Still wrong to be forgotten

Print Friendly
Share Button

Google (Europe) continues to give people the “right” to be forgotten.  Those whose requests are upheld become more difficult to find; Google’s European search engines no longer link to web page/s which offend or upset a complainant.

There are ways around this, some of which are detailed in my earlier post, Wrong to be forgotten.  One way is to make the complaint public.  The “Streisand effect” comes into play, by which a complainant gets more publicity for having made a complaint than was achieved by the original report, drawing attention to oneself.

Debora Weber-Wulff today announces that she too has had links removed from one of her web pages, in a post entitled Notice of removal from Google Search. Google gives no right of appeal, nor indication of who made the complaint, so Dr Weber-Wulff has kindly furnished the names of the 36 plagiarists and possible plagiarists (some of whom were cleared by their universities despite strong evidence against) who were named on the offending web page.  These 36 are amongst “50 cases of plagiarism in dissertations or habilitations” as Weber-Wulff puts it.   (The names of the remaining 14 plagiarists and possible plagiarists appear in a later post.)  It might have been any of the 36 who made the request to Google.

Her post today reminds me of a recent item in BBC News, Google removes 12 BBC News links in ‘right to be forgotten.’  The BBC’s report helpfully lists the 12 removed sites.  Ah, the oxygen of publicity (as Mrs T. might have put it).

Not a million miles from the right to be forgotten may be the “right” never to be made known.  It probably doesn’t apply to everyone, only to those with power. I am thinking in particular of a recent UK government report, Shale Gas: Rural Economy Impacts, By Redacted, Rural Community Policy Unit. Although dated March 2014, it appears to have been released only recently.   Shale gas drilling, otherwise known as fracking, is a matter of debate in UK right now.  Many are against the practice, it seems highly controversial for any number of reasons; the present government is in favour, and wants to “sell” it to the public.  Thus this discussion paper.

The paper is notable for the amount of information not made public. Much of the report has been redacted – removed from the record.

Here, for instance, is the paper (pages 10-11) telling us of “three major social impacts associated with shale gas drilling activities:

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED”

 

And here, on page 12, the last piece of discussion which leads to the paper’s concluding statements.

 

In an article on the release of the report, Fracking campaigners criticise ‘censored’ report on house prices, the Guardian noted that the heavily censored report was accompanied by a letter which said:

“There is a strong public interest in withholding the information because it is important that officials can consider implications of potential impacts and scenarios around the development of the shale gas industry and to develop options without the risk that disclosure of early thinking could close down discussion.”

Doublespeak? Unspeak?  In plain English, this seems to mean “We did not want to prejudice the discussions by giving you facts, so we have withheld some of the evidence which might help you make or reach an informed decision.”

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear (as they say)?

 

Not as I do, but…

Print Friendly
Share Button

Cory Turner has posted a piece on nprED (How learning happens) : Turnitin And The Debate Over Anti-Plagiarism Software. It hasn’t exactly gone viral, but there are at least 60 tweets and blogs which link to it, all within two days.

It is a report on a radio broadcast (a news item fronted by Turner) which is linked to from this page; also linked is a transcript of the broadcast.

First off in the broadcast, Chris Harrick, a vice-president in Turnitin’s marketing division, is explains what Turnitin is and how it works. A number of educationists then speak, some for Turnitin and some against Turnitin.

It is made clear that Turnitin does not detect plagiarism, but that it does detect matches, similarities of text. One of the problems mentioned is that Turnitin often throws up false positives, matches which would not be considered plagiarism by anyone taking the trouble to compare the student’s work against the source which allegedly matches. (No mention is made of false negatives, whereby the software fails to match material which has been copied, but that’s my aside.)

One of Turner’s interviewees, Tom Dee, said that Turnitin can be used as a hammer or as a scalpel. Some teachers hammer students, punishing them for high percentages of matches. Others use the software as a scalpel, gently helping students understand where their writing is wrong so that they learn from their mistakes.

The point is made that many students come a cropper because they do not know how to use other people’s work; their plagiarism is unintended and accidental. Tom Dee, incidentally, is co-author of a study which showed a large drop in the rate of plagiarism when students were given instruction on how to integrate other people’s work into their own and how to acknowledge that they had done this; the control group were not given this help, and their plagiarism rates were much higher.  The paper states:

The results of an ex-post survey and quiz completed by participating students suggest that the treatment was effective in large part because it increased student awareness about what constitutes plagiarism and knowledge of effective writing strategies (Dee and Jacob 2010, 3).

