After reading parts 2 and 3, here are my thoughts.
Petty accusations were leveled at me, critiques of why I hadn’t used certain scholars, and even the very foundation of my entire dissertation was brought into question.
If she thinks those things are "petty," she is not a rigorous scholar at all. The omission of references to certain scholars, especially if those scholars have relevance to her own subfield, should absolutely be questioned. These sort of questions test the depths to which she has gone in her own research. As a contrived example, if an art history student doesn't reference David Hume in a dissertation about aesthetics, I would absolutely question why. If said student did not cite Hume because they did not know of Hume, it is then obvious that the research was not rigorous at all.
If she wants to be considered an expert in her field then she should be able to answer these questions precisely and with good reasons. I also thought it was funny that she complained about the committee not raising those questions when she submitted her proposal years ago. That's the whole point dummy... a proposal is just a proposal, if it sounds halfway decent it gets an approval. The expectation is that you will delve into all the background and research necessary to address any critiques that may come up at your defense. An approved proposal does not in any way imply a seal of approval for every detail of the dissertation... come on now.
Also, this quote from the third part of the story:
The similarities between the two papers were instead attributed to a paper written a few years prior by a colleague of Dr. Mao. It was then suggested that I had plagiarized that essay in my paper, as evidenced by my paper’s ‘similarity’ to this essay, as well as to the fact that I had not cited the essay. I had never heard of this essay of which I was now accused of plagiarizing, much less read it.
I wonder if the author even read this earlier paper after she received this letter? She notably does not go into it. I also can't believe how she says "I had never heard of this essay ... much less read it." As if that is a valid response to this sort of response? Consider the following (oversimplified) back-and-forth:
A. Hey, this person plagiarized me because he said the same things I did, but he said it after I did.
B. Actually, we think both of your papers are similar to a paper that came before either of you.
A. But I didn't read that paper so I didn't plagiarize that paper. Therefore, since Dr. Mao read my paper and I didn't read the earlier paper, he must have plagiarized me, and not the other paper.
Do you see the gap in logic??
Obviously if she never read the earlier paper she is innocent of plagiarism, but if the earlier paper is legitimately similar to hers, then she has no claim to say that her work was plagiarized. She doesn't seem to understand the fact that simultaneous, independent development of similar ideas is in fact, very common in academia. Newton and Leibniz independently created calculus at the same time, which is well known.
A more recent example is that in 1964, three different papers were published, independently, in the same year predicting the existence of the Higgs boson, which we have all heard about:
While I fully believe that she did indeed face an extremely hostile academic environment, I don't think the facts, as they are presented by the author, are enough to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that there was indeed plagiarism with ill intent. She seems unwilling to face the prospect that someone else might have thought of her ideas before she did. If she is serious about her claims, she will provide references to each of the three papers in question: her own, Dr. Mao's, and the earlier unnamed paper which is cited as pre-empting both of them. Then we can see if there is real merit in her claim. As it is now, this is just whining.
I also thought it was funny that she complained about the committee not raising those questions when she submitted her proposal years ago. That's the whole point dummy...
She also mentions submitting multiple drafts and requests for feedback, over the course of years, which Dr. Mao (who based on the description appears to be her thesis advsior) ignored. E.g. when she says "Dr. Mao had provided me with next to no feedback on my dissertation--- nothing substantial anyway. Emails with drafts went unanswered. There was the occasional promise to read it the following month, which always went unfulfilled."
If the very basis of the dissertation "had no validity" or the missing references were so fundamental as you imagine, her thesis advisor should have mentioned those things before the day of the defense.
She also seems to state (though she is less clear about this) that actual substantial wording from her essay (not just ideas) were copied. Several credible people she consulted (including her fellowship director) seemed to concur. I suppose it's possible for substantial amounts of exact wording to be "accidentally" plagiarized, but it's a lot less likely.
I also thought it was funny that she complained about the committee not raising those questions when she submitted her proposal years ago.
At least in the sciences, your thesis committee is supposed to continually/regularly keep tabs on your progress, and help ensure you're making progress towards a passing dissertation. This is the committee's responsibility.
