Welcome, Guest. Please Login.
Web4Ren Forum (W4RF): Many sorts of information of potential relevance to those interested in Renaissance Intellectual History
18.12.2017 at 00:23:29
News: 2017-09-11: Back to normal.
Not exactly news: You are cordially invited to read, to register (if you've not already done so), to post ... .

Pages: 1 2 
Martin Stone accused of plagiarism (Read 160112 times)
hck
ModeratorAndAdmin
***




Posts: 5605
Gender: male
Martin Stone's plagiarism: 2011-11-21 update
Reply #25 - 21.11.2011 at 09:17:41
 
Update:
Eric Schliesser: What if you have published a plagiarist? (2011-11-21) : 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.
 
Back to top
 
 

for contact information etc. concerning hck (Heinrich C. Kuhn): see http://www.phil-hum-ren.uni-muenchen.de/php/Kuhn/
Email   IP Logged
hck
ModeratorAndAdmin
***




Posts: 5605
Gender: male
Martin Stone's plagiarism: 2012-01-06 update
Reply #26 - 12.01.2012 at 09:15:45
 
Back to top
 
 

for contact information etc. concerning hck (Heinrich C. Kuhn): see http://www.phil-hum-ren.uni-muenchen.de/php/Kuhn/
Email   IP Logged
hck
ModeratorAndAdmin
***




Posts: 5605
Gender: male
Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Reply #27 - 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-re gulatory-scandal-in-the-making.html
Back to top
 
« Last Edit: 12.07.2013 at 14:20:23 by hck »  

for contact information etc. concerning hck (Heinrich C. Kuhn): see http://www.phil-hum-ren.uni-muenchen.de/php/Kuhn/
Email   IP Logged
hck
ModeratorAndAdmin
***




Posts: 5605
Gender: male
Re: Martin Stone accused of plagiarism
Reply #28 - 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).
 
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 / £19.95).
 
Back to top
 
 

for contact information etc. concerning hck (Heinrich C. Kuhn): see http://www.phil-hum-ren.uni-muenchen.de/php/Kuhn/
Email   IP Logged
Pages: 1 2