W4RF
http://www.phil-hum-ren.uni-muenchen.de/W4RF/YaBB.pl
The interesting stuff >> Persons and institutions >> Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
http://www.phil-hum-ren.uni-muenchen.de/W4RF/YaBB.pl?num=1268295805

Message started by hck on 11.03.2010 at 09:23:25

Title: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by hck on 11.03.2010 at 09:23:25

Several people (if you want to see your names mentioned in this thread: please let me know!) have pointed me to reports about Martin Stone (formerly KU Leuven) having been accused of plagiarism.

If you search the KU Leuven database for him at http://cwisdb.kuleuven.be/persdb-bin/persdb you get "Uit dienst sinds 20 december 2009".

As far as I can see none of the journalists reporting on this are reporting on having tried to contact Martin Stone (and the results). And I know of no statement by Stone on these accusations in any other place.


  • The most recent piece on this affair known to me is: Melanie Newman: Plagiarism probe sees UK scholar quit Belgian post (2010-03-11) (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=410670&c=1). As it can serve as an abstract to part of the other items linked to here: I'll quote ather extensively from it:

    Quote:
    A British academic has resigned from his post at a Belgian university after being accused of plagiarising the PhD thesis of a member of the Finnish Parliament.

    Martin Stone, a professor of philosophy at the Catholic University of Leuven, was accused of plagiarism by Finnish Social Democratic MP Ilkka Kantola.

    Dr Kantola told The Voice, Leuven's international student magazine, that he was alerted to the matter by Michael Dougherty, an associate professor of philosophy at Ohio Dominican University in the US.

    After comparing his thesis, which was published in 1994, with an article by Professor Stone, Dr Kantola discovered that "tens of pages were identical or nearly identical, although my name was not mentioned at all".

    Peter Marynen, vice-president for research at Leuven, told Times Higher Education that the university's Commission on Scientific Integrity had investigated the allegation.

    The commission submitted a report to Leuven's executive board, which concluded that "the conduct of Martin Stone is highly questionable in terms of scientific integrity".

    Professor Stone, who is also a visiting professor at King's College London, resigned from his post at Leuven during the investigation.

    Leuven "considers all publications of Martin Stone with a K.U. Leuven affiliation as problematic", Professor Marynen said.

    "The university no longer considers these publications as being part of its scientific output and retracts its affiliation with them. All publishers and editors of publications of Martin Stone with a K.U. Leuven affiliation have been formally informed," he said.





  • Olli Hella: Kantolan väitöstä plagioitu (2009-11-05) (http://www.demari.fi/content/view/8024/)

  • 2009-12-31: Tapaus Martin Stone (http://plagiointitutkija.blogspot.com/2009/12/tapaus-stone.html) (see also http://plagiointitutkija.blogspot.com/2009/07/tutkijayhteison-sisaiset-plagioinnit.html#comments)



  • Ielse Broeksteeg: K.U.Leuven Involved in New Plagiarism Scandal?: Did the Institute of Philosophy cover up a Fraudulent Professor? (2010-02-16) (http://www.thevoiceleuven.be/news/leuven/177-kuleuven-involved-in-new-plagiarism-scandal)

  •  Ielse Broeksteeg: Interview With a Victim of Plagiarism (2010-02-16, Interview with  Ilkka Kantola) (http://www.thevoiceleuven.be/news/education/188-interview-with-a-victim-of-plagiarism)


  • Cedric Lagast: Britse topfilosoof blijkt letterdief (2010-03-02) (http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=QV2MUK7T)

  • belga/lb: Britse topfilosoof blijkt plagieerder (2010-03-02) (http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/983/Nieuws/article/detail/1074275/2010/03/02/Britse-topfilosoof-blijkt-plagieerder.dhtml)

  • Nikolas Vanhecke: Fraude Onder Professoren: Collateral Damage na het plagiaat aan de Kuleuven (2010-03-06) (http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=612N5C7H)

  • Jelle Dehaen & Ruben Bruynooghe: Plagiaat aan de K.U.leuven: Dictatuur van de kwantiteit (2009-03-08) (http://www.veto.be/veto/veto3617/PLAG.html)


Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by hck on 12.03.2010 at 09:44:11

Two updates:

  • In have been pointed (i.a.) to Cedric Lagast: 'Superprof' blijkt superplagieerder (2010-03-02) (http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=GGN2MV0U3)

  • Yesterday I sent an email to Martin Stone at his KU Leuven address ( Martin.Stone@hiw.kuleuven.be ). The address seems still to work (at least I didn't receive any sort of error report).  I have not (yet) received a reply by him.

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by hck on 12.03.2010 at 10:46:00


hck wrote:

  • The most recent piece on this affair known to me is: Melanie Newman: Plagiarism probe sees UK scholar quit Belgian post (2010-03-11) (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=410670&c=1).


Also Brian Leiter now points to this text (at http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2010/03/medieval-philosophy-scholar-accused-of-plagiarism.html <2010-03-11>), with "Medieval Philosophy Scholar Accused of Plagiarism" as the title of his posting.

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by Viroviacum on 12.03.2010 at 10:59:04

A statement concerning this case by the editorial board of the 'Recherches de theologie et philosophie medievales' was printed in its most recent number LXXVI, 2 (2009) (I'm afraid it doesn't appear in the online version, only in the printed one). This statement leaves no doubt and is the most balanced account about this case that I read thus far.

Apparently, the story only received national and international attention after an article had appeared in a student paper, The Voice, two months post factum. The said article is quite tendentious (and as a result, most subsequent articles are too), and a reply by the dean of the relevant faculty against some unfounded allegations will be printed in the next issue.

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by hck on 12.03.2010 at 11:12:47


Viroviacum wrote:
A statement concerning this case by the editorial board of the 'Recherches de theologie et philosophie medievales' was printed in its most recent number LXXVI, 2 (2009) (I'm afraid it doesn't appear in the online version, only in the printed one). This statement leaves no doubt and is the most balanced account about this case that I read thus far.

Apparently, the story only received national and international attention after an article had appeared in a student paper, The Voice, two months post factum. The said article is quite tendentious (and as a result, most subsequent articles are too), and a reply by the dean of the relevant faculty against some unfounded allegations will be printed in the next issue.


Dear Demmy,

first of all: thanks for the posting!

Do you have the page number(s) for the item in  Recherches de theologie et philosophie medievales 76.2 at hand (to facilitate looking it up at the library (hoping that ours has already made available the most recent number of that journal ))?

BTW: If you want to use this forum here for a (non exclusive) preprint of the statement sent to The voice, you are welcome to do so.

Thanks again!

Heinrich

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by Viroviacum on 12.03.2010 at 15:30:22

The dean's statement is available in the latest newsletter of the Leuven Institute of Philosophy: http://www.hiw.kuleuven.be/ned/nieuws/index.html.

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by hck on 12.03.2010 at 15:56:36


Viroviacum wrote:
The dean's statement is available in the latest newsletter of the Leuven Institute of Philosophy: http://www.hiw.kuleuven.be/ned/nieuws/index.html.


Thanks again!
For those who want to access the dean's texts on this directly:

  • Toon Vandevelde: Reactie van de decaan op de artikels over het ontslag van Martin Stone in The Voice en De Standaard (http://www.hiw.kuleuven.be/ned/nieuws/persknipsels/ReactieDecaanOntslagStone.pdf) (my reaction on reading this was "wow")

  •  Toon Vandevelde: Reaction of the Dean of the Institute of Philosophy to the article on the Resignation of Martin Stone in The Voice (http://www.hiw.kuleuven.be/ned/nieuws/persknipsels/ReactionDeanResignationStone.pdf) (shorter, in English)

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by Viroviacum on 12.03.2010 at 16:35:57

The page numbers of the statement in the Recherches are v-vi. I guess that's why it does not appear in the online version, because it's considered to be part of the preliminary material.

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by hck on 15.03.2010 at 09:36:08


Viroviacum wrote:
The page numbers of the statement in the Recherches are v-vi. I guess that's why it does not appear in the online version, because it's considered to be part of the preliminary material.


Thanks to a Danish colleague I now found the note on the web. It is at http://www.peeters-leuven.be/pdf/RTPM7602009.pdf.

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by hck on 23.03.2010 at 16:32:45


hck wrote:
...

    ...

  •  Toon Vandevelde: Reaction of the Dean of the Institute of Philosophy to the article on the Resignation of Martin Stone in The Voice (http://www.hiw.kuleuven.be/ned/nieuws/persknipsels/ReactionDeanResignationStone.pdf) (shorter, in English)


This has now also been published by The Voice at http://www.thevoiceleuven.be/news/education/220-voicemail-reaction-from-the-institute-of-philosophy.

Up to now there seems to be no reply by Ielse Broeksteeg (or somebody else at "The Voice") to this reply.

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by hck on 18.05.2010 at 09:26:02

Now see also http://plagiointitutkija.blogspot.com/2010/05/martin-stone-jatko-osa.html.



And, found thanks to that article: Jarkko S. Tuusvuori: Ylpeys ja lankeemus (2010-04-15) (http://filosofia.fi/node/5185)

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by hck on 31.05.2010 at 16:26:13

Sadly, I do not see any plausible way to defend Stone against that accusation: I do not know any other word than "plagiarism" for what he did: see http://www.phil-hum-ren.uni-muenchen.de/W4RF/YaBB.pl?num=1251109047/1#1.

