Subscribe: Comments on FemaleCSGradStudent: Depress, Unimpress, Cold Compress
http://thewayfaringstranger.blogspot.com/feeds/3960741194907175378/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
conference paper  conference  faculty member  journal  original work  paper  plagiarism  regehr  report  technical report  text  work 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on FemaleCSGradStudent: Depress, Unimpress, Cold Compress

Comments on FemaleCSGradStudent: Depress, Unimpress, Cold Compress





Updated: 2016-04-08T03:58:55.379-07:00

 



wayward: There are no grad. students listed as au...

2007-02-22T20:31:00.000-08:00

wayward: There are no grad. students listed as authors, so no scapegoat there. There is another author, so it's possible that $FM is not the culprit. Still, I don't feel that lets anyone off the hook completely.



Was $FACULTY_MEMBER the sole author of said tech r...

2007-02-22T16:32:00.000-08:00

Was $FACULTY_MEMBER the sole author of said tech report? In other words, is there any possibility that the section was actually written by someone else (e.g., a grad student) and $FACULTY_MEMBER simply failed to catch it?



On copying from previous articles- As a journal ed...

2007-02-14T07:09:00.000-08:00

On copying from previous articles- As a journal editor, we have to make sure our submissions are substantially different from previous published versions because the other journal often owns the publishing copyright. (In fact, for a recent conference paper, we had to get reprint permission from another journal.) So for us, the same ideas are fine, but if more than one or two sentences are the exact same words, we literally can't take it.

And yes, unethical on both counts! Eeeep!



REGEHR: I've also been dinged by "self plagarism" ...

2007-02-12T16:10:00.000-08:00

REGEHR: I've also been dinged by "self plagarism" in this way. Now, in my related work, I take a lot of care in explaining why the conference paper goes above and beyond what was presented in the workshop paper. This seems to help. It's no just a citation, but also a couple of sentences to say how the current conference paper makes a contribution apart from the early work done in the workshop paper.

It sounds like you've tried this and still got burned. I understand how it can be frustrating, since early feedback at workshops is important for growth.

I wonder if anyone else has ideas on this.



I should have added that I'm feeling a bit burned ...

2007-02-12T13:45:00.000-08:00

I should have added that I'm feeling a bit burned by the other side of self-plagiarism lately: a paper was recently rejected for reasons of self-plagiarism. We had cited the earlier paper and also clearly explained what was added in the new paper. Argh.

Since this happened I have been talking to people about this, and have learned that several people who I respect have stopped letting their students send good research to workshops, for fear that the "real" version of the paper -- sent to a top conference -- will get dinged for self-plagiarism.



Ah, certainly borrowing another's text without att...

2007-02-12T12:48:00.000-08:00

Ah, certainly borrowing another's text without attribution is way over the line.

But self-plagiarism can be fuzzy. Offhand I'd say that borrowing from one's own (not otherwise published) techrep would be fine. Verbatim reuse of one's own text is often okay in the workshop / conference / journal paper pipeline.

The IEEE policy on this is pretty clear: "authors should only submit original work that has neither appeared elsewhere for publication, nor which is under review for another refereed publication." So it somewhat comes down to the question of whether a technical report is a publication. My guess is that most people would say no.



JFS: Terminally disappointed. I like it.REGEHR: I...

2007-02-12T12:30:00.000-08:00

JFS: Terminally disappointed. I like it.

REGEHR: I guess there's two issues here. First, I didn't explain things very well. The faculty member copied from another paper that was not his own, and placed it in his technical report. He also did not cite the original work where it appears in his tech report, though the original work does appear in the bibliography.

Second, self-plagarism is also wrong. It is also unethical to copy text from one's own paper and put into another paper without a citation.



I'm a little confused -- why is it plagiarism to b...

2007-02-12T12:17:00.000-08:00

I'm a little confused -- why is it plagiarism to borrow text from one's own technical report?




2007-02-12T12:11:00.000-08:00

This comment has been removed by the author.



"Terminally disappoint."

2007-02-12T09:50:00.000-08:00

"Terminally disappoint."



RHCD: You didn't miss anything. Sorr to get your ...

2007-02-12T09:15:00.000-08:00

RHCD: You didn't miss anything. Sorr to get your hopes up. With the boyfriend interviewing for summer internships, I've been daydreaming about potential employers. That's all.

Jane: Yeah, I don't figure anything will happen to this guy. It's just another hash on the "Con" side for being a "top" researcher.

Con...heh....quite literally.



I don't have any suggestions for good words, but i...

2007-02-12T09:00:00.000-08:00

I don't have any suggestions for good words, but ick, what a horrible situation. And these f*ckheads are usually untouchable, too. Ick, ick, ick.



Huh Wah? Did I miss something? Seattle U? Barb

2007-02-11T21:50:00.000-08:00

Huh Wah? Did I miss something? Seattle U?

Barb