordinator of China Academic Integrity Review, to assess whether the accusation is true. The panel consists of three members, panelist A holds a doctoral degree in Science and is a faculty member at a university in the U. S.; panelist B holds a master’s degree in Economics; and panelist C holds two doctoral degrees, one from Germany in Electronics and Information Sciences, and the other from the U. S. in computer Sciences and Engineering.

Before this assessment, Dr. Fang was offered an opportunity to defend himself and he did not response to the offer. Nevertheless, the panel has made an independent and careful examination of the material evidence and makes the following finding: Dr. Fang’s Chinese article, The famous fraud Cases in science history: The incident of cold fusion (《科学史上著名公案——冷聚变事件》), published on June 9 and June 16, 2008, in a Chinese newspaper, Economic Observer (《经济观察报》), is a translated version of chapter six of Dr. Alexander Keewatin Dewdney’s book, Yes, We Have No Neutrons. Dr. Fang did not acknowledge this fact in his article.

Based upon the copyright laws of both China and the Canada, as well as the consensus definition of plagiarism, hold by the government agencies, academic institutions, and professional organizations around the world, this panel has unanimously reached the following verdict: The allegation is true, and Dr. Fang did commit plagiarism. As for the copyright violation issue, this panel urges Dr. Ke Hua to notify the related parties and agencies.

The Academic Misconduct Assessment Panel
China Academic Integrity Review




The Fifth VERDICT


April 5, 2011



On March 2, 2011, Dr. KeHua, the coordinator of China Academic Integrity Review (AIR-China), convened a panel to review the Allegation filed by Dr. Xin Ge (the Complainant). The Complainant alleged that Dr. Fang Shimin, aka Fang Zhouzi, in 1995, while being a graduate student at Michigan State University, plagiarized an essay by Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein of the same university. The Panel consists of seven members, who, all hold advanced academic degrees, are working in their professional fields, including history, education, biology, medicine, and behavioral science, in China and in the United States.

Specifically, the Complainant alleged that in his 1995 essay, “What is Science?” Dr. Fang, without any attribution, used Dr. Root-Bernstein’s ideas and words found in “On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered.” Thus, Dr. Fang’s conduct allegedly met the commonly accepted criterion for “Misconduct,” or, more accurately, for “bilingual plagiarism.”

All documentary evidence was posted on internet by the Complainant and was therefore subject to public scrutiny. Further, AIR-China afforded Dr. Fang an opportunity to rebut the Allegation. Although Dr. Fang did not submit his rebuttal to AIR-China, he freely and willfully admitted on his website that he did NOT acknowledge Dr. Root-Bernstein’s essay as the source in his 1995 essay. When reaching this verdict, the Panel considered Dr. Fang’s willful admission to be of most significant probative value.

The Panel determined that the Complainant met his initial burden of proof by supplying credible, direct, and specific documentary evidence, which goes above the standard of “preponderance of evidence,” a standard of proof which is commonly used in civil proceedings in the United States. In light of all documentary evidence, the issue in question was so obvious that doubt could hardly be anywhere in the vicinity.

Now that the Complainant and Dr. Fang both agreed that, in his 1995 essay, the latter used Dr. Root-Bernstein’s work without attribution, the only issue in question is whether Dr. Fang’s act as displayed in his 1995 essay constituted “plagiarism.”

The Panel examined all the evidentiary record. The record showed clearly that Dr. Fang not only copied Dr. Root-Bernstein’s ideas, but also his thematic formulations, textual constructions, and logical sequences. Therefore, Dr. Fang’s conduct met the definitional criterion for “plagiarism”. Further, Dr. Fang disguised his plagiarism by intentionally translating the work into his native language without proper attribution to Dr. Root-Bernstein. By doing so, Dr. Fang committed “bilingual plagiarism.” (For a detailed discussion about “bilingual plagiarism,” see Carmel McNaught and David Kennedy, “Bilingual Plagiarism in the Academic World” in Ethical Practices and Implications in Distance Learning, 2009)

Further, as noted above, in the factual scenarios, Dr. Fang has never denied that he copied Dr. Root-Bernstein’s ideas. In October 30, 2010, when confronted with the Allegation, Dr. Fang responded that because he had written his essay in 1995 causally for a debate, he had not acknowledged the source. The Panel found Dr. Fang’s excuse unreasonable. First, the issue in question was whether he actually used Dr. Root-Bernstein’s words and ideas without attribution, not for what purpose he did so. Second, in September 2000, Dr. Fang officially authorized www.ourscie.org to include the original version of his 1995 essay in an on-line encyclopedia; on this occasion, he did not treat that version casually. This fact further undermined Mr. Fang’s defense.

It is also noted that, after the Complainant posted his evidence on internet in mid-October 2010, Dr. Fang rushed to alter the original version of his 1995 essay in his “Collection of Fang Zhouzi’s Works” at www.xys.org, the website which he solely controls, and the original version in the on-line encyclopedia. He inserted one phrase “according to Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein’s summary” in the text. Dr. Fang’s willingness to readily alter the original version of his published essay upon being alerted to the Allegation further casts doubt on the credibility of his claim that he did not intentionally plagiarize Dr. Root-Bernstein’s writing.

The Complainant has thus met his initial burden of proof. Dr. Fang’s conduct has met the evidentiary criterion for “plagiarism.” Now, the burden of proof has shifted to Dr. Fang. Dr. Fang failed to rebut the Allegation by clear and convincing evidence.

The Panel also noted that Dr. Fang had a history of using others’ ideas and words without attribution. For example, Science Magazine held that Dr. Fang failed to comply with essential journalistic principles while reporting others’ research result. Further, several copyright owners have also confirmed that Dr. Fang used photos or illustrations from their works without attribution or permission. Finally, AIR-China panels have thus far reviewed four cases against Dr. Fang, and have established that Dr. Fang committed plagiarism in all of those cases.

Most recently, the Research Integrity Office (RIO) of Michigan State University found Dr. Fang’s conduct as alleged to have met the criterion for “Misconduct” as defined in the university’s procedures. However, a MSU panel held that this case did not fall under the university’s jurisdiction, because Fang’s essay was not written for fulfillment of his course requirements.

This Panel found MSU RIO’s finding to be reasonable, but believed that the MSU panel’s decision to be fatally flawed. The Panel felt sorry to learn that MSU, a reputable public academic institution, failed to pursue further action in this case where a MSU student plagiarized a MSU professor.

In conclusion, based on the credible, direct, specific evidentiary record, the Panel has unanimously determined that, in light of the totality of circumstances Dr. Fang’s conduct as displayed in his 1995 essay constituted plagiarism.


The Academic Misconduct Assessment Panel
China Academic Integrity Review

主题 发布者 已发表

The Academic Misconduct Assessment Panels: The Verdicts (2821 查看)

亦明 November 09, 2012 09:21AM



该主题已经关闭。
2250s.com does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by users.

This forum powered by Phorum.