Tag Archive for 'new york times'

The Evolving Peer Review Process

Published on 2010/08/25 in Plagiarism, Plagiarism News, Science Publishers and peer review. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

In the world of scholarly journals, the peer review process has been a longstanding bastion of academic sanctity.  Peer review involves a publication selecting several anonymous experts to review incoming journal submissions.  For decades, these experts have served as the gatekeepers to academic publishing, using their knowledge in a specific field to determine whether a submitted essay is worthy of publication.

Over the last few years, a small selection of scholars have been pushing for a democratized internet evolution of the age old review process.   The New York Times recently published an article that analyzes this potential peer review transformation.

On one side, proponents of ‘crowd sourcing’ the peer review process cite the ability to move faster and gain insight from a wide spectrum of reviewers.  One venerable literary publication,  the Shakespeare Quarterly, recently decided to embark on an experiment using the ‘digital scholarly network’ site MediaCommons: “In the end 41 people made more than 350 comments, many of which elicited responses from the authors. The revised essays were then reviewed by the quarterly’s editors, who made the final decision to include them in the printed journal, due out Sept. 17.”

The opposing view argues that a democratized forum would invite an abundance of amateur input, which was the reason an expert peer review process was first established.   Although the Shakespeare Quarterly experiment proved successful, there is no assurance that a more wide-spread implementation of web-based review would work.  The model the Shakespeare Quarterly applied was a hybrid; although comments were elicited from a large pool of online reviews, the revised essays were still examined by professional editors before publication.

As more publications adopt the web-based review method, some could become bold enough to further streamline the system by cutting out or minimizing the role of an editor.  Although this would continue to speed up the publication process, it does raise questions regarding whether misconduct (like plagiarism) may have an increased chance of going unchecked. Most online commentators would be unlikely to check a submitted work for potential plagiarism.  The nature of online interaction is often defined by multi-tasking; users briskly jump from one forum, blog, website, or article to another.  This leaves less room for in-depth review or the possible detection of duplicate content from an unattributed source.

One solution to this problem could be to assign users specific roles per submission; much like the segmented inner workings of an ant colony.  Some commentators could concentrate on meaning, some on method, some on grammar, etc. One segment could involve running a full plagiarism check and making sure sources were properly cited.

The future of peer review looks promising – the internet certainly has the ability to better a process that has remained stagnant for too long.   However, publications and scholars need to be cautious and make sure the the peer review process doesn’t devolve into a ‘free-for-all.’

Citations:

Cohen, Patricia. “Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review” The New York Times 23 August 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html?ref=arts

Film Critic Plagiarism

Published on 2010/06/03 in Plagiarism Case Studies, Plagiarism Discussion, Plagiarism News, film critic and film review. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

There recently was an online plagiarism fiasco that involved a YouTube movie reviewer ripping off a number of film reviews straight from the website JoBlo.com.   The UK plagiarist, named Tom Perkins, was caught red-handed and admitted to stealing word for word transcripts of a large number of movie reviews and reading them back on his own YouTube show.  The worst part was that Perkins was an official YouTube contributor, which means he was making money by illegally duplicating other people’s hard work.

From joblo.com in response to the incident:  It’s kind of eerie to see that, and personally, as a writer, I just don’t see A) why anyone would fake reviews, as most of us do what we do because we love giving OUR opinions on movies and B) how do you think you’re going to get away with that indefinitely?

This case brings to light the realm of film critics and the danger plagiarism poses to their livelihood.  Giving the low-down on recent films has been a long standing tradition; movie reviews provide a great way to catch up on anything from big budget blockbusters to coffee house indie flicks.   Film critics include big names and publications like the Chicago Sun-Time’s Roger Ebert and the New York Time’s A.O. Scott.  Small niche publications like online blogs also have taken to giving their unique opinions on films.

The value add of a true film critic is putting a unique spin on a movie. A critic isn’t required to have an un-biased take on a film like the journalists in many other fields.  A film critic has the unique ability to tell a story within a story, providing their own creative input on a movie and letting readers decide whether or not to agree with them. This creativity is exactly why film critics face a growing danger from having their work plagiarized.

Roger Ebert relies on his unique literary voice to distinguish himself from the many other film critics out there.  If a plagiarist steals Ebert’s work from under his nose, it greatly diminishes the content’s value.  Not only does plagiarism detract from a film critic’s value, but it also hurt’s the associated publication.  The film review sections in the Chicago Sun-Times or the New York Times are some of the most read and useful parts of these papers.  These sections are one of the few places where publications can still distinguish themselves with well known critics and lengthy reviews that offer more substance than a simple ‘thumbs up or down’.

It would behoove any serious film critic or publication to ensure their intellectual property is properly protected by utilizing a plagiarism detection solution to cross check a variety of on and offline sources for any duplicate matches to their work.  It also would make sense that a large publication utilizes a plagiarism checker to ensures no plagiarized film reviews are coming out of their distribution.  A single plagiarized film review could seriously cripple a publication’s reputation.

Citations:

Tassi, Paul  “Meet the guy who plagiarized JoBlo.com’s entire review collection in 2010″ Joblo Media Inc. 10 May 2010. http://www.joblo.com/meet-the-guy-who-plagiarized-joblocoms-entire-review-collection-in-2010

Fact Checking for Book Publishers

Published on 2010/04/13 in Discussion, book publisher, fact checking and new york times. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

Full length book publishing is a field in transition.  As e-readers like the Amazon Kindle and Apple iPad sky-rocket in popularity, traditional novel publishers are rapidly searching for ways to conform their editorial processes to a digital age.

Some of the new questions and concerns associated with digital publishing:  how much should digital books be priced?  How can e-books be digitally protected from piracy and illegal sharing? And how can digital books can be properly reviewed  for instances of plagiarism and fabricated facts.

In non-fiction, fact checking has been a recent problem (both in the standard and digital formats).  The New York Times wrote a piece that discussed the strains of the editorial process with full length book publishers.  The article specifically examines the case of Charles Pelligrino’s novel “The Last Train to Hiroshima,” which was recently pulled from shelves due to the discovery of fraudulent facts within the book.
Not only did a variety of fake characters and historic facts emerge from ‘The Last Train to Hiroshima,’ but upon closer examination, many of Pelligrino’s previous novels were also revealed to be potentially fraudulent.  He largely escaped undetected due to his critical acclaim, Hollywood connections and university credentials (which also later were found to be fabricated).
The Publisher, Henry Holt and Company, claims that they often give the author the benefit of the doubt: “We all work in good faith here, and we do the best we can,” said Stephen Rubin, president of Holt. “People’s judgments vary. But this is the exception, hardly the rule.”
This somewhat laissez-faire attitude by book publishers needs to become a relic of the past.  Although working in good faith sounds good, it doesn’t account for the off-case that slips through the cracks.  This ‘bad apple’ can destroy the reputation of a publisher and ruin the trust of readers. As authors gain access to a wealth of detailed facts via the internet, some questionable in accuracy, the fact-checking process for full length novels needs to be consummate .
Some editors argue their ability to actively look over the shoulders of their authors:  “Publishers say that responsibility for errors and fabrications ultimately must lie with the author. “It would not be humanly possible to fact-check books the way magazine articles can be fact-checked, just because of length,” said Robert A. Gottlieb…”
Just as is the case with magazines or news publications, full length novels need to transition to the digital age equipped with the best technology available.  Despite the length of novels, modern day plagiarism detection software can also be utilized for the purpose of in-depth fact checking.
Detection software can cross-reference any full length novel with a massive database of on and offline content, instantly highlighting any relevant materials.  An editor can then easily review each match in a single sitting, keeping an eye on any points that looks suspicious.
Utilizing the best technology to ensure that readers are  exposed to the truth should be common practice.  Although ‘good-faith publishing’ sounds great in theory, reality shows that faith could sometimes use a safety net.
Citations:
Rich, Motoko. “Pondering Good Faith in Publishing ” The New York Times 8 Mar. 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/books/09publishers.html

A Seal of Approval for News Publishers

Published on 2010/03/02 in Discussion and Plagiarism Discussion. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

There has been a recent series of plagiarism incidents coming out of news publications, from within large organizations like the New York Times to smaller ones like the Daily Beast.  In most cases the individual culprit ‘resigns’ and the publication maintains that it didn’t know about the misconduct until it was pointed out by some outside source.  The news organization usually says it will do everything possible to prevent something similar from occurring in the future, but more often than not they go back to doing things the same way as always.  Shouldn’t publishers show their readers that they are actually taking the due diligence to prevent plagiarism?

Utilizing a plagiarism checker like iThenticate doesn’t ensure a news publication a 100% guarantee against plagiarism; however it does drastically reduce the likelihood of something slipping through the cracks.   Making iThenticate a regular part of a publication’s editorial process allows all submitted content to be cross-checked with a massive online and offline database of content, instantly highlighting any duplicate content matches.    Not only does this process minimize the chance of a plagiarized article reaching distribution, it also serves as a ’seal of approval’ for readers.

