What would you do if your University Professor cheat?

[TomJeff]

59 minutes ago, Sigaba said:

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.

 

...and no Sigaba, I don't pretend to know everything.

However, I do find the claim raised by WildeThing (as if the inclusion of "inaccurate details" in a Professor CV should not necessarily have significant weight in a hiring decision) as disturbing. They should have great weight for at least one big reason : for being false (and I'm sorry. I have never heard of anyone listing in a CV non-existent manuscripts by mistake).

 

I also find it disturbing that while you are criticizing me for posting my comment here without doing much prior reading, you yourself gave judgment about the original post and the article to which it is referring without even properly reading that article. To quote from Ibn Al-Haytham reply to you after he provided you with a distinct access key to that article (while apparently it had limited access):

"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)."

...you see, I did read the above discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by TomJeff

[Eigen]

Your first post, with nothing to support your argument, was a broad condemnation of the ethics of those posting in this thread (and by extension, the board at large). 

You summed up disagreement with a particular issue as an alarming display of people not thinking ethics was important.

You're making this about seniority, but it's about the credibility and impact of your opinion. You have nothing to back up your credentials or interest in this area, and (suspiciously) seem to have become a member only to post in this particular thread. 

So lets take this away from your seniority on the forums- how are you related to academics or the topic at hand that you feel qualified to judge the ethics of the rest of us?

[WildeThing]

So, you're assuming that this was willful dishonesty which is not something anyone can reasonably assert based on the information we have. It would seem that the figures of authority reached a similar conclusion.

[TomJeff]

24 minutes ago, Eigen said:

Your first post, with nothing to support your argument, was a broad condemnation of the ethics of those posting in this thread (and by extension, the board at large). 

You summed up disagreement with a particular issue as an alarming display of people not thinking ethics was important.

You're making this about seniority, but it's about the credibility and impact of your opinion. You have nothing to back up your credentials or interest in this area, and (suspiciously) seem to have become a member only to post in this particular thread. 

So lets take this away from your seniority on the forums- how are you related to academics or the topic at hand that you feel qualified to judge the ethics of the rest of us?

Sure, we can make it very simple. It can be reduced into these questions:

1) Do you find it acceptable that a Professor uses false information in his CV, used in his jobs and grants applications?

2) How likely you think it is for someone to add by mistake references to non-existent manuscripts in his CV, and doing that for years?

2) Regarding the claims raised in the original post: Did you find a full length copy of one of those discussed manuscripts that were presumably published by that professor?

Edited December 1, 2017 by TomJeff

[TomJeff]

17 minutes ago, WildeThing said:

 It would seem that the figures of authority reached a similar conclusion.

 

I think that we all wish this was always the case.

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by TomJeff

[WildeThing]

Dude, you are the original author. Just let this thing die. You are making a big deal out of conspiracy theories. This is fake news.

[GreenEyedTrombonist]

On 11/20/2017 at 2:35 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. 

 

I miss when I thought this thread was done...

[Eigen]

18 minutes ago, TomJeff said:

Sure, we can make it very simple. It can be reduced into these questions:

1) Do you find it acceptable that a Professor uses false information in his CV, used in his jobs and grants applications?

2) How likely you think it is for someone to add by mistake references to non-existent manuscripts in his CV, and doing that for years?

2) Regarding the claims raised in the original post: Did you find a full length copy of one of those discussed manuscripts that were presumably published by that professor?

You still haven't answered my question before posing your own. 

At this point, my assumption is that you're the same person who started this thread, who clearly had some personal axe to grind, and you've given me nothing to doubt that opinion. Your writing style is nearly identical, and you're a new member with no interest other than pursuing the same exact argument as someone else who conveniently isn't posting anymore.

[TomJeff]

19 minutes ago, Eigen said:

 

Let's assume that I'm a retired Professor who hates watching his department, and more broadly the US academia, in decline; or perhaps I'm an upset former graduate student with some personal motives; or maybe I'm a random truck driver who likes to read scientific literature for fun (and hates when he can't find a manuscript to which someone refers in his CV).

Which of these three options would make false details in the CV of a Professor more or less acceptable? Which of these would make it more likely that those false details were placed there by mistake? Which of these would bring those non-existent manuscripts into existence?

Edited December 1, 2017 by TomJeff

[Eigen]

So again, you don't want to respond. I'm suspect of people who redirect questions regarding credibility and personal experience, it makes it seem like their motives are suspect. 

This is particularly interesting in a case discussing professional ethics, especially when someone wants to (highly anonymously) call out another person specifically and individually in a targeted and seemingly malicious manner. 

There are 2 pages of discussion on the issue. CV falsehoods are not a good thing, but mistakes happen- and in this case the mistake was corrected when it was brought to the attention of the person in question.

You may personally be perfect, but I've definitely had portions of my CV that I've updated in advance of something happening (i.e., put on a paper during submission) and forgotten to take it off of a successive version when something happens, like authorship getting changed. It's careless, sure, and most of those I've caught before it's gone public/been used in something. 

That said, in this case all of the claims were pretty minor, and not something likely to indicate a malicious claim. Lower tier journal publications from undergrad that didn't end up getting published? Not something that likely had any bearing on a hiring decision.It doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for an absence of mistakes, but it makes you continuing to push this issue as malicious suspect.

[fuzzylogician]

Moderator note, iteration #3: This discussion has absolutely no chance of being productive. Please, let's up it to rest. 

[TomJeff]

3 minutes ago, Eigen said:

... but I've definitely had portions of my CV that I've updated in advance of something happening (i.e., put on a paper during submission) and forgotten to take it off of a successive version when something happens, like authorship getting changed. It's careless, sure, and most of those I've caught before it's gone public/been used in something.

Very good.

But there is a difference between this and a case of someone listing a non-existent paper listed with page numbers in a specific journal volume. In one instance placing his name instead of someone else. Doing so in several distinct versions of his CV, for many years after the presumably publication dates of those manuscripts .

[fuzzylogician]

Actually, you know what, maybe this needs to be locked for a while.