Tag Archive for 'Gerald Posner'

Posner ignorant to the true value in plagiarism detection software

Published on 2010/02/24 in Discussion and Plagiarism Case Studies. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

Posner is confused

In a February 10 blog, Gerald Posner did his best to explain an onslaught of plagiarism accusations, and his subsequent resignation from The Daily Beast.  While it is not uncommon for journalists to own up to acts of misconduct (particulary when it is discovered the one was , in fact, many), I was dismayed by one comment:

“Clearly, if I were a serial plagiarizer, I would have scanned my own drafts with such [plagiarism detection] software before submitting to the Beast.”

Now Jack Shafer, who ultimately broke the Posner plagiarism story in a Slate piece, did a wonderful job responding to Posner’s assertion in a February 11 follow-up …

“But examples of plagiarized stories found by me and Slate readers establish that Posner is a serial plagiarist! Of that there is no dispute! That he didn’t scan his drafts with software before submitting them to the Daily Beast doesn’t prove he isn’t a serial plagiarist.”

Shafer did well to point out Posner was exactly that which he claimed not to be, but I wanted to further address a growing misconception about plagiarism detection technology.  I will not dispute that in many cases organizations and/or individuals may choose the unethical path of using plagiarism detection software to shadow misconduct.  I think it more common though, Mr. Posner, that organizations and individuals employ plagiarism detection software for the simple purpose of quality control.

A good example regards our company’s relationship with journal publishers.  More than 75 global scientific, technical and medical publishers have deployed the  iThenticate Plagiarism Checker to supplement the editorial review.  Bill Hagen, Manager of Intellectual Property Rights at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), was poignant in his analysis of his organization’s use of plagiarism detection software:

“We’re glad to see so many societies embracing CrossCheck [powered by iThenticate], because it helps to protect the integrity of IEEE’s publications program and, by extension, all of IEEE.”

Plagiarism detection software can, and should, be a proactive effort to supplement quality assurance processes.  Used in this fashion, the technology can prove a critical component to a successful business model.

Citations:

Posner, Gerald.  “My Resignation from The Daily Beast” The Posner File 10 Feb. 2010 http://geraldposner.blogspot.com/2010/02/my-resignation-from-daily-beast.html

Shafer, Jack.  “The Posner Plagiarism Perplex”  Slate 11 Feb. 2010 http://www.slate.com/id/2244430/

Platt, John.  “New Tool Checks IEEE Publications for Plagiarism”  The Institute 5 Feb. 2010http://www.theinstitute.ieee.org/portal/site/tionline/menuitem.130a3558587d56e8fb2275875bac26c8/index.jsp?&pName=institute_level1_article&TheCat=1010&article=tionline/legacy/inst2010/feb10/prodservtool.xml&

Does Intent Matter with Plagiarism?

Published on 2010/02/09 in Plagiarism Case Studies and Plagiarism Discussion. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

A recent case of plagiarism emerged from the Daily Beast online news site late last week.  Daily Beast author Gerald Posner admitted to copying several sentences from a piece in the Miami Herald.  Although the incidence of plagiarism was clear and he admitted that it was an act of plagiarism, Posner claimed that it was ‘inadvertent.’  The editors at the Daily Beast also admitted that it was an act of plagiarism, but also labeled Posner’s act as ‘inadvertent.’

Did he accidentally see the Miami Herald Article and remember the wording?  Or did he have the Herald on his lap as he typed up his piece?  We could argue all day about whether Posner had intent to commit plagiarism and we’d most likely come out with no black and white answer. The question is : does intent matter in a case of plagiarism?

Plagiarism.org’s response to ‘does intention matter?’ :

“…there are different punishments for willful infringement, or deliberate plagiarism, and innocent infringement, or accidental plagiarism.  To distinguish between these, courts recognize what is called the good faith defense.  If you can demonstrate, based on the amount you borrowed and the way you have incorporated it in your own work, that reasonably believed what you did was fair use, chances are that your sentence will be lessened substantially.”

As far as punishment is concerned, just as in criminal law, deliberate intent does make a difference with plagiarism  Based on the striking similarity between the Daily Beast piece and the Miami Herald article, it would be difficult to prove in court that Posner did not deliberately plagiarize from another source.

So intent matters as far as punishment, but in terms of detecting an incidence of plagiarism, intent plays no part in determining what is considered to be duplicate content.  iThenticate’s Plagiarism Checker technology creates a Similarity Report based on the extensive and quantitative comparison of articles.  This similarity report doesn’t know the difference between an author that deliberately or accidentally plagiarized.  iThenticate simply tells us where the plagiarism occurred.

There certainly are cases of inadvertent plagiarism out there.  However, it makes sense that editors and authors side-step even getting into the debate of intent by avoiding plagiarism all together with the proper technology.

Citations:

Shafer, Jack. “Plagiarism at the Daily Beast”  Slate 5 Feb. 2010 http://www.slate.com/id/2243850/

Plagiarism FAQs -  Plagiarism.org, iParadigms LLC.  Retrieved February 8, 2010, from http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_plagiarism_faq.html