Email Address:

Password:

A time-out for clarity\'s sake

University Wire October 1, 2007 Monday A time-out for clarity's sake Staff Editorial, Daily Egyptian; SOURCE: Southern Illinois U.

EDITORIAL 850 words DATELINE: CARBONDALE, Ill.

As with any story that gains momentum, people who want the scoop often find that they have jumped in mid-circus.

In light of the impressive response surrounding SIU President Glenn Poshard's plagiarism allegations, we feel compelled to provide somewhat of an overview on the matter for such community members.

On Aug.

30, the Daily Egyptian reported evidence of plagiarism in Poshard's doctoral dissertation.

Of the eight pages we dedicated to the account, we provided a two-page layout with side-by-side comparisons of Poshard's paper and passages from various books he referenced.

If one missed this edition, he or she may be severely misinformed.

Today's edition has provided examples for those who may not have picked up the paper that day.

Due to the number of people who have voiced their opinions, The Daily Egyptian also wants to shed light on what we have perceived to be misconceptions.

While we applaud the dialogue, we think some judgments have been based on erroneous beliefs.

In the words of Francois Gautier, "More important than the quest for certainty is the quest for clarity." On AFAC The Daily Egyptian reported in its Aug.

30 edition that it "obtained copies of Poshard's dissertation and original works from a source close to Alumni and Faculty Against Corruption at SIU." We also included a synopsis of AFAC's history and involvement.

People have questioned the role AFAC has played in the Daily Egyptian's news coverage.

A source close to AFAC provided us with a tip -- much like any big story, it was and is a tip based on anonymity.

We did not take what was given to us as fact and poof! put it in the paper.

We did the homework.

We documented our research.

And then we gave it to you, the public.

As journalists, we have a responsibility to run stories based on whether they are newsworthy - that is, if it's something the public has a right to know.

We do not print stories to appease an agenda.

On previous review The Board of Trustees has alluded that it has known about these plagiarism accusations for some time.

Not only were they not forthcoming, they took it upon themselves to determine whether the allegations were true.

Their method? Plugging the dissertation into Turnitin.com, a popular database educators have used in recent years to see if content within a paper matches up with published works.

Now, we may just be a bunch of gangly, fledgling student journalists, but common sense tells us, "Duh, you're not going to find anything because the books Poshard used in his dissertation are way older than a database born in the 90s." The Daily Egyptian even put the dissertation through Turnitin.com's sister database, iParadigm, and had the same results.

The sites' owner said the disputed works might not exist in his database.

Yet the BOT accepted its findings as fact and swept it under the rug.

On 'conflict of interest' In a Sept.

10 statement on the matter, BOT chairman Roger Tedrick said, "The Board of Trustees takes seriously its responsibility to ensure the academic integrity of this institution." Ultimately, the BOT will decide the next step of this investigation.

It has also already openly endorsed Poshard through press releases on multiple occasions.

It irks this editorial board that, hypothetically, the committee could find that the allegations against Poshard merit further review, consequences, whatever -- and the BOT could say, "Thanks but no thanks, we think he's a great guy and see no reason to pursue this matter." This is why the Daily Egyptian has said from day one that justice will only prevail if an outside, unbiased and professional source determines what's right and what's wrong.

On the approving committee Some have suggested the committee that approved Poshard's dissertation be held accountable.

Though this merits consideration, the age of the issue defeats it.

All but one of the approving committee members has died.

"No committee member that I've ever worked with -- if they were aware of something that took place like that -- would they have let it slide by, for whatever reason," said Bruce Swinburne, the only living member, in the Aug.

30 edition.

Swinburne also said the topic, gifted children in southern Illinois, was not one he had personally spent time getting involved with -- and "the only way it would have come about would have been if committee members recognized the material as something they had come across while reading another journal." On unintentional plagiarism The committee Poshard charged with developing a working definition of plagiarism submitted its review Sept.

21.