Title: Martin Stone: plagiarism: Tijdschrift v Filosofie
Post by hck on 08.06.2010 at 09:36:54

I have received information concerning an item in the paper version of issue 72.1 of Tijdschrift voor Filosofie (p. 3/5, to which I here do not have access, as it is not in the electronic version). According to this information the article Truth, deception, and lies in volume 68 (2006), pp. 101-131 has been retracted as it has been found to plagiarise work by Johann P. Sommerville ("The 'new art of lying:' equivocation, mental reservation and casuistry," in E.Leites, ed., Conscience and casuistry in early modern Europe, Cambridge University Press 1988, pp. 159-184) and others, and the above mentioned article from vol. 68 will not be made available in the electronic version of Tijdschrift voor Filosofie.

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by hck on 17.06.2010 at 12:30:12

Pernille Harsting pointed me to a text by Enrico Pattaro, Fred Miller Jr., Carrie-Ann Biondi, editors of the Springer publication A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence (series & Vol. 6), a text which is available  at http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/Stone_plagiarism_Springer+website.doc?SGWID=0-0-45-944037-p173660082 ("A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence Announcement").

There you can read i.a.:

Quote:
Mr. Stone is tainted with a series of plagiarisms. One of these he committed contributing to Volume 6 of the Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence—a volume titled A History of the Philosophy of Law from the Ancient Greeks to the Scholastics and edited by Fred Miller, Jr., in association with Carrie-Ann Biondi—a thirty-page chapter, the fourteenth, titled “The Nature and Significance of Law in Early Modern Scholasticism,” running from page 335 to page 365 of the same volume. The content of this chapter has been judged positively by its editors. The point, however, is that that text was not written by Mr. Stone, but was copied by him, including some passages copied verbatim, from the following works:

(i)      Arthur P. Monahan, From Personal Duties towards Personal Rights: Late Medieval and Early Modern Political Thought, 1300-1600 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1994)
(ii)      Anthony Pagden and Jeremy Lawrance, “Introduction”, in Vitoria, Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. xiii-xxviii
(iii)      Bernice Hamilton, Political Thought in Sixteenth-Century Spain: A Study of the Political Ideas of Vitoria, De Soto, Suárez, and Molina (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963)
(iv)      Marcello Sánchez-Sorondo, “Vitoria: The Original Philosopher of Rights,” in Kevin White (ed.), Hispanic Philosophy in the Age of Discovery (Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997), pp. 59-68
(v)      Annabel S. Brett, Liberty, Right and Nature: Individual Rights in Later Scholastic Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)
(vi)      Nigel Griffin and Anthony Pagden, in Bartolomé de Las Casas, A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (London: Penguin Books, 1992)
(vii)      Mauricio Beuchot, O. P., The History of Philosophy in Colonial Mexico (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998)
(viii)      Frank Bartholomew Costello, S. J., The Political Philosophy of Luis de Molina, S. J. (1535-1600) (Rome: Institutum Historicum S. I., 1974)
(ix)      John P. Doyle, “Suárez, Francisco”, in Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 9 (1998), pp. 189-196
(x)      Reijo Wilenius, The Social and Political Theory of Francisco Suárez (Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Kirjapaino, 1963)

Title: Martin Stone: plagiarism: the dossier (and more)
Post by hck on 09.07.2010 at 16:16:42

I have received an electronic offprint of two publications from/in Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 51/2009 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010):


  • Kent Emery: Caveat lector (pp. 347-349)
  • Michael V. Dougherty, Pernille Harsting, and Russell L. Friedman: 40 Cases of Plagiarism
    (pp. 350-391; I expect this text to become a classic as the dossier on an extreme case of plagiarism)




From Kent Emery's Caveat lector:



Quote:
As we see in the deepest circles of Dante’s Inferno, nothing dissolves the trust that anneals any society more than crimes of fraud and deception.


I agree completely. And this aspect is the probably major one which makes me unhappy about the case in question. If we have to check each and any citation/quotation in the work of others which we use (instead of, as I do now, just a random few plus those which I consider to be extremely crucial for my own work), we can either choose to forsake progress (because all of the time we have for research will be spent with checking other people's sources), or to stop using texts written by other contemporary scholars - and I guess neither is a good choice.



Quote:
Scholarly standards serve the discovery of truth, which even now, except one be a nihilist, is said to be the goal of scholarly research and philosophic inquiry.


I don't consider myself a nihilist, but I guess I will have to accept that label. IMO the goal of research is research (to me it is an end in itself, just like music), and the goal of philosophical inquiry is thinking and enticing other to think too.

In non-religious contexts IMO "truth" exists only in hindsight and as a plurale tantum.




Quote:
Within the
community of learning, the act of plagiarism violates the authors whose
thought and speech are raped; it betrays editors and publishers, who are an
author’s “personal benefactors,” whose precise duty it is to vouchsafe what
they publish, and who, if they publish plagiarized material, appear negligent;
finally, it violates the faith of readers, who must trust that what they read is
what it claims to be.


Iuxta modum.

IMO the original authors are not "raped" their "thought and speech", but they don't get all of the praise and laurels which are due to them.

