Commonmark migration

Source Link

edited Jun 10, 2020 at 14:12

1

of ideas / scientific plagiarism (fully solved by a citation of the original work). Buffy's answers here and on a followup question have some good insight into why this is such a big deal (e.g. for future scholars wanting to know the scientific context in which something was written).
of ideas / scientific plagiarism (fully solved by a citation of the original work). Buffy's answers here and on a followup question have some good insight into why this is such a big deal (e.g. for future scholars wanting to know the scientific context in which something was written).
of the wording. Taking credit for the wording doesn't hurt the scientific value of the work (and thus is less serious), but still makes the author look like a more skilled wordsmith than they are. (Unless they do it badly/clumsily; see @Ben's answer on the followup.)
of the wording. Taking credit for the wording doesn't hurt the scientific value of the work (and thus is less serious), but still makes the author look like a more skilled wordsmith than they are. (Unless they do it badly/clumsily; see @Ben's answer on the followup.)

Aside from plagiarism (taking false credit), this also violates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights of the creator, specifically the right of attribution of your wording. Some countries give legal weight to the moral rights of the creator beyond just the usual fixed-term / dollar-value copyright. (And if the work was published, could also be traditional economic copyright infringement)

Aside from plagiarism (taking false credit), this also violates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights of the creator, specifically the right of attribution of your wording. Some countries give legal weight to the moral rights of the creator beyond just the usual fixed-term / dollar-value copyright. (And if the work was published, could also be traditional economic copyright infringement)

of ideas / scientific plagiarism (fully solved by a citation of the original work). Buffy's answers here and on a followup question have some good insight into why this is such a big deal (e.g. for future scholars wanting to know the scientific context in which something was written).
of the wording. Taking credit for the wording doesn't hurt the scientific value of the work (and thus is less serious), but still makes the author look like a more skilled wordsmith than they are. (Unless they do it badly/clumsily; see @Ben's answer on the followup.)

Aside from plagiarism (taking false credit), this also violates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights of the creator, specifically the right of attribution of your wording. Some countries give legal weight to the moral rights of the creator beyond just the usual fixed-term / dollar-value copyright. (And if the work was published, could also be traditional economic copyright infringement)

of ideas / scientific plagiarism (fully solved by a citation of the original work). Buffy's answers here and on a followup question have some good insight into why this is such a big deal (e.g. for future scholars wanting to know the scientific context in which something was written).
of the wording. Taking credit for the wording doesn't hurt the scientific value of the work (and thus is less serious), but still makes the author look like a more skilled wordsmith than they are. (Unless they do it badly/clumsily; see @Ben's answer on the followup.)

Aside from plagiarism (taking false credit), this also violates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights of the creator, specifically the right of attribution of your wording. Some countries give legal weight to the moral rights of the creator beyond just the usual fixed-term / dollar-value copyright. (And if the work was published, could also be traditional economic copyright infringement)

added 455 characters in body

Source Link

edited Feb 8, 2019 at 17:30

Peter Cordes

180
2
9

of ideas / scientific plagiarismof ideas / scientific plagiarism (fully solved by a citation of the original work). Buffy's answers here and on a followup question have some good insight into why this is such a big deal (e.g. for future scholars wanting to know the scientific context in which something was written).
of the wordingof the wording. Taking credit for the wording doesn't hurt the scientific value of the work (and thus is less serious), but still makes the author look like a more skilled wordsmith than they are. (Unless they do it badly/clumsily; see @Ben's answer on the followup.)

Perhaps you didn't get anywhere when contacting people if they weren't clear you were not talking about "scientific plagiarism" (lack of citation), which is the much more serious issue that would definitely warrant contacting people up to and including the head of the university.

In hindsight you might have had better luck if you could start fresh after reading these answers, but at this point I think the ship has sailed on getting the passages actually quoted, or more fully rewritten (at least as an erratum). Or at least an apology, which might have been all that was feasible given the restrictions on (not) modifying university archives after the fact, even to fix errors.

added 455 characters in body

Source Link

edited Feb 8, 2019 at 17:21

Peter Cordes

180
2
9

of ideas / scientific plagiarism (fully solved by a citation of the original work). Buffy's answers here and on a followup question have some good insight into why this is such a big deal (e.g. for future scholars wanting to know the scientific context in which something was written).
of the wording. This is still separate from economic copyright infringement, but is also tied up with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights of Taking credit for the creator. Some countries give legal weight towording doesn't hurt the moral rightsscientific value of the creator beyond just the usual fixed-term dollar-value copyrightwork.

Aside from plagiarism (taking false credit), this also violates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights of the creator, specifically the right of attribution of your wording. Some countries give legal weight to the moral rights of the creator beyond just the usual fixed-term / dollar-value copyright. (And if the work was published, could also be traditional economic copyright infringement)

The student has violated your moral right of attribution for your wording of the explanation. This is probably a large part of what's bothering you so much, not (just) the plagiarism.

(I wrote the rest of this answer before looking into moral rights) as something separate from copyright and plagiarism.)

of ideas / scientific plagiarism (fully solved by a citation of the original work). Buffy's answers here and on a followup question have some good insight into why this is such a big deal (e.g. for future scholars wanting to know the scientific context in which something was written).
of the wording. This is still separate from economic copyright infringement, but is also tied up with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights of the creator. Some countries give legal weight to the moral rights of the creator beyond just the usual fixed-term dollar-value copyright.

(I wrote the rest of this answer before looking into moral rights).

of ideas / scientific plagiarism (fully solved by a citation of the original work). Buffy's answers here and on a followup question have some good insight into why this is such a big deal (e.g. for future scholars wanting to know the scientific context in which something was written).
of the wording. Taking credit for the wording doesn't hurt the scientific value of the work.

Aside from plagiarism (taking false credit), this also violates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights of the creator, specifically the right of attribution of your wording. Some countries give legal weight to the moral rights of the creator beyond just the usual fixed-term / dollar-value copyright. (And if the work was published, could also be traditional economic copyright infringement)

The student has violated your moral right of attribution for your wording of the explanation. This is probably a large part of what's bothering you so much, not (just) the plagiarism.

(I wrote the rest of this answer before looking into moral rights as something separate from copyright and plagiarism.)

Moral rights are a thing

Source Link

edited Feb 8, 2019 at 14:47

Peter Cordes

180
2
9

Loading

Source Link

created Feb 7, 2019 at 12:51

Peter Cordes

180
2
9

Loading

Stack Exchange Network

Return to Answer

The student has violated your moral right of attribution for your wording of the explanation. This is probably a large part of what's bothering you so much, not (just) the plagiarism.

The student has violated your moral right of attribution for your wording of the explanation. This is probably a large part of what's bothering you so much, not (just) the plagiarism.