Yes. Isn’t that called education?  Teaching, preferably before the test…?

What is really interesting about Turner’s post is the two pie-charts which accompany the article.

One of them shows “Sources of Internet Content: Secondary Students 2011-2012.” Most of the “Internet content” comes from Homework and Academic sites (33%) and from Social Networking and Content Sharing sites (28%). Content taken from Paper Mills and Cheat Sites accounts for 18% of Internet sources used. The graphic (see bottom left) is attributed to LA Johnson/NPR.

“Attributed to” is probably the wrong term. LA Johnson is almost certainly a designer for NPR, His name (or hers) appears under graphics on many of the articles posted on this site. But LA Johnson did not come up with the data which inform the chart. The data, the percentage rates, surely come from a Turnitin White Paper, The Sources in Student Writing – Secondary Education: Sources of Matched Content and Plagiarism in Student Writing (obtainable on application to Turnitin).

LA Johnson has changed the colours and turned the pie around, but the source is the Turnitin paper?  The NPR article, however? No source given.  (There is a word for this, isn’t there?  It’s on the tip of my tongue…)

Even more puzzling is the second graphic.

This purports to show “Turnitin’s Content Matches, 2013.” It seems that 6% of matches were from publications – whatever that means (if you, reader, know, please tell me); 32% of all matches came from “The Web” (is this different to the Internet? it is in my book); and 62% came from Student Papers.

Once again, LA Johnson/NPR gets the credit for the data, the statistics. I’m not sure how or where. I cannot find these data in any document or page on the Turnitin site (but again, if you, reader, know, please tell me).  Maybe they really did originate with LA Johnson?

If these data are accurate, and who am I to say they are not, then it would seem that 38% of Turnitin’s content matches come from published sources (32% web + 6% publications), and all the rest, 62% of all content matches in 2013, was copied from papers already submitted to Turnitin and stored in the company’s collection of papers submitted by or on behalf of students.

Again, just to be clear: 62% of content matches are copied from fellow students’ papers.

It would seem – if this graph and my interpretation are accurate – that there is a huge secret network responsible for supplying student work, students copying students, collusion on a grand scale. Wow!

Actually, I find that difficult to believe. But it must be true, I found it on the Internet.

I’d feel happier though, wouldn’t you, if LA Johnson shared the source of the data?

(I have written to ask. I’ll let you know.)

Reference

Dee, T.S. and Jacob, B.A. (2010). Rational ignorance in education: A field experiment in student plagiarism. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w15672.pdf.

Copycat plagiarism

Print Friendly
Share Button

I think that history – or at least a politician’s web-site – is being rewritten even as I write. Oh dear.

The politician is an Australian senator, Glenn Lazarus. A page on the Courier-Mail website (21 August 2014) carries the headline Clive Palmer party senator Glenn Lazarus caught plagiarising Wikipedia.

Lazarus is, of course, not the first Australian politician to be caught out using Wikipedia as a source:  Greg Hunt uses Wikipedia research to dismiss links between climate change and bushfires, though in Mr Hunt’s case, there was no suggestion of plagiarism.

Just as an aside, still Greg Hunt, another news report stated

He said he had “looked up what Wikipedia” said on the subject and found it agreed with him. (Environment Minister Greg Hunt ‘looked up Wikipedia’ for climate change facts)  – perhaps a case of policy-driven evidence, as against evidence-driven policy.

Nor is Lazarus the first politician to be called out, not just for using Wikipedia, but for plagiarising from it, word for word (Senator Rand Paul Is Accused of Plagiarizing His Lines From Wikipedia).

You would think they’d learn, wouldn’t you?

(1) don’t use Wikipedia as your source and
(2) don’t plagiarise.

It is very possible that it was a staffer (or maybe a team of staffers) responsible for the page, not Lazarus himself, but

(3) that excuse doesn’t hold much water either, it’s not original:

Within the last 12 months, there’s been Tom Wolf (Wolf fires campaign staffer over plagiarism), Greg Ball, (Senator Ball Terminates Staffer Responsible for Orca Plagiarism), and not for the first time, Rand Paul: Rand Paul and Wikipedia: Plagiarism or lazy staff?

And maybe more.

Back to Australia: the Courier-Mail story includes an illustration of Lazarus’s page About Queensland, with passages identical to those in Wikipedia highlighted.

Lazarus’s site was easy enough to find, and so was the page in question, About Queensland.

And, just as the Courier-Mail story reports, Wikipedia is not mentioned, no sources are mentioned at all.