Using a plagiarism checker says to readers that the quality and unique nature of the content they are reading is of the utmost importance to the publisher.  A publisher that says they care about catching plagiarism but doesn’t take the appropriate actions to back that up can’t truly tell the public that they are doing everything possible to prevent another incident from occurring.

Liken the process of consuming news content to buying produce at the supermarket. When you buy any sort of produce, it comes with a variety of labels that show it’s organic,  free range, healthy for the heart or any other number of certifications.  These labels are meant to guarantee that the produce has gone through some sort of externally organized certification process.  Utilizing iThenticate also certifies that a publisher has gone through an in-depth process to weed out the possibility of plagiarized content from reaching distribution.

In our current news climate, large papers are being threatened by new models of online distribution and smaller niche publications.  Standard subscriptions to papers are consistently dwindling and many large organizations are looking for new business models to stay afloat.   Most publications realize that in some shape or form they will need to transition the majority of their distribution to an online format within the next decade or so.

When the giants of the industry make this move, certifying that their content is truly unique becomes that much more important to their business model.   For readers that are potentially paying an online subscription fee to access content, they need to be ensured that this content cannot be found elsewhere in any shape or form (otherwise why pay?).  The seal of a plagiarism checker service helps to authenticate that the content truly is unique, and cannot be found elsewhere across the vast landscape of the internet or beyond.

In addition, if news publishers fully commit to the route of advertising as so many other online business do, the insurance that a plagiarism checker service provides also will come in handy.  Recently, we’ve seen celebrities like Tiger Woods dropped from endorsement deals because of a scandal that advertisers wanted nothing to do with.   The same goes for online advertising – no right minded advertiser would want their name or brand associated with a plagiarized piece of content.  Providing the proof that every piece of content has been run through a plagiarism checker can give advertisers the peace of mind that their money is well spent.

Citations:

Silverman, Craig. “To Catch a Plagiarist ” The Columbia Journalism Review 19 Feb. 2010 http://www.cjr.org/regret_the_error/to_catch_a_plagiarist.php

No Reputation is Immune to Plagiarism

Published on 2010/02/22 in Plagiarism Case Studies and Plagiarism Discussion. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

The New York Times is considered America’s premiere news publication. The paper was established in 1851 and has consistently published some of the best work since its inception, including a large number of Pulitzer prize awarded pieces.  The Times has a reputation for journalistic integrity and an eye for detail.  The New York Times is also one of the largest papers in the world, publishing a large volume of content everyday both in print and online distribution formats.  This makes the New York Times particularly susceptible to instances of plagiarism.

Last week, New York Times writer Zachary Kouwe was accused of plagiarizing content from the Wall Street Journal and Reuters.  Kouwe, who wrote articles for the New York Times business section and an online blog called ‘DealBook,’ resigned on Feburary 16th after a formal inquiry.    Although the New York Times has a generally stellar reputation, they are no stranger to plagiarism.  In 2003, the Times’ Jason Blair became infamous for plagiarizing a number of articles without attributing the proper sources (as well as making up sources all together).

Even though the New York Times properly dealt with both of these cases and dismissed the culprits, that doesn’t mean the damage hasn’t already been done. The paper’s reputation takes a hit every time an incidence of plagiarism is revealed to the public.  It may not seem like a huge deal, but it allows worthy competing publications (like the Wall Street Journal) to gain market share.

These are no longer the days when consumers are forced to subscribe to a single paper.   Most people across the country have the ability to subscribe to a number of national and local papers that cover the exact same news that the New York Times does.  Online distribution also allows consumers newly minted access to a countless number of other news outlets.  Every time the New York Times takes a misstep like this it gives their subscribers the opportunity to consider another option.

It is the due diligence of any publication, especially one with the repute of the New York Times, to detect and prevent any cases of plagiarism prior to distribution.  Many publications have made the use of plagiarism detection software like iThenticate a day in and day out practice for their editors.   This practice makes even more sense for a publication that pushes out daily content at a high volume like the New York Times, as something is more likely to slip through the cracks.  iThenticate fully minimizes the chances of duplicate content slipping through the cracks, as it compares any submitted piece to millions of other offline and online sources.

Citations:

The New York Times. “Times Business Reporter Accused of Plagiarism Is Said to Resign ” The New York Times 17 Feb. 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/media/17times.html

Wikipedia contributors. “The New York Times.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 22 Feb. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/media/17times.html