As for editors and publishers: yes, "if they publish plagiarized material" they will "appear negligent". But: they or the reviewers who worked for them IMO will have been negligent. Yes, I have (co-)edited some things myself; yes, I confess that I did not check everything in every item which appeared in a volume (co-)edited; yes, I think that there is the possibility of something like "unavoidable negligence"; yes, I do consider myself guilty of such "unavoidable negligence"; but still IMO even "unavoidable negligence" is negligence.

Concerning the readers: I agree completely.




Quote:
That there are those who commit acts of plagiarism
is one thing; that such acts can be repeated successfully, without detection, in
40 articles, over a period of at least 11 years, in the pages of the most “prestigious”
journals and at the most “prestigious” presses, is quite another thing
altogether, which exposes some pathology in the contemporary body academic
that cries out for diagnosis


Yes!




Quote:
In the contemporary academic world, it is publication that brings the greatest
rewards, namely the securing of academic positions, promotions, funding
for further research, money, etc. One must remember that for every scholar
who secures a position or wins a grant there are many more who do not, and
many of those might never find employment that allows them to continue
academic research.


Yes.




Quote:
Further, a virtue considered especially praiseworthy in
scholarly publications is “originality”; indeed, a fundamental criterion for
evaluating the merit of any publication is whether it can be said to have made
an “original contribution to scholarship”; perhaps nothing more invidious
about a publication can be said—in all of those “blind peer reviews” or secret
tenure and promotion reviews—than that it is “unoriginal” or “depends on the
work of others” or “simply rehashes what others say.” So the “more or less” of
publication and its perceived “originality” have existential consequences that
ripple through the whole scholarly community.


I cannot remember that I ever used the word "original" as a word of unreserved praise for any scholarly text.

"Originality" IMO is often a good thing in the work of an belles lettres author, but rarely to be sought in the work of a shoemaker or a plumber, and a doubtful and twoedged something in scholarly literature.



Emery then has a discussion of reviewing which IMO is very thoughtful and thought provoking but which I won't comment on here.




Quote:
The public review of a considerable body of articles in scholarly journals
and volumes of collected essays, prepared according to the principles of “evidence-
based scholarship” by Michael V. Dougherty, Pernille Harsting and
Russell L. Friedman, published below, renders an important service to the
worldwide community of scholars in the Société Internationale pour l’Étude
de la Philosophie Médiévale. The results of the authors’ painstaking research
are disturbing, but who is the Real Philosopher (no ‘mere historian’) who
would counsel one to conceal unpleasant truths, which have significant consequences
for the world of learning?


Yes!




Now on
Michael V. Dougherty, Pernille Harsting, and Russell L. Friedman: 40 Cases of Plagiarism


First of all: IMO this is a great piece, a result of a lot of hard labour.

40 (yes: forty!) publications by Martin Stone were examined, and in each of them they have found Stone to be a plagiarist, and they identify work by others which was plagiarised and provide means to check their claims and example citations.

Reading this is the probably most frightening dark ride I have ever been on.

The authors write:

Quote:
The Dossier below contains 40 entries, documenting the plagiarism found
in the 40 publications by Martin W.F. Stone that we have investigated. It is
important to emphasize that the list is not exhaustive; it includes only the main
plagiarized sources that we have identified and documented as of 24 March
2010. We would be grateful for all supplements to, and corrections of, our
documentation.
Each entry includes (1) bibliographical information on the publication by
Martin W.F. Stone; (2) bibliographical information on the main source(s) of
the plagiarized text found in Martin W.F. Stone’s publication; (3) the page
numbers on which the plagiarized text is found in Martin W.F. Stone’s publication,
along with the corresponding page numbers on which the text in question
is found in the original source; (4) one or more examples that illustrate
the plagiarism.


And they do deliver!



Quote:
In The New Oxford Dictionary of English, “plagiarism” is defined as “the
practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s
own.”1 The Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (where Martin W.F. Stone was
employed until recently) states on its homepage: “K.U.Leuven defines plagiarism
as follows: ‘Plagiarism is any identical or lightly-altered use of one’s
own or someone else’s work (ideas, texts, structures, images, plans, etc.)
without adequate reference to the source.’”2
Taking our point of departure in these generally accepted definitions of
plagiarism, in our documentation of the 40 plagiarism cases we have only
included those occurrences of plagiarism in Martin W.F. Stone’s publications
that answer to the most obvious and indisputable criterion, namely the unacknowledged
copying of someone else’s published work and the publishing of
it as one’s own. More specifically still, by ‘unacknowledged copying and publishing’
we mean the copying, verbatim or in a slightly altered form,3 of pas-
sages of text written and published by others, and publishing this copied text
under one’s own name, without indication of the dependence on the source.4
Following this criterion, in our documentation we have not included the examples
in Martin W.F. Stone’s publications of unacknowledged paraphrasing
of others’ published work. Furthermore, we have not registered the examples
of unacknowledged use of standard translations, but only noted some of the
places where Martin W.F. Stone claims authorship of standard translations
and translations published in earlier works by other scholars.



And now I am hoping for an open access version of their dossier, so that there are improved chances that whosoever searches on the internet for "Martin Stone" will also find this text, and can then check and decide whom to quote as the source of a statement made by Stone/"Stone".


Title: Martin Stone: plagiarism: blog posts
Post by hck on 19.07.2010 at 14:25:37

Michael V. Dougherty has written on this affair (and the dossier) in his 2010-07-16 Thomistic Scholarship and Plagiarism (http://thomistica.net/news/2010/7/16/thomistic-scholarship-and-plagiarism.html) on Thomistica.net.
i.a.:

Quote:
That Martin W. F. Stone succeeded in publishing the words and research results of Fernand van Steenberghen, Ralph McInerny, Carlos Bazán, John Wippel, and Lawrence Feingold (among others) as his own, in academic journals and in books with reputable publishing houses, must surely cause scholars to take note.

...

Quote:
So far, retractions have been issued by:

   * Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 76:2 (2009), pp. v-vi
   * Tijdschrift voor Filosofie72:1 (2010) pp. 3 and 5
   * Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 86 (2010)
   * Springer
   * The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies

...

Quote:
Allow me to repeat two requests made in the introduction to “40 Cases of Plagiarism.” First, as the great majority of Stone’s pieces examined in the article have not, at present, been retracted by the editors and publishers of these pieces, we encourage the many authors, editors, and publishers whose legal copyright and intellectual property rights have been infringed, to seek retractions of all the pieces plagiarizing their original work. Secondly, we caution that the evidence published in the Bulletin  article is not exhaustive, and urge other readers to supplement our findings.













And, also from 2010-07-16: at http://nondefixi.blogspot.com/2010/07/few-items_16.html you can read i.a.:

Quote:
More on the Martin Stone plagiarism situation, with some relevant commentary for academic publishing more generally.  Interesting to note, I did a search for Martin Stone because I remembered mentioning him in the past, and his work with John Doyle on Cajetan popped up.  Since that posting, KU Leuven has removed his faculty page, and apparently the Cajetan volume has even been changed.  Cornell UP (distributing for Leuven) has removed Stone as editor and replaced him with Victor Salas.

Title: Martin Stone: plagiarism: 2010-07-20 updates
Post by hck on 20.07.2010 at 15:17:06


hck wrote:
...



  • Ielse Broeksteeg: K.U.Leuven Involved in New Plagiarism Scandal?: Did the Institute of Philosophy cover up a Fraudulent Professor? (2010-02-16) (http://www.thevoiceleuven.be/news/leuven/177-kuleuven-involved-in-new-plagiarism-scandal)

  •  Ielse Broeksteeg: Interview With a Victim of Plagiarism (2010-02-16, Interview with  Ilkka Kantola) (http://www.thevoiceleuven.be/news/education/188-interview-with-a-victim-of-plagiarism)



The above items have moved, and are now at http://thevoiceleuven.be/news/education/188-interview-with-a-victim-of-plagiarism and http://thevoiceleuven.be/news/leuven/177-kuleuven-involved-in-new-plagiarism-scandal.

I was alerted to the items not being at their original place yesterday, and found out about their new location thanks to http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/6432894/#6433352.

See also the links there and at http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/6432894/.

Title: Martin Stone: plagiarism: ETL retraction
Post by hck on 22.07.2010 at 08:48:02


hck wrote:
Michael V. Dougherty has written on this affair (and the dossier) in his 2010-07-16 Thomistic Scholarship and Plagiarism (http://thomistica.net/news/2010/7/16/thomistic-scholarship-and-plagiarism.html) on Thomistica.net.

...


Quote:
So far, retractions have been issued by:

   * Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 76:2 (2009), pp. v-vi
   * Tijdschrift voor Filosofie72:1 (2010) pp. 3 and 5
   * Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 86 (2010)
   * Springer
   * The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies


The Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses (ETL) retraction note (which you get when you try to download the 1999 article "Probabilism and Its Methods" in the electronic version of the journal reads in its English variant as follows:

Quote:
NOTE FROM THE EDITORIAL BOARD
On November 15th 2009, the editor-in-chief of ETL was informed that serious
plagiarism had been detected in the following article: M.W.F. STONE –
T. VAN HOUDT, Probabilism and Its Methods: Leonardus Lessius and His
Contribution to the Development of Jesuit Casuistry, in ETL 75/4 (1999) 359-
394. The plagiarism in question was related exclusively to the portion of the
article for which M.W.F. STONE was responsible and involved a monograph
by I. Kantola entitled Probability and Moral Uncertainty in Late Medieval
and Early Modern Times (Helsinki: Luther-Agricola Society, 1994).
It goes without saying that the Editorial Board of ETL strongly disapproves
of such practices and condemns any violation of the author’s rights
(I. Kantola) and the copyright of the publisher (The Luther-Agricola Society).
Such plagiarism represents a serious assault on intellectual integrity.
As a result, the electronic version of the article will no longer be made
available by Peeters Publishers. Furthermore, self-adhesive labels will be
despatched to subscribers together with fascicule 86/1 [2010] of ETL.
Subscribers are invited to attach the labels to the first and last page of the
offending article.
The Editorial Board of ETL



And when you try to access the abstract in the electronic version of the journal at http://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=article&id=504765&journal_code=ETL you get:

Quote:
Abstract :
This article is no longer available online. We refer to the editorial note published in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 86.1 (2010).
If you try to download this article, you will only see the editorial note, not the article itself.

