Friday, November 13, 2009

NSF grant proposal plagiarized?

Jake Bolitho noted that a committee organized by Interim Provost Gary Shapiro [of CMU] found uncited information from three different sources in a grant proposal for a project titled “CONCEPT: Connecting Concept and Pedagogical Education of Pre-service Teachers”.

“There’s two instances of plagiarism,” Shapiro said. “In essence, both the grant proposal, as well as the work output, were plagiarized.”

Of responsibility issues: Lapp, the principal investigator of the research team, said it is not common practice for faculty to check each other’s work for issues such as plagiarism.

IPBiz asks: if the PI on the grant proposal can't recognize plagiarism of sources, who can?

The seeming perpetrator of the plagiarism apparently moved from CMU to Ohio State University. With all the plagiarism going on at Ohio University, one wonders if the state of Ohio is going after the plagiarism title, currently singularly held by the state of Harvard, with special credit going to the Harvard Law School. Of these folks, Margaret Soltan wrote:

They’ve got it down to a science in the law school, where several professors too busy to write their own books sign their names to the work of paid graduate students… whose tendency to lift text from other sources goes unnoticed by the professor, since he’s not only too busy to write the books that go out under his name, but too busy to read them.

IPBiz notes that Barack Obama, while at Harvard Law, observed of law review articles: nobody reads them. IPBiz asks: who reads the books written by Harvard Law profes? In terms of trademark theory, we seem to have a brand, the law professor's NAME, that is totally disconnected from the quality or content of the product [assuming the product is the book, as distinct from a line on a resume]. Is it that the legal community communicates only via sound-bytes, rather than actual content? Can you say "97% patent allowance rate" [aka "97% grant rate"]?

See also


Post a Comment

<< Home