In her publications in English, MR has quite clearly lacked rigour in her way of making references and has not respected the academic standards accepted in the area. ![]() On the other hand, it is also equally undeniable that the whole body of work in English published by MR is seriously flawed by the regular presence of bad scholarly practices, by what might be called a sort of active negligence, which, although not a matter of academic fraud, cannot be excused. On the one hand, it is undeniable that MR has been the victim of an injustice, because her accusers have fashioned and diffused, wrongly, if not with ill intent, the shameful image of a ‘serial plagiarist’, who composed all her writings simply by copying what others have written (see ‘Philosopher Revealed as serial Plagiarist’, Daily Nous). The qualitative and quantitative analysis of the publications under accusation has led the Commission to reach a dual conclusion.Once the Commission had thus come to realize that many passages had been wrongly accused of being plagiarized, the proportion of borrowings open to accusation in the various articles became considerably smaller. A more careful calculation, however-one which, in particular, takes into account the nature of the borrowings, has shown that in a number of cases it is not a matter of undeclared borrowings in the strict sense. Would tend, at first glance, to justify the accusations made against her. Admittedly, a brute calculation of the passages borrowed by MR from third-parties The results of our quantitative analysis have shown that the proportion of unacknowledged borrowings is relatively limited-sometimes even minimal-in comparison to the total size of each article.Moreover, there is no sign to be found of a wish to appropriate anyone else’s ideas or of an intention to deceive the reader about the origin of the ideas put forward in the articles. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |