What would you do if your University Professor cheat?

[Ibn Al-Haytham]

2 hours ago, Sigaba said:

Since the OP clearly has it all figured out, the question remains.

Will the OP take his concerns and evidence to the responsible institutions, publishers, and professional associations and shares the subsequent experiences here or will the OP continue to strut around like Galileo did after he discovered Las Vegas?

TL/DR: Don't talk (and talk and talk) the talk if you're not going to walk the walk.

Good point. We already tried this. Found it to be ineffective.

I sent you a private note with some information.

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Ibn Al-Haytham

[TakeruK]

25 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Haytham said:

"Despite your claim, the Davidenko et al. (1997) citation is real (other than a typo on the date which should be February 1997 not June 1997). "

 

No it is not. The link you provided is for a conference abstract, not a journal paper

I think you misunderstand what I said. A citation doesn't have to link to a paper. A citation is just information to tell the reader where to find a source of information. You can write citations to websites or anything, not just papers. So if a reader follows the citation that Davidenko gave for the 1997 work, they would find exactly what I linked to (after realising that it should be Feb 1997 not Jun 1997).

The problem is not that the citation is false, the problem is that the citation is presented in a way that is misleading because it appears in a list with other more conventional full length papers, making a reasonable reader expect that this too is another full length paper. But this is a different offense than making up a citation.

[Ibn Al-Haytham]

8 minutes ago, TakeruK said:

I think you misunderstand what I said. A citation doesn't have to link to a paper. A citation is just information to tell the reader where to find a source of information. You can write citations to websites or anything, not just papers. So if a reader follows the citation that Davidenko gave for the 1997 work, they would find exactly what I linked to (after realising that it should be Feb 1997 not Jun 1997).

The problem is not that the citation is false, the problem is that the citation is presented in a way that is misleading because it appears in a list with other more conventional full length papers, making a reasonable reader expect that this too is another full length paper. But this is a different offense than making up a citation.

I understand very well.

The bottom line is that Davidenko list a publication from 1997 as a journal paper. But his first true journal paper is from 1998 (which he lists separately).

[Sigaba]

4 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Haytham said:

Good point. We already tried this. Found it to be ineffective.

I sent you a private note with some information.

 

"We."

I read your note. I don't believe you.

If you really cared about this issue as much as you'd like others to believe, you'd have filed a lawsuit against the professor, his department, his school, and the parent system. You'd have gone to the press. You'd have gone to all of the schools he's attended. You'd have identified former classmates and interviewed them for evidence of similar behavior. You'd be financing the effort with crowdfunding. And you would be using your true name when leveling allegations that could torpedo a guy's career.

If you really cared, you certainly would not be dithering around, parsing words, asking leading questions, tasking others to do your research for you, and arguing with anyone who dared to disagree with you.

My theory is that you were a student of his.  As a thief thinks everyone else is a thief, and a liar thinks everyone else is a liar; my theory is that you were caught doing something dishonest and/or he thought less of you and your work than you do. You got what you had coming to you. Did he take away your funding? Did he take your name off an article? Or maybe he just didn't nod his head vigorously and sit in awe of your brilliance. (One does not wonder why.) 

In retaliation you're conducting a whispering campaign that would be actionable under the California civil code--in a word, the word starts and ends with 'l'--were it not for your intellectual weakness and lack of will. You dress up the latter with self serving catechisms and the former by adopting a username you're unworthy to use.

Here, let's play your game. Unless you provide exhaustive and conclusive proof that the theory outlined above is untrue, then one can rightly assume that there's something to it. Next step is to make a mountain range out of mole hills while weaving a tapestry of self righteousness. 

TL/DR: Read more. Post less. You will find numerous threads started by members with actual courage. Notice the differences between the way you approach your issue and the way they address their problems. It's not even close.

[PokePsych]

At this point I'm actually most interested in the 'criminal's' (quotation marks on purpose) defense. Always two sides to a story. 

[Ibn Al-Haytham]

14 hours ago, Sigaba said:

 

 

Sigaba

 

This is an interesting story. But you are not focused—you don’t have to believe me. You should simply find a copy of either one of these presumably two journal papers or any one of these presumably four conference proceedings:

Non-existent ‘Peer-Reviewed Articles’ (these two are listed in the CV side to some actual journal papers):

·      Davidenko, N., Beaumont, J., Davidenko, J.M., and Jalife, J. (1997). Spatio-temporal evolution of spiral wave activity. Biophys. J. 72:2 A370, June 1997.

·      Beaumont, J., Davidenko, N., Davidenko, J.M., and Jalife, J. (1995). A model study of changes in excitability of ventricular muscle cells with repetitive stimulation. Inhibition, facilitation, and hysteresis. Am. J. Physiol. 268; 37:H1-H14, 1995.

 

Non-existent ‘Peer-Reviewed Conference Proceedings’ (these four are listed in the CV side to some actual conference proceedings papers (of the Cognitive Science Society)):

·      Davidenko, N., Weiner, K., Grill-Spector, K. (2013). Broadly tuned face and hand representations in human ventral temporal cortex. Talk presented at 19th Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping, Seattle, WA.

·      Davidenko, N., Remus, D., Grill-Spector, K. (2010).  Characterizing face representations in the ventral stream: effects of physical variability and distance from the average face. Talk presented at the 40^th Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience.

·      Davidenko, N., Remus, D., Grill-Spector, K. (2008). Responses in face-selective cortex increase with increased face variability but decrease with increased distance from the mean face. Talk presented at the 38^th Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience.

·      Davidenko, N., Remus, D., Ramscar, M., Grill-Spector, K. (2008). Stronger face-selective responses to typical versus distinctive faces when stimulus variability is controlled. Talk presented at the 8^th annual meeting of the Vision Sciences Society in Naples, FL, May 2008.

     

All the above are not listed as conference abstract, which are listed separately in that CV.

After finding either one of the above papers (full length manuscript, please), you can move to your next challenge of figuring what motivates me. If you really care, please do proper fact checking. Yesterday I gave you a unique access code for the manuscript, and I know that your engagement was minimal (e.g., you didn’t press any of the links provided, directing to relevant materials).

 

Regarding your argument: “If you really cared about this issue as much as you'd like others to believe, you'd have filed a lawsuit against the professor, his department, his school, and the parent system. You'd have gone to the press. You'd have gone to all of the schools he's attended. You'd have identified former classmates and interviewed them for evidence of similar behavior. “

Darling, the world does not work this way. On what basis can I file a lawsuit? There was no harm done directly to me by Davidenko or by his department. I simply looked at someone CV, looked for some of his publications, could not find some of those. After further inquiry, we (yes, we) realized that there is an ongoing issue with several details in his CV.  This doesn’t make me/us eligible for filing a lawsuit. I don't know if anyone can file a lawsuit here (maybe funding agencies). I only know that such behavior by a University Professor should not be tolerated. This is how much I care about the scientific community, and this is how much I'm willing to do. Going to the press? Maybe we already did. Do you think that they have the resources publishing any wrongdoing? They are often more likely to take notice after there is already a buzz. Running my own in-depth investigation? We (yes, we) did what we could, and wrote a summary.

Regarding your counter accusations directed at me—do you realize that you are using the kind of attitude often used by someone who’s defending a rapist by arguing that a woman complaining must be a prostitute? How dare you?

 

And if you think that Universities Administration can be relied upon when it comes to policing themselves, you are welcomed to be humbled by these two known stories of Melissa Theis or Robert Trivers (more about the aftermath here, and here).

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Ibn Al-Haytham

[fuzzylogician]

Friend, you seem to be very confused about who we are and what this board is about.

• First off, no one here is required to comply with any demands in order to engage in a conversation with any other poster ("first find this article, then provide that link, then we'll talk", which you seem to continuously use as a canned reply).
• Second, this is not a trial. We are not defense attorneys. We don't even know the person you've chosen to pick on. What we are is people with some experience, and we are sharing alternative ways of interpreting facts (and perceived facts) that you have presented. Just like you are entitled to your opinion that everyone has the worst intentions at heart without providing any proof, we are entitled to present alternative possible ways things could have happened. 
• This here is key: you just admitted that you have absolutely no standing, and you don't intend to follow up on any of your libelous claims. You've instead assumed the role of Defender of Academia. No one appointed you, and it seems to me that the people you claim to be fighting for aren't happy with what you're doing. Think about that. 

3 hours ago, Ibn Al-Haytham said:

Darling, the world does not work this way. On what basis can I file a lawsuit? There was no harm done directly to me by Davidenko or by his department. I simply looked at someone CV, looked for some of his publications, could not find some of those. After further inquiry, we (yes, we) realized that there is an ongoing issue with several details in his CV.  This doesn’t make me/us eligible for filing a lawsuit. I don't know if anyone can file a lawsuit here (maybe funding agencies). I only know that such behavior by a University Professor should not be tolerated. This is how much I care about the scientific community, and this is how much I'm willing to do. Going to the press? Maybe we already did. Do you think that they have the resources publishing any wrongdoing? They are often more likely to take notice after there is already a buzz. Running my own in-depth investigation? We (yes, we) did what we could, and wrote a summary.

To conclude, you appear to be nothing more than a keyboard warrior, and one who is trying to get others to do their work for them, at that. We've continuously replied to your made-up scenarios, and you've continuously replied with the same unaware response. It seems to me like we're just all wasting our time. 

[Ibn Al-Haytham]

2 hours ago, fuzzylogician said:

 

"You've instead assumed the role of Defender of Academia. No one appointed you, and it seems to me that the people you claim to be fighting for aren't happy with what you're doing. Think about that. "

I suspect that you do not understand your responsibilities as a scientist. Turning a blind eye, even to the slightest evident dishonesty or  'inaccuracies', is not one of those responsibilities.

Something very recent and most related:

http://retractionwatch.com/2017/11/14/phantom-reference-made-article-got-almost-400-citations/

Also read the comments for this article, written by likely more mature academics.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Ibn Al-Haytham

[hats]

7 hours ago, Ibn Al-Haytham said:

I only know that such behavior by a University Professor should not be tolerated.

As far as upholding academic standards, nobody is arguing that he shouldn't fix the CV. He should fix it. He should be thorough about fixing it, including as much public notice as you want. After he's fixed it, if you argue that he needs to face consequences to show this kind of error isn't "tolerated," sure, that's fine, we can add consequences. Let's brainstorm: what kinds of consequences might be fair and proportionate to an offense of this magnitude? a small fine? mandatory training? assignment to less desirable committees? Any of those would seem appropriate for small errors about his undergraduate (!) research.

You keep asking questions of us, but I have a couple questions for you:

• Has anyone ever cited the articles you object to? If you find many citations, my understanding of how serious this misstep is goes from about 2 to about 4.* If you just haven't been clear, and these were in fact field-defining articles or even in that general tier of importance, you should have led with that. If these articles he was taking credit for became that influential, that would be where this misrepresentation could shoot up to an 8 or 9. I doubt that level of influence is even possible with these articles, however, because, as you keep pointing out, there are no full PDFs for people to read.
  • *On my scale, '7' would be about the level of a firing offense; '10' is reserved for things that might involve jail time.
• Let's say you convince us and we all say "YES! He should be fired!", like you seem to want. You've identified us as "less mature" academics; we're early career, and we don't know anything. Sure, fine, we're immature and have bad judgment. So why are you appealing to us? What do you think we can do about it? Are you trying to convince us to write a letter-writing campaign to this department, or...?

As to your post on the previous page, obviously this man has standing to request that his students not plagiarize. If I got a speeding ticket ten years ago and now I'm teaching my teenage daughter to drive, do I have the "moral basis" to tell her that she should obey traffic laws, too?

[PokePsych]

1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Haytham said:

Also read the comments for this article, written by likely more mature academics.

Nobody ever looked more smart from ad hominem attacks such as questioning peoples maturity. 

[Ibn Al-Haytham]

43 minutes ago, Psygeek said:

Nobody ever looked more smart from ad hominem attacks such as questioning peoples maturity. 

I apologies for that. But, yes, the majority of Retraction Watch readers are mid to late academic career stage, rather then mostly students, as it is here. It is most unlikely that you wouldn't  experience such crup in your department by  the time you would become a Professor.

I do find you guys as valuable audience- those that are most vulnerable to misconducts done by more senior scientists, as well as those who are most likely to make a significant change. And a change is required .

Edited November 17, 2017 by Ibn Al-Haytham

[Ibn Al-Haytham]

hats

"As to your post on the previous page, obviously this man has standing to request that his students not plagiarize. If I got a speeding ticket ten years ago and now I'm teaching my teenage daughter to drive, do I have the "moral basis" to tell her that she should obey traffic laws, too? "

A parent-child analogy is problematic. Some occupations require different level of ethics. Particularly those occupations where a major part of the responsibility is the searching of the truth and the reporting of facts (police detective, judge, scientist, journalist...).

A better analogy would be "If someone was found to be involved in multiple incidences of fraud, for close to two decades, will you accept him acting as a judge?"

 

I don't know what the proper punishment should be. I do know that cover-up and lack of any disciplinary action aren't acceptable.

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Ibn Al-Haytham

[Sigaba]

1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Haytham said:

I apologies for that. But, yes, the majority of Retraction Watch readers are mid to late academic career stage, rather then mostly students, as it is here. It is most unlikely that you wouldn't  experience such crup in your department by  the time you would become a Professor.

I do find you guys as valuable audience- those that are most vulnerable to misconducts done by more senior scientists, as well as those who are most likely to make a significant change. And a change is required .

Well, thank you for slumming and enlightening us. 

[Ibn Al-Haytham]

14 minutes ago, Sigaba said:

Well, thank you for slumming and enlightening us. 

Sure.

Anytime.

[fuzzylogician]

Moderator note: It seems that this conversation has run its course. It is perhaps best to put this thread to rest at this point. 

[rheya19]

1 hour ago, fuzzylogician said:

Moderator note: It seems that this conversation has run its course. It is perhaps best to put this thread to rest at this point. 

I was going to suggest the same thing. At the point when someone is comparing fudging a CV to rape and victim-blaming, yes. Agreed. 100%. 

[Ibn Al-Haytham]

19 hours ago, rheya19 said:

I was going to suggest the same thing. At the point when someone is comparing fudging a CV to rape and victim-blaming, yes. Agreed. 100%. 

?

[WildeThing]

Maybe this is a moot point, but, admission/hiring is usually done in a holistic matter, meaning that singular details become less relevant. Either way, there is no way to know WHY this person was admitted to any of these programs or why he was hired, so we cannot know the significance of these issues. The person's employers and professors were informed of these issues and apparently unanimously decided that no action was merited, perhaps because they didn't base their decisions on admission/hiring on these parts of the person's CV? They do seem to have reacted, as the professor has removed these issues from his CV. It seems that they (people in separate organizations) have decided that no further action is necessary (or they took private measures, we do not know), and I see no reason to believe that their reactions were inappropriate.

Also, while there is a good argument to be made for a person to be removed from a position they gained through misrepresentation (which, again, we do not know if this was the case), this professor was admitted to the grad program and completed it, he then went on to a post-doc, which he also completed, and was then hired as a professor and has seemingly performed well enough to stay on ever since. So, maybe, MAYBE this person would have never gotten into this position without those CV issues, but he has clearly performed well enough since.

I do wonder how the post author discovered all of this and what motivated the research that led him there.

[Ibn Al-Haytham]

13 hours ago, WildeThing said:

 

WildeThing

"...admission/hiring is usually done in a holistic matter, meaning that singular details become less relevant. Either way, there is no way to know WHY this person was admitted to any of these programs or why he was hired, so we cannot know the significance of these issues. The person's employers and professors were informed of these issues and apparently unanimously decided that no action was merited, perhaps because they didn't base their decisions on admission/hiring on these parts of the person's CV? "

Perhaps you are right. Maybe the specific 'inaccuracies' in a Professor CV shouldn't have any impact on hiring decisions. So maybe there is no harm now in keeping someone who uses false credentials in his CV as a University Professor.

 

"They do seem to have reacted, as the professor has removed these issues from his CV. It seems that they (people in separate organizations) have decided that no further action is necessary (or they took private measures, we do not know), and I see no reason to believe that their reactions were inappropriate."

Maybe the informed University administrators did all that has to be done or could be done. Maybe they didn't feel uncomfortable with the confrontation or the embarrassment, and did whatever has to be done. Maybe this entire thing can be forgotten and it is no longer anyone concern. Maybe all the colleagues of this Professor value him like they value all their other colleagues. For example, if he would write a glowing recommendation letter for one of his graduate students for some internal scholarship, his letter would be valued just like any other recommendation written by any other Professor. Maybe there is no harm of any kind being mentored by such a Professor.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Ibn Al-Haytham

[fuzzylogician]

On 11/17/2017 at 6:12 PM, fuzzylogician said:

Moderator note: It seems that this conversation has run its course. It is perhaps best to put this thread to rest at this point. 

Again, let's please put the "Maybe's" to rest now. 

[TomJeff]

On 11/19/2017 at 11:49 PM, WildeThing said:

admission/hiring is usually done in a holistic matter, meaning that singular details become less relevant. Either way, there is no way to know WHY this person was admitted to any of these programs or why he was hired, so we cannot know the significance of these issues. The person's employers and professors were informed of these issues and apparently unanimously decided that no action was merited, perhaps because they didn't base their decisions on admission/hiring on these parts of the person's CV?

The hiring of a Professor is for sure done based on many factors. One of those factors should be the candidate having highest levels of integrity. I suspect that someone who uses even "small lies" in formal documents ( such as job and grant applications) doesn't meet those requirements.

In fact, I find it alarming that not all readers in this forum find such a behavior, exhibited by a Professor, as unacceptable.

Edited December 1, 2017 by TomJeff

[Sigaba]

8 minutes ago, TomJeff said:

In fact, I find it allarming that not all readers in this forum find such a dishonest behavior, exhibited by a Professor, as unacceptable.

@TomJeff, you have been a member of this BB for less than 30 minutes. Unless you've spend several thousand hours lurking here and reading posts by members on similar topics, and can demonstrate having done so by pasting links to specific comments, your opinion is unlikely to carry much weight at this time.

[TomJeff]

28 minutes ago, Sigaba said:

@TomJeff, you have been a member of this BB for less than 30 minutes. Unless you've spend several thousand hours lurking here and reading posts by members on similar topics, and can demonstrate having done so by pasting links to specific comments, your opinion is unlikely to carry much weight at this time.

Sigaba, that make sense.

Claims should be weighted by the seniority (in an internet forum) of the person making those claim, regardless of what those claims are. E.g., if a Professor writes something in his CV, it must be true (even when direct evidence provided show the opposite). After all, he is a Professor.

Bravo to you for the above statement.

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by TomJeff

[Sigaba]

17 minutes ago, TomJeff said:

That make sense.

Claims should be weighted by the seniority (in an internet forum) of the person making those claim, regardless of what those claims are. E.g., if a Professor writes something in his CV, it must be true (even when direct evidence provided show the opposite).

Bravo to you for the above statement.

 

You failed to comprehend my post. 

I pointed to the fact that there are over a million posts on this BB by members who have been here for varying duration. You failed to understand that. You instead decided to make it about post count. (Is this the first time you've used this argument.)

You have not spent time reading the OP's other threads and the replies he has received.

You have not spent time reading other member's posts on academic integrity, power in the work place, and other related topics in scores of threads on this BB. (Hint. The search button is your friend.)

Instead, you come here and grandstand. And everyone should agree with you because you have not demonstrated you know what is going on with the OP.

 

[TomJeff]

16 minutes ago, Sigaba said:

 

No Sigaba, I do understand you very well. You wrote: 

"Unless you've spend several thousand hours lurking here and reading posts by members on similar topics, and can demonstrate having done so by pasting links to specific comments, your opinion is unlikely to carry much weight at this time"

That is, you clearly talked about the apparent overall "seniority" in thegradcafe forum (beyond this specific discussion). Besides, what kind of inferences can you make from the time point in which I signed after reading the content of the above post and the following discussion, which I specifically find as important and disturbing, regarding the amount of time I spent reading the above content (or any other content here)?

Edited December 1, 2017 by TomJeff