The record shows that many Ohio University professors are willing to approve theses and dissertations containing plagiarism. However, we also know that authors who had their work stolen may choose to hold cheating students accountable. For example, plagiarizing cost Elisabeth Nixon at least $10,000.
But what about the organizations that publish and sell works containing plagiarism? For example, Proquest offers for sale an OU dissertation for up to $75.00 even though the dissertation contains pages of plagiarized material. You can see some of the plagiarism here. You can see one of the original sources here and the other source here. I even have an email from one of the true authors confirming that his work was stolen. He wrote to me in July 2009: "I went over the section 1.6 Vascular aging part of the dissertation ( page 36-37), and found that the entire section was copied verbatim right out of our paper." He also wrote: "I strongly feel that plagiarism in any form should not be allowed in academia, and that appropriate actions should be taken by the school as well as the faculty as a whole."
It's been well over a year since evidence of plagiarism in the OU dissertation has been exposed; yet, it is still offered for sale. Can Proquest be sued for copyright infringement?
Friday, February 18, 2011
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Who Pays for Ohio University's Stupidity?
Who will pay damages and legal fees to Dr. Gunasekera now that he has won his federal case against OU, Dean Irwin and Provost Krendl?
I was reading through some of the court documents for Dr. Gunasekera's federal lawsuit against Ohio University, Dean Irwin, and Provost Krendl. Last fall Dr. Gunasekera asked for OU to pay his attorney fees since he successfully proved that OU should have given him a name clearing hearing.
I don't know the exact amount OU will ultimately have to pay but Dr. Gunasekera told the court since June 2006 he has "spent over $130,000 in legal fees and costs in litigating my cases against Ohio University, Dean Irwin, and former Provost Krendl." And it's not over yet; the jury trial to determine damages starts on April 25, 2011. Also, we don't know how much OU and the Attorney General has spent in unsuccessfully defending themselves.
So I ask, who pays for OU's costly blunders? I doubt if it comes out of Dean Irwin's or Provost Krendl's pockets. Do students pay? Does the money come out of donations? Do taxpayers pay? I think it is important for everyone to know especially when OU is having so many financial difficulties.
I can't help but notice the irony in the fact that Dean Irwin wound up in court on the losing end; when back at the very beginning of this whole thing (summer 2004) he was so arrogant that he threatened me with court action when I offered information about plagiarism. I should also point out how quick he snapped me with his threat; it was almost as though it was a regular occurrence for him.
John Burns, OU's former Director of Legal Affairs, was right when he wrote in reference to my ordeal: "Ohio University's academic administration and those then serving as media relations personnel did not handle these "accusations" well, mostly by issuing denials and criticizing the graduate student, which of course caused further problems later." You can read John Burns' report here:
http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/teaching-and-learning-center/academic-technology/upload/Academic-Misconduct-Policy.pdf
Unfortunately, John Burns left out that I was threatened and retaliated against (when Jerrel Mitchell failed to process my application for the PhD program). Also, please note that John Burns was wrong when he wrote that I contacted "former graduate students accusing them of plagiarism in their master's theses and dissertations." That is 100% untrue and I have no idea why he thinks that I contacted and accused students. He is right about the others I contacted, and I will add that I contacted authors who had their work stolen; but, I challenge anyone to show me evidence that I accused former students directly.
I was reading through some of the court documents for Dr. Gunasekera's federal lawsuit against Ohio University, Dean Irwin, and Provost Krendl. Last fall Dr. Gunasekera asked for OU to pay his attorney fees since he successfully proved that OU should have given him a name clearing hearing.
I don't know the exact amount OU will ultimately have to pay but Dr. Gunasekera told the court since June 2006 he has "spent over $130,000 in legal fees and costs in litigating my cases against Ohio University, Dean Irwin, and former Provost Krendl." And it's not over yet; the jury trial to determine damages starts on April 25, 2011. Also, we don't know how much OU and the Attorney General has spent in unsuccessfully defending themselves.
So I ask, who pays for OU's costly blunders? I doubt if it comes out of Dean Irwin's or Provost Krendl's pockets. Do students pay? Does the money come out of donations? Do taxpayers pay? I think it is important for everyone to know especially when OU is having so many financial difficulties.
I can't help but notice the irony in the fact that Dean Irwin wound up in court on the losing end; when back at the very beginning of this whole thing (summer 2004) he was so arrogant that he threatened me with court action when I offered information about plagiarism. I should also point out how quick he snapped me with his threat; it was almost as though it was a regular occurrence for him.
John Burns, OU's former Director of Legal Affairs, was right when he wrote in reference to my ordeal: "Ohio University's academic administration and those then serving as media relations personnel did not handle these "accusations" well, mostly by issuing denials and criticizing the graduate student, which of course caused further problems later." You can read John Burns' report here:
http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/teaching-and-learning-center/academic-technology/upload/Academic-Misconduct-Policy.pdf
Unfortunately, John Burns left out that I was threatened and retaliated against (when Jerrel Mitchell failed to process my application for the PhD program). Also, please note that John Burns was wrong when he wrote that I contacted "former graduate students accusing them of plagiarism in their master's theses and dissertations." That is 100% untrue and I have no idea why he thinks that I contacted and accused students. He is right about the others I contacted, and I will add that I contacted authors who had their work stolen; but, I challenge anyone to show me evidence that I accused former students directly.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Student Plagiarist Ordered to Pay $15,000 for Copyright Infringement
Last summer I wrote a couple blog posts about a graduate of The Ohio State University whose PhD was revoked after the discovery of plagiarism in her dissertation. (Click here to read the first blog and click here to go to second one). In addition to being asked to give her diploma back, she was sued for copyright infringement by the author whose work she stole. The lawsuit was settled, and last December, a judge ordered the plagiarist to pay $15,000 to the plaintiff.
The case is Montana C. Miller v. Elisabeth Nixon, Case No. : 2:10-cv-0759 In the United States District Court Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division.
It will be interesting to see if any copyright infringement lawsuits are filed against OU graduates. I wonder if OU personnel could be named as defendants since many professors have pronounced their belief that copying in the introduction or literature review is no big deal.
The following was added on Feb 6, 2011:
Yesterday, the Columbus Dispatch published an article about the lawsuit.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Rewrite Plagiarism
The Columbus Dispatch ran an article today about the case of plagiarism at Ohio State University where they revoked a doctoral degree. The article mentions my efforts to convince Ohio University leaders to act on evidence of plagiarism in a rewritten thesis. The purpose of this blog post is to summarize in one place the evidence of plagiarism as well as the letters I have written to OU officials about it.
In September 2007, Ohio University republished a supposedly rewritten thesis by Amit Adlakha. When I read the rewrite, I immediately noticed that in spite of deleting almost all of chapter 3, the student still submitted pages of plagiarized material. I know it is plagiarized because the same text was published over 15 years earlier in another Ohio University thesis.
I strongly suspect that both students copied from a software user's manual, but I have not been able to find it. Regardless, there can be absolutely no doubt that Amit Adlakha's rewrite contains plagiarism.
When I first noticed the plagiarism, I immediately emailed OU's former director of legal affairs, John Burns. A few months later, Kathy Lynn Gray from The Columbus Dispatch questioned Dean Irwin about plagiarism in a rewrite. He told her that the thesis would be "re-examined." In April 2009, I wrote to President McDavis asking him to hold accountable the professors who approved the rewrite with plagiarism. In spite of the concrete evidence of plagiarism, my allegations were dismissed without explanation. In January 2010, I wrote to Ohio University Executive Vice President and Provost Dr. Pam Benoit, and I provided again the concrete evidence of plagiarism in the rewrite. Once again, they dismissed the evidence. Then, I emailed Ohio University General Counsel, John Biancamano, asking for an explanation of why they accept plagiarism in Amit Adlakha's rewrite. He refused to answer my simple question.
Dean Dennis Irwin has publicly announced numerous times that thesis submissions must be accompanied by a signed statement of originality and they must be scanned for plagiarism. The Russ College website also states, "The Russ College does not tolerate plagiarism in any form." However, to this day, a rewrite containing plagiarism remains cataloged and available to the public.
Dennis Irwin and the other Ohio University leaders are liars.
In September 2007, Ohio University republished a supposedly rewritten thesis by Amit Adlakha. When I read the rewrite, I immediately noticed that in spite of deleting almost all of chapter 3, the student still submitted pages of plagiarized material. I know it is plagiarized because the same text was published over 15 years earlier in another Ohio University thesis.
I strongly suspect that both students copied from a software user's manual, but I have not been able to find it. Regardless, there can be absolutely no doubt that Amit Adlakha's rewrite contains plagiarism.
When I first noticed the plagiarism, I immediately emailed OU's former director of legal affairs, John Burns. A few months later, Kathy Lynn Gray from The Columbus Dispatch questioned Dean Irwin about plagiarism in a rewrite. He told her that the thesis would be "re-examined." In April 2009, I wrote to President McDavis asking him to hold accountable the professors who approved the rewrite with plagiarism. In spite of the concrete evidence of plagiarism, my allegations were dismissed without explanation. In January 2010, I wrote to Ohio University Executive Vice President and Provost Dr. Pam Benoit, and I provided again the concrete evidence of plagiarism in the rewrite. Once again, they dismissed the evidence. Then, I emailed Ohio University General Counsel, John Biancamano, asking for an explanation of why they accept plagiarism in Amit Adlakha's rewrite. He refused to answer my simple question.
Dean Dennis Irwin has publicly announced numerous times that thesis submissions must be accompanied by a signed statement of originality and they must be scanned for plagiarism. The Russ College website also states, "The Russ College does not tolerate plagiarism in any form." However, to this day, a rewrite containing plagiarism remains cataloged and available to the public.
Dennis Irwin and the other Ohio University leaders are liars.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Ohio State University Revokes PhD
Last week I came across a very interesting article which states that Ohio State University (OSU)revoked the doctoral degree from a graduate because she plagiarized in her doctoral dissertation. You can read the Courthouse News Service article here. At the bottom of the article, you can click on the icon to see the complaint of copyright infringement filed against the student in U.S. District Court.
We already know that Ohio University's (OU's) record of dealing with plagiarism is riddled with blunders, inconsistencies, and lies; so, I think it is very interesting to note the disparity of how OSU dealt with their plagiarism case compared to OU's actions over the past 6 years.
Basically, OU handled their plagiarism problems by choosing one student and two professors to scapegoat. The rest of OU's cheating students (38 according to the last count provided by OU Counsel, John Biancamano) were allowed to keep their degrees. As I reported in previous posts, OU even allowed at least one student to republish a thesis that still contains pages of blatant verbatim plagiarism; and for almost three years now, they have refused to hold accountable the student and the professors who approved the rewrite that contains plagiarism.
On the other hand, once the OSU Committee on Academic Misconduct found that the student violated the OSU Code of Student Conduct, it appears that they never considered offering the guilty student a chance to rewrite her dissertation. In fact, OSU dealt with their guilty student very harshly. One of the sanctions was to authorize the student's dissertation committee "to retroactively invalidate the approval form approving the written portion of Ms. Nixon's doctoral examination." Another sanction was to "direct Ms. Nixon to promptly return her doctoral diploma to the University Registrar."
Ohio University leaders need to learn from OSU's example, and they need to stop polluting our higher education system with unqualified professors who fraudulently obtained their teaching positions.
We already know that Ohio University's (OU's) record of dealing with plagiarism is riddled with blunders, inconsistencies, and lies; so, I think it is very interesting to note the disparity of how OSU dealt with their plagiarism case compared to OU's actions over the past 6 years.
Basically, OU handled their plagiarism problems by choosing one student and two professors to scapegoat. The rest of OU's cheating students (38 according to the last count provided by OU Counsel, John Biancamano) were allowed to keep their degrees. As I reported in previous posts, OU even allowed at least one student to republish a thesis that still contains pages of blatant verbatim plagiarism; and for almost three years now, they have refused to hold accountable the student and the professors who approved the rewrite that contains plagiarism.
On the other hand, once the OSU Committee on Academic Misconduct found that the student violated the OSU Code of Student Conduct, it appears that they never considered offering the guilty student a chance to rewrite her dissertation. In fact, OSU dealt with their guilty student very harshly. One of the sanctions was to authorize the student's dissertation committee "to retroactively invalidate the approval form approving the written portion of Ms. Nixon's doctoral examination." Another sanction was to "direct Ms. Nixon to promptly return her doctoral diploma to the University Registrar."
Ohio University leaders need to learn from OSU's example, and they need to stop polluting our higher education system with unqualified professors who fraudulently obtained their teaching positions.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Electrical Engineering Plagiarism
A few weeks ago an Ohio University graduate student asked me to provide more details of plagiarism in Ohio University Electrical Engineering theses.
In response to that request, I scanned in a few email plagiarism reports that I sent to Ohio University legal affairs.
You can download my emails here, here, and here. I am not very proficient with Adobe, so I was unable to make the font larger, but you should be able to zoom in to make it easier to read the emails.
I think the reports speak for themselves. There can be no doubt that the members of the thesis committees who approved these theses condone plagiarism, and they are in blatant violation of Ohio University's Professional Ethics requirements. While reading the plagiarized text in my reports, please ask yourself, does this sound like the work of an Ohio University graduate student?
In response to that request, I scanned in a few email plagiarism reports that I sent to Ohio University legal affairs.
You can download my emails here, here, and here. I am not very proficient with Adobe, so I was unable to make the font larger, but you should be able to zoom in to make it easier to read the emails.
I think the reports speak for themselves. There can be no doubt that the members of the thesis committees who approved these theses condone plagiarism, and they are in blatant violation of Ohio University's Professional Ethics requirements. While reading the plagiarized text in my reports, please ask yourself, does this sound like the work of an Ohio University graduate student?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Provost and General Counsel Are Unable To Explain
Last week I emailed Ohio University's General Counsel, Mr. Biancamano, and Excutive Vice President and Provost, Dr. Benoit, to ask for an explanation of why they accept plagiarism in Mr. Adlkaha's rewrite. I also asked why they deny that Mr. Ghanta's rewrite with two missing chapters is a violation of the rewrite policy that John Burns outlined in his letter to cheating students.
My questions are very simple and basic; but, it turns out that they refuse to answer me. You can read my email along with their response here.
I do not know how they can get away with revoking one student's degree for plagiarism, but allow others to simple delete their plagiarism and even republish plagiarism (here is the source that Mr. Adlakha copied in his rewrite.) Eventually, these major inconsistencies are going to catch up with them.
My questions are very simple and basic; but, it turns out that they refuse to answer me. You can read my email along with their response here.
I do not know how they can get away with revoking one student's degree for plagiarism, but allow others to simple delete their plagiarism and even republish plagiarism (here is the source that Mr. Adlakha copied in his rewrite.) Eventually, these major inconsistencies are going to catch up with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)