Its report stated that plagiarism can be unintentional, and a sloppy regard for citation style could be one way such an allegation could occur.

Poshard has said such a mistake may be the correct way to categorize what he did.

Yet the Daily Egyptian, including two examples below, found such "mistakes" at least 30 times during its investigation.

In many cases, there were no citations or quotations.

We don't know about you, but we're thinking that's a lot of mistakes for someone who was deemed a doctor of his field.

(C) 2007 Daily Egyptian via U-WIRE October 1, 2007 ENGLISH Newspaper Copyright 2007 Daily Egyptian via U-Wire Information Today October 1, 2007 CrossRef: a new tool to detect plagiarism; copyright management software Brynko, Barbara Pg.

38(1) Vol.

24 No.

9 ISSN: 8755-6286 658 words For some researchers, reading a familiar passage in a scholarly orprofessional journal may not be a case of deja vu.

It could be a case of plagiarism.

The incidences of plagiarism in scholarly or professional literature are frequent enough to cause publishers some concern, and publishers are now finding new ways to protect their authors and their scientific reputations.

One such tool, called CrossCheck, is a new creationfrom CrossRef that's designed to spot plagiarism at a variety of critical points in the publishing process.

"Some of CrossRef's publisher members report a sharp increase in plagiarism in recent years," said Amy Brand, director of business and product development at CrossRef, "obviously as a result of how easy it is to copy parts or whole sections of text that is accessed online." Although no current statistics are available, the decision to move ahead with CrossCheck was due to membership demand, she said.

The pilot was officially launched in August with seven publishers on board: the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM); BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

(BMJ); Elsevier; the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE); Taylor & Francis; Wiley-Blackwell; and International Union of Crystallography.

But before the production service launches at the end of 2007 or early 2008, Brand explained that indexing is now under way, and publishers will be testing the service as part of their editorial workflow and submitting ongoing feedback to CrossRef to refine the tool even more.

"There was immediate interest and buy-in on the part of several large publishers," said Brand.

"The impetus really came from them, so this was not a hard sell on CrossRef 's part." She said that CrossRef presents possible new developments and projects to members each year,and this initiative generated interest among CrossRef's membership.

CrossRef's mission is "to enable easy identification and use of trustworthy electronic content by promoting the cooperative developmentand application of a sustainable infrastructure." For CrossCheck's creation and development, CrossRef, a nonprofit association of membersand directed by publishers, teamed up with iParadigms, a company that provides Web-based solutions to check documents for originality andplagiarism.

Among iParadigms' top plagiarism-detection tools on the market is Turnitin (an Internet service to assess academic works used by students and faculty) and iThenticate (an Internet service that lets enterprises assess the originality of documents and check for any misappropriations).

John Barrie, CEO of iParadigms, said he sees CrossCheck "as the next logical evolution of the technology behind Turnitin--a service that has already become part of how secondary and higher education work." Since CrossCheck can be used at several different points during the evaluation of submitted manuscripts as well as during postproduction, Brand said she sees "CrossCheck as part of a broader effort to provide editorial tools to publishers.

And just how does CrossCheck detect plagiarized passages? "The checking itself involves test fingerprinting," said Brand.

"A document is de-composed into short, normalized substrings [that] are then compared against a database of pre-indexed documents." The database, she explained, will consist of the publishers' full-text documents, in addition to more than 8 million pages of current and archived Web content that iParadigms has already indexed.

While much of the process is automated, the output of the check is an "originality report," which still must be interpreted by a real person.

As for dealing with plagiarism (whether accidental or intentional)when and if it's detected? "It is entirely up to publishers to decide how to handle the incidences of plagiarism that are discovered using this tool," said Brand.

But she added that CrossRef could eventually help develop standard practices as experience with the service grows over time.

January 12, 2008 ENGLISH ACC-NO: 169755232 Magazine JOURNAL-CODE: 3336 ASAP Copyright 2007 Gale Group, Inc.

All Rights Reserved ASAP Copyright 2007 Information Today, Inc.