That editorial note is at http://www.peeters-leuven.be/pdf/ETL8601EditNote.pdf.

I am happy about the retraction. But I feel less happy about the fact that researchers on an extreme case of late 20th and 21st century plagiarism will be restricted to using the version on paper. It is good that at the original place of the electronic version of the article there is the editorial note instead of the article itself. But In don't see why the article itself can not be made/retained available (with proper warning to readers like the one given via the self-adhesive labels to put on the article in the version on paper) at some other place linked to from the editorial note.



Thanks to Michael V. Dougherty for alerting me to that note!

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by MVDougherty on 11.08.2010 at 21:42:43

See also "A Note from the Editors" in Quaestio 9 (2009) 453-454, available online at http://brepols.metapress.com/content/n1xq12400835787n/fulltext.pdf

The article reproduces a January 15, 2010 letter from Prof. Peter Marynen, Vice Rector for Research at K.U. Leuven, that states in part:


Quote:
During his stay at the K.U. Leuven, Martin Stone has published the following work
with K.U. Leuven affiliation:

M.W.F. Stone, “The Antiquarian and the Moderniser: Giovanni Lorenzo Berti (1696-
1766), Pietro Tamburini (1737-1827), and Contrasting Defences of the Augustinian
Teaching on Unbaptised Infants in Eighteenth-Century Italy”, in Quaestio. Yearbook
of the History of Metaphysics
, 6 (2006), pp. 335-372 (Brepols Publishers).

The K.U. Leuven no longer considers this publication as being part of its scientific output,
and formally retracts its affiliation with this publication. The K.U. Leuven will accept
any decision you will make about the status of this publication.

The K.U. Leuven sincerely apologises for this extremely unfortunate event.


The editors write:

Quote:
As a matter of fact, it was discovered that some parts of the above-mentioned
article by Martin Stone present very strong similarities with, or were literally taken
from, passages from a dissertation by George J. Dyer, The Denial of Limbo
and the Jansenist Controversy
, Saint Mary of the Lake Seminary, Mundelein (Illinois)
1955, esp. pp. 112-130.

We duly take note of the decision of the K.U. Leuven and would like to offer
our most sincere apologies to Dr. Dyer (whom we have been unable to contact,
hoping that he is still alive) as well as to all our readers.

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by hck on 21.09.2010 at 08:27:00

The affair is mentioned briefly (and without mentioning the offender's name) on p. 6 of the recent issue of The voice (http://www.thevoiceleuven.be/images/stories/voice_y14i1_sept2010_screen.pdf).

Title: Schliesser on Martin Stone, plagiarism, refereeing
Post by hck on 21.10.2010 at 12:10:40

I found this item only today (thanks to W4RF's referrer logs):
Eric Schliesser: On Plagiarism and the Refereeing Institutions of Philosophy (2010-09-23) (http://www.newappsblog.com/2010/09/on-plagiarism-and-the-refereeing-institutions-of-philosophy.html).

Some extracts:

Quote:
Now, maybe it's because I collaborated on some projects with Martin (i..e, hosting workshops), have sent students to Martin, and at one point wished to be colleagues with him at Leuven, but here I do not want to analyze the motives and aims of Martin. Nor, do I wish to explore today if a disgraced scholar should ever be rehabilitated. Rather, I want to call attention to the rather lukewarm, if not indifferent, reaction of the editors and journals/presses that have published his work. A quick search on Amazon shows that a lot of books that contain chapters with Martin's work are still available. (I know of one Cambridge Companion that will expunge his chapter in a forthcoming second edition.) Moreover, while some journals have started withdrawing Martin's work (see the second link above), others appear to hope the whole issue will blow over, or are rather slow-moving.

Anyway, what does not seem to have happened is a general discussion about referee-ing.

...

Quote:
Nevertheless, the Martin Stone case suggests that the referee process is broken in rather serious fashion. Stone published in leading specialist journals and also with leading presses. It means that lots of people missed a considerable amount of plagiarism. What is even more striking is that this happened in a small-ish sub-field where folk pride themselves on learning, their languages, and scholarship.

...

Quote:
If Stone got away with plagiarism, it is not impossible others are, too. Have any presses/journals started thinking about procedures/processes that will catch these earlier in the system? There is now a lot of plagiarism-software on the market, maybe some of this needs to be adapted for or sold to presses? Anyway, peer-review is not working, and we need to have an open and honest conversation about this.



Some of you readers of this forum might also be interested in some of the comments to Schliesser's text.


I guess that part of the problem might be due to the fact (which in itself IMO is not a problem) that most publishers of scholarly books and journals are commercial enterprises (directly or indirectly) - legitimately aiming at catering for a public greater than the number of persons you could seat in the smallest of our rooms for seminars.

A real specialist in any rather small field X will have good chances at spotting plagiarism in a text on a topic in X when refereeing or reviewing that text.

But: in each of our rather small fields of specialised studies there are rather few specialists working there and there response to a text written by somebody else in that filed might be due to its (non-)congruence to their own views and on their personal relationship with the author. And a specialist will review a text as a specialist and in quite a number of cases will not be able to view that text also with the (lack of) knowledge and (often mistaken but real) expectations of a somewhat broader public. And it might not be a good idea to have somebody as a reviewer or referee of a text in which that reviewer or referee is mentioned in the acknowledgements. (Some anecdotal items concerning this: Once I was on a meeting of  subject editors for a review journal, and we were told that it was not a good idea to ask any person A to review a book by person B if we <the subject editors> were on a first names basis with either A or B <let alone both>, and the response by me and a subject editor from an other field was that in this case there would be almost no new reviews from our fields in that journal. A person known to me once was asked by the editors of a journal to which he had submitted a text to revise the text by providing some additional information, making his text a bit less esoteric and more appealing to a more general public; his response was that anybody who was interested in the topic of his paper would be able to understand it written the way he submitted it and would consider any additional information as superfluous; <he probably was right on this>).

Thus: while real specialists will be good at spotting cases of plagiarism, they often are in other respects not always ideal reviewers and/or referees for a journal or series which wants the texts published in it to be of interest to any audience with more than, let's say, ten to thirty members.

Yes, in theory there might be the option to have any submitted text examined (and a published text reviewed) both by real specialists and by scholars who just work in the broader area containing field this text is about.  But I doubt that we would be willing to accept the extra amount of work this would entail for us as reviewers, and the degradation of response times it would entail for us as authors.


Title: Re: Schliesser on Martin Stone, plagiarism, &c.
Post by hck on 10.11.2010 at 12:08:59

See also:
http://www.newappsblog.com/2010/09/more-reflections-on-plagiariasm.html and http://www.newappsblog.com/2010/09/on-the-significance-of-a-recent-high-profile-case-of-plagiarism-and-what-we-can-do-about-it.html, also by Eric Schliesser. (Some interesting comments there too ... .)

Title: Martin Stone's plagiarism mentioned
Post by hck on 18.11.2010 at 09:37:46

The Martin Stone case is also addressed and/or linked to) in comments #99, #100, #167, #168 to Teresa Nielsen Hayden: Plagiarism and the mechanics of privilege (2010-11-15) (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/012705.html).

The case by now by now seems to have become some part of public knowledge well beyond the field of medieval/renaissance studies, and Stone may have reached a level of prominence by his known acts of plagiarism which would have been difficult to attain by working as expected - though I doubt very much that that level of prominence is of any use to Stone.



(I have not heard anything about any sightings or activities of Martin Stone since this case became public. Do any of the readers/members of this forum have any information pertaining to this?)

Title: Martin Stone's plagiarism: 2011-11-17 update
Post by hck on 17.11.2011 at 09:36:44

There was nothing (known to me) to add to this thread for a whole year minus a day.

Today I became aware of two new and recent items (thanks to Michael Dougherty <MVDougherty on this forum here> on facebook):



  • Kara Richardson's review of Robert Pasnau (ed.), Christina Van Dyke (assoc. ed.), The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy (2 vols.), Cambridge University Press, 2010 (Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, dated 2011-11-24) (http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/27430-the-cambridge-history-of-medieval-philosophy/), which does not mention the plagiarism by Stone (who did contribute two items to that volume)

  • Eric Schliesser: WTF...A Known Plagiarist in a Cambridge History?!? (2011-11-15) (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/11/wtfa-known-plagiarist-in-a-cambridge-handbook.html) (with a number of comments).

Title: Re: Martin Stone's plagiarism: 2011-11-17 update
Post by hck on 21.11.2011 at 09:03:34


hck wrote:


  • Kara Richardson's review of Robert Pasnau (ed.), Christina Van Dyke (assoc. ed.), The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy (2 vols.), Cambridge University Press, 2010 (Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, dated 2011-11-24) (http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/27430-the-cambridge-history-of-medieval-philosophy/), which does not mention the plagiarism by Stone (who did contribute two items to that volume)




The above is no longer true: the review now has the following:

Quote:
Future editions of the History will omit M.W.F. Stone’s work, parts of which were plagiarized.  Essays by Rudolf Schuessler and Maarten Hoenen will replace Stone’s.)




Thanks to to Michael Dougherty <MVDougherty on this forum here> for pointing me to this on facebook.

