In her publications in English, MR has quite clearly lacked rigour in her way of making references and has not respected the academic standards accepted in the area.On the other hand, it is also equally undeniable that the whole body of work in English published by MR is seriously flawed by the regular presence of bad scholarly practices, by what might be called a sort of active negligence, which, although not a matter of academic fraud, cannot be excused. On the one hand, it is undeniable that MR has been the victim of an injustice, because her accusers have fashioned and diffused, wrongly, if not with ill intent, the shameful image of a ‘serial plagiarist’, who composed all her writings simply by copying what others have written (see ‘Philosopher Revealed as serial Plagiarist’, Daily Nous). The qualitative and quantitative analysis of the publications under accusation has led the Commission to reach a dual conclusion.Once the Commission had thus come to realize that many passages had been wrongly accused of being plagiarized, the proportion of borrowings open to accusation in the various articles became considerably smaller. A more careful calculation, however-one which, in particular, takes into account the nature of the borrowings, has shown that in a number of cases it is not a matter of undeclared borrowings in the strict sense. Would tend, at first glance, to justify the accusations made against her. Admittedly, a brute calculation of the passages borrowed by MR from third-parties The results of our quantitative analysis have shown that the proportion of unacknowledged borrowings is relatively limited-sometimes even minimal-in comparison to the total size of each article.Moreover, there is no sign to be found of a wish to appropriate anyone else’s ideas or of an intention to deceive the reader about the origin of the ideas put forward in the articles. The results of our qualitative analysis show that there is neither academic fraud nor plagiarism properly so called in MR’s English articles.Here are the commission’s “primary findings” (the report refers to Roques as “MR”): Using a conception of plagiarism according to which plagiarism “signifies above all the theft of another author’s whole argument or the structure of their work or their fundamental ideas,” distinguishing between “plagiarism” and “unacknowledged borrowings,” and noting that they were unable to discern in Roques’ writings “a wish to appropriate anyone else’s ideas or of an intention to deceive the reader about the origin of the ideas put forward in the articles,” the commission concludes that though they are “seriously flawed by the regular presence of bad scholarly practices,” her writings contain “neither academic fraud nor plagiarism properly so called.” A commission composed of “three experts in the field, all foreigners” was tasked by CNRS to investigate, and the results of that investigation have recently been made public by CNRS. Last fall, several articles by Magali Roques were retracted owing to them containing passages copied from others without attribution ( details here). A commission formed by the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) has issued a statement defending a researcher in medieval philosophy against multiple charges of plagiarism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |