NSF Audit Finds Numerous Cases of Alleged Plagiarism 44
sciencehabit writes "The National Science Foundation (NSF) is investigating nearly 100 cases of suspected plagiarism drawn from a single year's worth of proposals funded by the agency. The cases grow out of an internal examination by NSF's Office of Inspector General (IG) of every proposal that NSF funded in fiscal year 2011. James Kroll, head of administrative investigations within the IG's office, tells ScienceInsider that applying plagiarism software to NSF's entire portfolio of some 8000 awards made that year resulted in a 'hit rate' of 1% to 1.5%. 'My group is now swamped,' he says about his staff of six investigators."
Re: (Score:2)
Some 'scientists' just make up their own data and publish it as if it were real data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel#Scientific_misconduct
This of course is hardly possible in beta science...
Re: (Score:1)
Not to be confused with the NSA, which never plagiarizes--because when they write your dossier, they always know who to cite!
Plagiarism or boilerplate? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect this is what happens. Scientists rarely write a new grant entirely from scratch.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just surprised it's that low (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Rehashing one's own work isn't considered misconduct. If it were, a lot of researchers have been guilty of submitting "new" papers that were about 95 percent rehashes of their previous work, plus (maybe) some new result that might hardly be worth reading about.
Re: (Score:2)
Republishing your old work or resubmitting old proposals is scientific misconduct because it wastes resources by forcing other scientists to perform duplicate reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you are usually required to sign a disclaimer that the research is yours, original, and not published elsewhere. After the 5th paper on the same data-set, that claim gets a bit thin.
And that is where the plagiarism tends to kick in: the papers get padded out with other people's findings.
"suspected" (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't really a scandal until the cases of plagiarism are confirmed. I once tested some plagiarism software on published academic economics, and it produced many false positives, many of which required some knowledge to interpret. Notice that a grant application may seem to be a somewhat "safer" place to plagiarize, since only a few people will see the application. However, those few might well include the borrowed from author - the granting agency will be sending the proposal for review to many researchers who have written on the topic before..
plagiarize to pay homage and beg for funding!!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't really apply this to grant proposals. Grant proposals will often be submitted several times, sometimes with minor corrections and changes to the same and different agencies and even the same grant will be re-submitted by a different researcher with more 'credentials' so the grant can go through. It isn't easy to get a grant and there is a lot of time wasted in getting grants, I would say close to 70% of a researchers time is involving paperwork (getting grants, getting audited, rewriting grants, r
turnitin (Score:2)
Are they just using a web service such as turnitin.com? I've used that for classroom assignments, and it has a rather high rate of false positives - even when factoring out direct quotes that students love to use to much to fill space.
How much self plagiarism and how much false positi (Score:3)
How much self plagiarism and how much false positives?
How about the losers? (Score:1)
I wonder what the plagiarism rate was in applications that did not receive funding.
Crowdsource it? (Score:1)
I'd love to help any way I can.
Re:So we are still supposed to believe scientists? (Score:4, Informative)
Science is NOT 'believing what they tell us at face value'. Science IS asking (and getting) evidence before accepting their conclusions (the concept of repeatability). Yes, scientists are annoyingly human and therefore bedeviled with the same positive and negative attributes as the rest of humanity.
I'm not entirely sure what your point is. You seem to be confusing journalists with scientists. There is an unfortunate tendency for the press to dig around an abstract, find some enticing sentence and tart it up well past the point where the authors would even admit to writing about it - then have it repeated in the Internet echo chamber until it's a cure for cancer, scabies and annoying foot perspiration. But that isn't what science is.
Go to a conference about something and listen to the question and answer period. That's science.
Re: (Score:3)
Scientists have been proven to be human beings after all. They can lie and cheat like the rest of us. So that begs the question. Why should we all believe what they tell us at face value rather than using our deductive reasoning to figure out whether what they say is plausible? Why shouldn't we ask for hard evidence before accepting their conclusions at face value? If they are just as fallible as anyone else then why should we believe what they say rather than judging whether what they are saying makes any sense?
Well, you don't need to take what they say at face value(if you did, we could skip the tedious 'experiments' and 'peer review' and 'writing scientific papers' and 'data' and other boring stuff). More generally, the reason we don't generally use deductive reasoning is that it's somewhere between cumbersome and useless outside of toy examples written for deductive logic exercises. Induction is kind of lame by comparison; but it has the advantage of actually providing us with information about the world...
Re: (Score:2)
Short answer: You shouldn't
Long answer: You really shouldn't listen to them when it comes to areas outside their limited domain expertise. Some climatologist (to pick a current example) might tell you something about pollution or climate change, but you shouldn't listen to him on his policy advice. He is not an expert in economics, social studies, government, bureaucracy, history...
The reality:
The public perception of *truth* remains as elusive as ever despite our ever increasing access to information. Ulti
Re: (Score:3)
So that begs the question.
*twitch*
Why shouldn't we ask for hard evidence before accepting their conclusions at face value?
Go ahead and do so, if you want - no-one's stopping you. You could even go to college, get that degree, spend 10 years out in the field and do everything else the first guy did to check that it's all true. Personally I'm happy to accept the existence of electrons and quarks on trust at this point.
If they are just as fallible as anyone else then why should we believe what they say rather than [confirming] whether what they are saying [survives further scientific scrutiny]
That's what all the other scientists in the world are for.
Re:So we are still supposed to believe scientists? (Score:5, Informative)
Individual scientists are often wrong. This is occasionally due to malfeasance, but more often it is just the state of the art. The truth is not always completely self evident and often multiple theories compete.
Science, as a human endeavor, makes progress because results are always being verified by multiple parties. Funding proposals and peer reviewed publication are only a part of the progress. The key operation is reproducible results. Other people use existing results as part of their own work. If the outcome differs from previously known work, it will be reported. This is normal and expected. Eventually there is a consensus and and the scientific community moves forward.
Bad behavior by individuals slows down the process, but it does not derail it. Resources and time are wasted, but as long as the scientific method is employed, the results are trustworthy.
Your positions is one sometimes taken by jealous members of the social sciences and humanities, particularity in academia. (This is one of my problems with Michel Foucault and postmodernism/structuralism.) They see the respect, status and money going to technical fields, so they try and reframe science as having no more validity then any other intellectual area. The existence of modern society proves this wrong, but since they reject the scientific paradigm they seem to have no trouble ignoring external facts. (Actually Foucault has a lot of value when his work is applied to culture and society, so I should not be quite so harsh.)
That's the long answer. The short answer is that you're a troll, and appear to short in mental stature and emotional maturity.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly now... You should know better than to leave a strawman near heat or open flame. That sort of behavior is a fire hazard!
Timing (Score:2)
The cases grow out of an internal examination by NSF's Office of Inspector General (IG) of every proposal that NSF funded in fiscal year 2011
It seems to me they are running the tool against things that are already funded. Wouldn't it make more sense to run the tool when recieving any proposal and then pass on the results to whoever is deciding if a proposal should be funded?
Alleged or suspected? (Score:2)
B would imply that so many allegations of plagiarism was found, rather than so many instances of possible plagiarism. I think alleged is fast becoming the most misused word in American, right next to "begs the question".
Re: (Score:2)
Alleged: adjective
Suspected: past participle
I'm going with alleged, until the multitude of allegations of instances plagiarism progresses into a confirmed, or non-confirmed state.
Of course it begs the question why one would think the correct usage might be "suspected", right?
NSF applications use a lot of boilerplate text (Score:2)
A plagiarism hit rate of only 1 to 1.5 percent is not that high, considering that many research grants are based upon the same core studies, use similar methods (e.g. "We will use a mass spectrometer with 8 plates of xxx"), and refer to prior studies in much the same way.
You call it plagiarism. I call it a good reason to retest your plagiarism software.
A more serious problem is duplication of human subjects in study designs. Many people with rare or recessive genetic problems like to volunteer for research
Re:NSF applications also should duplicate studies (Score:1)
Also, on further consideration, one of the problems with scientific research recently, is the lack of "duplicative" studies.
Seeing results from only one lab of a scientific hypothesis only proves that it deserves further study. To study it, and "prove" it, you need to replicate (duplicate) the study.
We should, in fact, see MORE studies with similar wording and language, in that they should have more than one study test the hypothesis. A study of the same condition should have a high "plagiarism" rate, since
And now for the Patent Office... (Score:2)
details matter, unclear (Score:2)
It's hard to tell from the summary or article what is going on here. I suspect a decent fraction of these may be people submitting proposals under different programs for similar or overlapping projects. Sometimes a scientific project will kind of fall between programs and people will submit more-or-less the same proposal to two different parts of the NSF, hoping for funding from one. Given the low funding rate and the great deal of uncertainty about funding (thanks, oh-so-functional Congress!) it is pre