Title: Martin Stone's plagiarism: 2011-11-21 update
Post by hck on 21.11.2011 at 09:17:41

Update:
Eric Schliesser: What if you have published a plagiarist? (2011-11-21) (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/11/what-if-you-have-published-a-plagiarist.html) : i.a.:

Quote:
Kara Richardson has now updated her NDPR review of the The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy (2 vols.) so that its readers are aware the hardback (box-set) edition contains plagiarized pieces by Martin Stone. She also has the happy news that future editions will contain brand new articles by Rudolf Schuessler and Maarten Hoenen.

What happened in the earlier version of her review goes to the heart of the matter. For it shows that even specialists can be unaware of plagiarism--not everybody is addicted to blogs, after all! I




Yes, once again found thanks to Michael Dougherty on facebook.


Title: Martin Stone's plagiarism: 2012-01-06 update
Post by hck on 12.01.2012 at 09:15:45

Michael Dougherty:
Thomistic Scholarship and Plagiarism, Part 2
2012-01-06 (http://thomistica.net/news/2012/1/6/thomistic-scholarship-and-plagiarism-part-2.html)

About two retractions.

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by hck on 01.07.2013 at 12:54:52

The handling of this case is mentioned and discussed in Stefan Heßbrüggen-Walter: Whistle blowing in the German University: A Regulatory Scandal in the Making (2013-07-01) : i.a. :

Quote:
In Leuven, a student newspaper made the matter public, pressuring the dean of the faculty into a statement in which the general attitude of the university was summarized in two sentences: "The whole case was handled discreetly but with due decisiveness. We do not organize any witch hunts here and we do not use public shaming as a punishment." So KU Leuven acknowledged the problem publicly only after the press had been informed. Under the new rules in Germany, this form of whistle blowing, if done by an academic, would be a sanctionable offense. Keeping an investigation of academic misconduct off the public radar -- or simply covering  it up --  wouldn't be.

At KCL in 2010, “a spokeswoman said the college had established a panel of senior staff to investigate allegations of plagiarism against a former member of staff from the department of theology. 'This investigation is ongoing and we cannot say more until it is completed,' she added.” (Times Higher Education, 2010). This is exactly how German universities would process accusations of academic misconduct in the future. In the UK, the investigation is apparently still ongoing three years later: to this day, I am not aware that KCL has released any statement acknowledging Stone's plagiarism or taking any final position on his employment.  Neither did the KCL philosophy department. But they should have. In 2010, the anonymous KCL spokeswoman characterised Stone as a 'staff member of the theology department'. This was at best misleading: Stone must have been in some way affiliated with the KCL department of philosophy, too. Before the scandal broke, KCL philosophers did not hesitate to include Stone's contributions in their report for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) ([PDF], [Website URL]). If Google is right, this is the only remaining reference to Stone on the KCL website. All other links to Stone have been purged, even though the department website contains a rubric for 'former
faculty'. Apparently, KCL has succeeded in what Leuven had set out to achieve: to handle Stone's plagiarism 'discreetly, but with due decisiveness' and, we should add, without any lasting damage to its reputation.




2013-07-12 edit to this 2013-07-01 post: if case you should miss a link: do use http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/07/whistle-blowing-in-the-german-university-a-regulatory-scandal-in-the-making.html

Title: Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Post by hck on 09.06.2016 at 14:47:46

I had assumed this to be finished, but: https://twitter.com/FrueheNeuzeit/status/740548840265252864 pointed me to
Shannon Palus: Philosopher earns 14th retraction for plagiarism (2016-06-08) (http://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/08/philosopher-earns-13th-retraction-for-plagiarism/).


Quote:
Over the past several years, he has racked up retractions, earning his 14th this spring, and spot #30 on our leaderboard.

Stone’s retractions were brought to our attention by philosopher Michael Dougherty, who found a notice for “Michael Baius (1513–89) and the Debate on ‘Pure Nature’: Grace and Moral Agency in Sixteenth-Century Scholasticism,” a chapter in Springer’s Moral Philosophy on the Threshold of Modernity.

The retraction notice says that the chapter

   has been retracted at the request of the employer of the author at the time of writing, because it contains passages from the previously published manuscripts without acknowledging the source.


Cf. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F1-4020-3001-0_4 and http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F1-4020-3001-0_16



Re: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F1-4020-3001-0_16: I was and am smewhat surproised to read

Quote:
The chapter: Michael Baius (1513–89) and the Debate on ‘Pure Nature’: Grace and Moral Agency in Sixteenth-Century Scholasticism appearing in: The New Synthese Historical Library Volume 57, 2005, pp 51-90 has been retracted at the request of the employer of the author at the time of writing,
(bolding mine).
I had always expected that only a natural person (e.g. the author of a text, or a scholar having spotted plagiarism) could successfully request the retraction of a paper, not a corporation like a university.

And it seems Springer is still able and willing to sell this chapter (for $29.95 / €24.95 / Ł19.95).


W4RF » Powered by YaBB 2.1!
YaBB © 2000-2005. All Rights Reserved.