Also interesting, possibly suspicious, is that several of the tabs on this page seem not to work. The links have disappeared, nothing comes up when various of the tabs are clicked. Is the whole site coming down and being rewritten? Possibly. One page which did open for me was the page The Senate. It includes a diagram of the Australian Senate Chamber Seating Plan, for which a source is given, along with 4 paragraphs detailing the Senate and explaining where senators sit; no source is given for the text.

Curiously, Lazarus’s wording is almost identical to that on another senator’s web page on the Senate, that of Nick Xenophon, who sits as an Independent senator. Xenophon does state the source of his information. Interesting, not least because the text seems not to be a boilerplate entry on the websites of lots of other Australian senators. A Google search suggests that phrases and sentences on the sites of these two senators seem to be used just by these two – and by the Parliamentary Education Office, the source which is noted by Xenophon (but not by Lazarus).

When will they ever learn?

Update / Postscript

I started writing this a week ago, but did not post it. Another politician, even another Australian politician…. It just seemed all too trivial to post, all too commonplace

But the Courier-Mail posted an update to the Lazarus story on 25 August 2014, Clive Palmer party senator Glenn Lazarus addresses Wikipedia plagiarism.

This latest piece quotes Lazarus, and reports:

“We don’t have the big party Liberal and Labor do to organise things and set things up for us,” he said.
“I just thought that Wikipedia was a very good resource … if that’s a real crime, then I’m guilty.”
He said he believed it was a “non-issue” as he had credited the site …

It’s that “I couldn’t put it any better myself (so I just took it)” excuse, isn’t it?

But the suggestion that he “had credited the site” set me taking a second look…  Nope, no credit to Wikipedia, no acknowledgement, certainly not on the About Queensland page. Perhaps somewhere else, like, in his dreams?

But that first reported statement, “We don’t have the big party Liberal and Labor do to organise things and set things up for us.”  I may have done Senator Lazarus an injustice. If the party is that small, perhaps it wasn’t a staffer who is/was to blame. Perhaps it was Lazarus himself. I didn’t credit the right person with the plagiarism. My apologies, Senator.

And a second apology is needed. I don’t think the site is coming down at all. Sorry, I was unduly suspicious. The site remains as it was a week ago, with links which don’t go anywhere, links to the wrong page, missing links. This isn’t an attempt to rewrite the record, it’s just a poorly-designed website. Oh dear, I’ve just taken a look in Safari, banners but no text on the pages (except in Reader view). (Where there is still no mention of Wikipedia.) I think I’ll stick to Firefox. What a sorry mess.

So, a third apology, Senator. I got you wrong. Maybe you are blogworthy after all?

How much plagiarism? (revisited)

Print Friendly
Share Button

The Bangalore Mirror today publishes a report:  Ctrl-C-Ctrl-V, but only up to 25%, VTU tells its PhD students, with the sub-heading

After installing new anti-plagiarism software to sniff out borrowed material, the technology varsity has realistically left some room for ‘permissible lifting’.”

It seems that students have been turning in their PhD theses with more than 50% “borrowed” material.

A VTU official said the new plagiarism software aims to inculcate in students respect for academic integrity and discipline, even as it identifies acts of dishonesty.

To restore credibility to the University’s degrees, and (as stated in the article) “to inculcate in students respect for academic integrity and discipline, even as it identifies acts of dishonesty,” the amount of allowable plagiarism is to be capped at 25%:

VTU has now fixed the acceptable level of plagiarism at 25 per cent. But this comes with a caveat — even a 0.5 per cent variation from the ‘permissible level’, will lead to rejection of the thesis.

Be warned, students.

Some may think that 25% is generous (or is “disingenuous’ the word I am looking for?), but the University Vice-Chancellor is reported as suggesting that this is in fact very strict:

(VTU vice-chancellor ) Maheshappa said, “It is a known fact that most new theses being submitted are coming up short on uniqueness. In fact, worldwide, universities are reconciled to accepting up to 30 per cent of similarity with published material. We, however, have taken a tough view by putting a cap of 25 per cent,” he said.

It’s a pity that Dr Maheshappa did not name his sources for this pronouncement. There may be a … misunderstanding somewhere?

There is a complicated procedure for submission and for resubmission of theses. In the first stage, students submit their theses to the software, and are are permitted to edit their work to get below 25%.  Once the student signs off on the work, theses are subject to two more checks, and decision made as to the work’s authenticity acceptability.

A little investigation at the university’s website soon found what is surely confirmation of the new procedures: a document with the heading “Objectives of Anti-Plagiarism” states on the very first page

Permitted Similarity index <= 25%

Can’t argue with that.

This document also suggests that the software being used is Turnitin; there is an illustration of a Turnitin originality report.

One wonders – or at least I wonder – what education and training students and faculty are being given in the use of the software and the reports.

 

Not so new news

Print Friendly
Share Button

There’s an interesting article by Denny Carter in eCampus News, July 14, 2014.

Headed The top 10 ways college students plagiarize, it reports on a Turnitin study which reveals, that’s right, the top 10 ways college students plagiarize.

 

 

According to the article, Turnitin’s study was released “this month,” and there is a link to the Turnitin White Paper The Plagiarism Spectrum: Instructor Insights into the 10 Types of Plagiarism.

Carter also mentions (on page 2 of the article) “research conducted at Continue reading

’tis the season of the year…

Print Friendly
Share Button

It seems that every year, there’s at least one high school principal who at best can’t be bothered to check that s/he is using the latest draft of the graduation speech, and at worst can’t be bothered to write an original speech and thinks nobody will notice if s/he recycles an old speech, even if somebody else’s.

Either way, such attitudes might be thought to show great contempt for the graduating class.  It might be your great day, they seem to say.  I’ve got other things to think about…

This year seems to have set new records.  There have been at least three Continue reading

Wrong to be forgotten?

Print Friendly
Share Button

The ECJ ruling that individuals be allowed to request that search engines remove links to web pages which mention them, the so-called “right to be forgotten,” has come in for a lot of support and a lot of criticism. It raises a lot of questions as to whether the law is enforceable.

Some of the biggest criticisms raise notions of censorship and attempts to change history and the historical record. One of my biggest concerns is that the search engine company is judge and jury, and the “defendant” – the person or organisation behind the “offending” page – is not informed of the request unless and until the request to remove Continue reading

Aware – but of what?

Print Friendly
Share Button

The online Times of India (30 June 2014) carries an item by Somdatta Basu, IIM cuts out copy-paste, which describes how the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta (IIM-C) seems successfully to be reducing the number of plagiarised papers submitted for assessment.

The Institute has been using Turnitin for more than a year. In the article, one IIM-C professor is quoted as saying:

“It has had the desired effect. If a professor finds that a work is not an original one, then there are penal provisions in accordance with the institute’s policy on plagiarism.”

“Penal” might not be Continue reading

Small drastic increase

Print Friendly
Share Button

Cheating on the rise at Massey shouted the Manawatu Standard on 18 June 2014, in a story written by Lucy Townend and featured on Stuff.co.nz.

‘Support cheating students’ shouted the Manawatu Standard on 20 June 2014, in a story written by Lucy Townend and featured on Stuff.co.nz.  This story is much the same as her earlier piece, with the addition of an interview with the President of the Massey University Students’ Association.

Cheating students ‘need more support’ shouted The Dominion Post on 21 June 2014, in an unsigned story based on and possibly written by Lucy Townend, featured on Stuff.co.nz.  [If this is not Townend's story, there may be problems here. It is basically an edited and shorter version of her second story, mostly using the exact-same words of that story.]

The story itself: despite those headlines, it is not all bad news. Continue reading

Not plagiarism – again

Print Friendly
Share Button

In my last post, I wondered “how do you plagiarize on a standardized test?

The answer to that question depends on your definition of plagiarism. Or, in that particular case, on how the Louisiana Department of Education defines “plagiarism.” It seems that, to that august body, plagiarism includes taking unauthorised materials into an examination, or the teacher giving unauthorisded direction to the students. Not plagiarism as we know it (Jim).

Now I have another answer. In Oklahoma, one of the CTB/McGraw-Hill state-wide Grade 5 writing tests asks students to read a passage and respond to open-ended questions using evidence in the passage.

When the results were published, the children’s teachers were concerned on at least two counts. The first was Continue reading

Its ugly head

Print Friendly
Share Button

Once again the specter of plagiarism is sighted, broadcast in shock-horror headlines:

Plagiarism on standardized tests three times higher in New Orleans schools than rest of Louisiana (The Lens, May 21, 2014).

As you read the story, you will find some good news, it’s not all bad. The number of tests voided for suspicious erasures fell between 2012 and 2013 across the State. In New Orleans, the number of tests voided for suspicious erasures was zero in 2013, according to The Lens’ report. Cause for celebration.

But the percentage of plagiarized standardized tests in New Orleans 2013 was three times higher than the rest of the State.  That is worrying.

It is worrying for two reasons. Continue reading

Growing problems

Print Friendly
Share Button

(mis-) Use of statistical data is growing problem

The headline actually reads Plagiarism is growing problem, teachers believe.

And it’s the first line of the story which really grabs the attention:

NINE out of 10 teachers believe their pupils copy, a survey has found.

Isn’t that depressing, masses of suspicion? Nine teachers out of ten mistrust their students?

A few lines on, the claim is repeated, with a further alarming note:

More than 92% of teachers said they think their students plagiarise, and almost a third believe it is on the increase. Continue reading

Bitter-tweet

Print Friendly
Share Button

Last night I sat through two webcasts promoted as part of Plagiarism Education Week, promoted and hosted by Turnitin. One of the two webcasts was, I thought, spot-on, encouraging, helpful. The other was … disappointing.

In Tweets from the French Revolution? Using What Students Know to Promote Original Work and Critical Thinking, one of the speakers described a research study he had conducted.  For the first part of the study, 20 adult English learners were given an assignment : write an essay on a historical event or figure. After they had written their essays, the adults were asked two questions: (1) had they found the assignment difficult? and (2) had the assignment helped develop their critical thinking skills?

Most declared they had found the assignment easy, and most said that it had not required critical thinking.  Meanwhile, a check revealed that every single student had plagiarized. Let’s make that Continue reading

A Matter of Definition

Print Friendly
Share Button

In my last post, I admitted to uncertainty with regard to Jane Goodall’s unattributed use of other people’s words and thoughts: is it fair to call this plagiarism, when the faulty passages were discovered and corrections made before the book was actually published?

The situation is more complicated in that Goodall’s poor note-making and attribution practices were uncovered by a reviewer for a national newspaper, not by Goodall, not by her co-author, not by her publishers. It is the fact of pre-publication that gives me pause. It doesn’t help, though it might, if we were told if the reviewer was reading a galley proof or a pre-publication copy, or if it was the final printed hardback that he was reading. The revelation was made 4 months before the expected publication date, so it may well have been a review/proof copy.

I am inclined to think that would make a difference.  I think of schools in which Continue reading

Thinking thoughts

Print Friendly
Share Button

Today’s GuardianOnline includes a possibly misleading article.  Today is 1 April*, and the article is headed :

 

Jane Goodall blames ‘chaotic note taking’ for plagiarism controversy
Scientist revises her book Seeds of Hope after allegations 12 sections were lifted from other websites

 

My first thought was of the date, April Fools’ Day.

My second thought was, “Not again?” – for I recalled that Goodall had been involved in a plagiarism controversy last year.

My third thought was the date again…

It was not an April Fools’ joke. But Continue reading

By any other name…

Print Friendly
Share Button

An interesting way of putting it : “extensive text overlap.”

The full Retraction reads,

This article [1] has been retracted by the author due to extensive text overlap with a previous publication by Roberts et al. [2]. The author apologises for any inconvenience caused.

The offending paper, now retracted, is “Infantile colic, facts and fiction” by Abdelmoneim E.M. Kheir. It was published in the Italian Journal of Pediatrics (IPJ) in 2012. There is a note on the page that this paper is “Highly accessed.”

The text overlap which has been identified is with Continue reading

Exceptions

Print Friendly
Share Button

The general rules are clear: “if it’s not yours, you cite it” and “if you’re not sure whether or not to cite it, cite it.”

Most, but not all, documentation style guides include the rule, “if you cite it in the text, then you must reference it (usually at the end of the article, paper, chapter, book), and if you have a reference (at the end), then you need a citation in the text.” Put simply:

citation <> reference <> citation

There are exceptions to every rule, and documentation is no exception Continue reading

More misleading headlines

Print Friendly
Share Button

It’s a good-news-bad-news situation. Taking the same government statement, the UK tabloids Daily Express and the Daily Mirror have two very different takes on the same story:

(Screengrabs taken from BBC News : The Papers, 3 February 2014)

 

 

The Daily Express story concentrates on government plans to raise the basic rate of pensions year on year over the next six years.  The Daily Mirror story features the current benefits and perks that pensioners enjoy which they will lose in order to pay for the promised increase in basic pensions.   Whether pensioners will be better off or not over time is not clear, and may depend on how long they live, on whether pensions continue to rise in line with inflation or the cost of living after the six years of guaranteed rises, and many other factors. On these bare stories alone, it pays to keep an open mind, and to seek further, dig deeper. Continue reading

Studies in Statistics 2

Print Friendly
Share Button

(This post leads on from the last blog post, Studies in Statistics.)

