Plagiarism in science text, not just journals?
|February 27, 2016||Posted by News under News, Peer review|
From David Morrison at Phylonetworks:
Some of you may have noticed the recent publication of the following book: Dan Graur (2016) Molecular and Genome Evolution. Sinauer Associates.
Chapter 6 is of interest to the readers of this blog, being entitled “Reticulate evolution and phylogenetic networks”. Unfortunately, as originally published, not all of the figures in that chapter acknowledge the source of the illustration. Of personal interest to me, Figure 6.4 [which can be viewed here] is a direct copy of the first part of my Primer of Phylogenetic Networks. Needless to say, Graur’s figure prominently claims to be the copyright of the publisher rather than myself.
Neither the author not the publisher has provided a satisfactory explanation, and have made it clear that nothing will be done to rectify this except in some possible future edition of the book. More.
Hmmm. Maybe, with enough publicity, a public explanation will be forthcoming…
Say what you want about the internet, it’s no friend to plagiarism (contrary to its rep as a garbage dump for ideas)
Now, the name Dan Graur rings a bell, the foe of ENCODE, the system that found function for junk DNA:
Graur: If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong
Breaking: Junk DNA IS now “rubbish” DNA
Rob Sheldon tries to help Darwin follower get over ENCODE findings
Graur goes after bad social psych paper
See also: Academic drivel is alive, and you fund it: Author: I tried, as best I could … to write something that had many big words but which made no sense whatsoever. (And he was a hit.)
More on why reams of bad science gets published, despite good intentions
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista