Academic Fraud Clearinghouse

[apl68]

Dipak Panigrahy, Harvard Medical School, submitted 500 pages of plagiarized word salad as expert testimony in a federal class action lawsuit. The judge rejected it.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/4/15/hms-professor-plagiarized-report/ 

More egg on Harvard's face.

[Wahoo Redux]

Dipak Panigrahy, Harvard Medical School, submitted 500 pages of plagiarized word salad as expert testimony in a federal class action lawsuit. The judge rejected it.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/4/15/hms-professor-plagiarized-report/ 

More egg on Harvard's face.

Sounds like it is not plagiarism in the truest sense (he cited his sources), but a hack job in which he cut-n-pasted large sections of other people's real scientific work without proper identification, so it looked like valid original research, and cherry-picking what he found to reach a solution convenient to his client.

I've wondered why out court system allows this version of paid "expert opinion" in the courtroom.

[marshwiggle]

Dipak Panigrahy, Harvard Medical School, submitted 500 pages of plagiarized word salad as expert testimony in a federal class action lawsuit. The judge rejected it.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/4/15/hms-professor-plagiarized-report/ 

More egg on Harvard's face.

Sounds like it is not plagiarism in the truest sense (he cited his sources), but a hack job in which he cut-n-pasted large sections of other people's real scientific work without proper identification, so it looked like valid original research, and cherry-picking what he found to reach a solution convenient to his client.

I've wondered why out court system allows this version of paid "expert opinion" in the courtroom.

By that definition, I could write a paper listing 3 sources, properly cite one quotation from each source, and then cut-and-paste everything else to my heart's content and argue it's "not plagiarism in the truest sense".

Not buying it.

[Wahoo Redux]

Dipak Panigrahy, Harvard Medical School, submitted 500 pages of plagiarized word salad as expert testimony in a federal class action lawsuit. The judge rejected it.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/4/15/hms-professor-plagiarized-report/ 

More egg on Harvard's face.

Sounds like it is not plagiarism in the truest sense (he cited his sources), but a hack job in which he cut-n-pasted large sections of other people's real scientific work without proper identification, so it looked like valid original research, and cherry-picking what he found to reach a solution convenient to his client.

I've wondered why out court system allows this version of paid "expert opinion" in the courtroom.

By that definition, I could write a paper listing 3 sources, properly cite one quotation from each source, and then cut-and-paste everything else to my heart's content and argue it's "not plagiarism in the truest sense".

Not buying it.

Okay, Marshy.  I appreciate your expert opinion.

[spork]

Md. Jannatul Ferdaus, Ezzine Chukwu-Munsen, and Roberta Claro da Silva of NC A&T University plagiarized the dissertation of Solange Saxby for an article in the MDPI journal Nutrients.

[kaysixteen]

If these people have tenure at their schools, will there be any appreciable consequences for their demonstrated plagiarism in this or similar cases?

[RatGuy]

If these people have tenure at their schools, will there be any appreciable consequences for their demonstrated plagiarism in this or similar cases?

From what I understand, Claro Da Silva is an assistant prof, and the other two are (or were) grad students. It looks like there hasn't been much movement on the university's side of things, but that doesn't mean that the T&P case for Clara da Silva won't be contentious as a result

[jimbogumbo]

Md. Jannatul Ferdaus, Ezzine Chukwu-Munsen, and Roberta Claro da Silva of NC A&T University plagiarized the dissertation of Solange Saxby for an article in the MDPI journal Nutrients.

From the Retraction Watch article:

"To her dismay, the paper "Taro Roots: An Underexploited Root Crop," co-authored by researchers at North Carolina A&T State University in Greensboro, North Carolina, overlaps significantly with Saxby's work, including some passages of word-for-word copying with no citation. 

While the corresponding author of the paper has called the omission of any citation to Saxby's work "unfortunate" and said that she is working with Nutrients' publisher – MDPI – to add one, the publisher said the behavior did not amount to plagiarism because the prior work was a thesis."


So plagiarism of a thesis isn't "plagiarism"? News to me.

[RatGuy]

Md. Jannatul Ferdaus, Ezzine Chukwu-Munsen, and Roberta Claro da Silva of NC A&T University plagiarized the dissertation of Solange Saxby for an article in the MDPI journal Nutrients.

From the Retraction Watch article:

"To her dismay, the paper "Taro Roots: An Underexploited Root Crop," co-authored by researchers at North Carolina A&T State University in Greensboro, North Carolina, overlaps significantly with Saxby's work, including some passages of word-for-word copying with no citation. 

While the corresponding author of the paper has called the omission of any citation to Saxby's work "unfortunate" and said that she is working with Nutrients' publisher – MDPI – to add one, the publisher said the behavior did not amount to plagiarism because the prior work was a thesis."


So plagiarism of a thesis isn't "plagiarism"? News to me.

They have since changed their tune, saying that dissertations are published material and can therefore be plagiarized. They also say that only 1% of the material seems word-for-word, and a lot of it is widely accepted information so therefore can't be plagiarized.

Saxby hasn't commented since this reversal, probably because her head exploded out of frustration

[Hibush]

Md. Jannatul Ferdaus, Ezzine Chukwu-Munsen, and Roberta Claro da Silva of NC A&T University plagiarized the dissertation of Solange Saxby for an article in the MDPI journal Nutrients.

Grad students often write a literature review on their research topic before they do the research project. That is a good practice, and serves to inform conversatinons with their advisor on research approaches. These days, we see those reviews published by willing presses like MDPI.

Review articles are valuable when they are written by one of the leaders of a field, someone with a broad perspective. The student articles tend to be the quality of a term paper by a new grad student. They are not worth anyone's time to read.

The student articles' primary purpose is to add a cv line that establishes a misleading record of scholarship. To me, that action is far more serious misconduct than whether some of the junk in the article is insufficiently referenced.

[spork]

Richard Eckert, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, faked results for all of his NIH-funded research projects, wasting nearly $20 million in taxpayer money:

https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-eckert-richard-l.

https://retractionwatch.com/2024/08/13/former-maryland-dept-chair-with-19-million-in-grants-faked-data-in-13-papers-feds-say/

This kind of fraud really should be prosecuted criminally, with a prison sentence as a potential punishment.

[kaysixteen]

*Potential* punishment?

[Ruralguy]

It is criminal fraud. He defrauded the US government. They could probably build a case if they wanted to , but I have the feeling such cases almost always get pre-prosecution diversions in a deal with the school and the investigator. Any legal scholars or others with knowledge of such matters?

[dismalist]

Boil them in oil! For stupidity. Don't they know how to fake data you can trust?

[Wahoo Redux]

Eckert agreed to forgo contracting with the federal government or receiving government funding for eight years, longer than the three-year bans or supervision periods that ORI typically imposes. Eckert also agreed not to serve on any advisory or peer review committees for the U.S. Public Health Service, which includes the NIH, for eight years.

That'll show him.