Headlines can be so misleading.

Hundreds cheating on University of Wolverhampton courses, shouts the Express & Star. The subhead tells us more: Hundreds of students have been caught passing off other people’s work as their own.

It’s a shock-horror headline for sure.

The story, as so often, may be a little less dramatic than the headline suggests Continue reading

Studies in statistics

Print Friendly
Share Button

Following last year’s publication of Turnitin Effectiveness: Plagiarism Prevention in U.S. High Schools, Turnitin has recently published a follow-up research study, Turnitin Effectiveness in U.S. Colleges and Universities.

Similar to the earlier study, the college and university study purports to demonstrate that, although schools and colleges which qualified for the study often experience an increase in the rate of “unoriginal content” in the first year of Turnitin use, most schools and colleges experience a decrease in the rate of unoriginal content in the second year of use, and, on average, all schools experience decreases in the third and subsequent years.

Unlike the earlier study, Turnitin does not use unfounded assumptions of increase in rates of use of unoriginal content in schools which do not use Turnitin in an attempt to demonstrate how effective use of Turnitin can be (see Imagine… (another flawed study)).

However, just as in the earlier study, Turnitin only considers papers Continue reading

Remember the coffee study?

Print Friendly
Share Button

(Spoiler alert: I succumbed!)

You surely remember the coffee study? I posted it only last week, Memories are made of this…

Okay, the study was actually on the effects of caffeine on the memory; Michael Yassa and associates were looking at how a dose of caffeine taken after a learning experience affected memory (even if the volunteer participants were not aware that they would be tested the following day on what they had remembered seeing during the “learning” experience).

My post was not about Yassa’s study itself; it was about the number of differences in press reports of the study: reports disagreed as to the number of volunteers Continue reading

Memories are made of…

Print Friendly
Share Button

The headlines say it all:

Coffee boosts memory retention, study says (CBC.ca)
Coffee a memory enhancing drug, say boffins (Register)
Coffee boosts long-term memory (Financial Times)
Study: coffee enhances long-term memory retention (Wired.co.uk)
Caffeine pill ‘could boost memory’ (BBC News)
Researchers Find Coffee Enhances Memory, Good News for Seniors (SeniorJournal.com)
Caffeine has positive effect on memory, Johns Hopkins researchers … (The Hub at Johns Hopkins)
One or Two Cups of Coffee Improves Short-Term Memory, Study (University Herald)
Daily Coffee might Help Memory (Onlymyhealth)
Drink two espressos to enhance long-term memory (New Scientist)
Scientists reveal caffeine provides huge boost to your short-term memory (Mirror.co.uk)

This is a selection of headlines found in a Google Search for [coffee memory] on 13 January.  It looks like good news, strong news, positive news, doesn’t it?

Though, a moment’s careful looking might suggest a discrepancy or two… Continue reading

Texas sharp-shooting?

Print Friendly
Share Button

Congratulations, Ben Goldacre!  Damning Report From The Public Accounts Committee On Clinical Trial Results Being Withheld tells it all.

On 3 January, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons issued a report which expressed concern at the fact that pharmaceutical companies tend to publish results of clinical trials which make them look good, but withhold publication of trials in which the results are less favourable. This affects doctors’ knowledge and perceptions Continue reading

A second look at SEER

Print Friendly
Share Button

Last week, a friend asked if I had come across a source evaluation tool which interacted with Turnitin’s text-matching software.  Attached to the email was a copy of Turnitin’s Source Educational Evaluation Rubric (SEER).

That was news to me!   Interactive with Turnitin?  Trying to work out why my friend thought SEER was interactive, and with Turnitin, took me down some strange paths. And the search got me taking a second look at SEER, a second look and a closer look. A strange journey.

I had in fact been alerted to the release of the rubric back in January 2013, Continue reading

Back to basics (2)

Print Friendly
Share Button

As if hot on the heels of my last post, Adam Dachis has posted the advice Use a Plagiarism Checker to Get References for a Research Paper on LifeHacker.

He lists a number of free “plagiarism-checkers,” including Plagiarisma (critiqued in Authentic Authenticity).

Dachis is aware that few “plagiarism-checkers” discover all “borrowed” material, so he advises

Your mileage may vary with the different tools, so you probably should run your paper through a few of them to get all your sources. Continue reading