An approved proposal does not in any way imply a seal of approval for every detail of the dissertation... come on now.
For sure, but the committee should know how things are progressing. In the sciences, the thesis defense is not really a "defense". It only gets scheduled when everyone basically agrees you will pass, and it's more of a celebration. It's very rare to have hostile defenses, and extremely rare for someone to fail. (If that happens, it's usually due to politics.)
As if that is a valid response to this sort of response?
True, but it is concerning if they're bringing up possible plagiarism by her and Dr. Mao, while not following through on any kind of punishment/censure of the two of them.
Hey now, no need to resort to name calling ("dummy"). I think you are reading far to much in her statements about her worth as a researcher to be charitable. "Petty" is easily read as being attached to "accusations" and not the rest of the sentence. Her point in that passage is that she wasn't given a chance to present her work and they decided to ruthlessly attack it. She said she was able to fend off attacks politely -- I see no reason to assume that she was not "able to answer these questions precisely and with good reasons."
If she is serious about her claims, she will provide references to each of the three papers in question: her own, Dr. Mao's, and the earlier unnamed paper which is cited as pre-empting both of them. Then we can see if there is real merit in her claim. As it is now, this is just whining.
I'm sure she would love to, but is afraid of having to deal with a frivolous lawsuit, as her lawyer warned her about.
"I had never heard of this essay ... much less read it." As if that is a valid response to this sort of response?
A big question is why didn't Dr. Mao mention this essay during the defense. I read the "why had this not been brought up to me four years prior when I submitted my dissertation proposal" as just one example of Dr. Mao's continual poor advising. Others are mentioned throughout the series.
She doesn't seem to understand the fact that simultaneous, independent development of similar ideas is in fact, very common in academia.
Maybe she understands, maybe she doesn't -- I found this part of the series to be more rushed, and I believe it would be a gap in logic to assume she doesn't. She talks about how the university suggested that she might have plagiarized the essay herself, which is probably why she focused on this line of narrative. "[My lawyer] pointed out that if the department really believed that I had plagiarized this new essay, it seemed ridiculous that they would agree to grant me my Ph.D. Further, he reasoned, if I had been the one doing the plagiarizing, why did they agree to let me keep the portion of my dissertation that contained the now infamous content?"
It's true that there are many unanswered questions, but I don't think it's right to read her series as an attempt to prove her case. It's telling a story that's well within the realm of believability. This professor also has a history of at least one such case brought against them just a year before.
A big question is why didn't Dr. Mao mention this essay during the defense. I read the "why had this not been brought up to me four years prior when I submitted my dissertation proposal" as just one example of Dr. Mao's continual poor advising. Others are mentioned throughout the series.
Mao and the department have a strong motivation to find work that predates both the papers in question so they can present a possible sequence of events in which neither parts consciously copied the others work.
Yes, thanks for clarifying what I said into what I meant. If this essay was really such a problem, it is rather suspicious that it suddenly appeared as the basis for both of their respective works. "I'd never heard of it" could indirectly mean "and I doubt Dr. Mao had, either." I'm curious whether this essay was cited in Dr. Mao's work...
Comments
After reading parts 2 and 3, here are my thoughts.
If she thinks those things are "petty," she is not a rigorous scholar at all. The omission of references to certain scholars, especially if those scholars have relevance to her own subfield, should absolutely be questioned. These sort of questions test the depths to which she has gone in her own research. As a contrived example, if an art history student doesn't reference David Hume in a dissertation about aesthetics, I would absolutely question why. If said student did not cite Hume because they did not know of Hume, it is then obvious that the research was not rigorous at all.
If she wants to be considered an expert in her field then she should be able to answer these questions precisely and with good reasons. I also thought it was funny that she complained about the committee not raising those questions when she submitted her proposal years ago. That's the whole point dummy... a proposal is just a proposal, if it sounds halfway decent it gets an approval. The expectation is that you will delve into all the background and research necessary to address any critiques that may come up at your defense. An approved proposal does not in any way imply a seal of approval for every detail of the dissertation... come on now.
Also, this quote from the third part of the story:
I wonder if the author even read this earlier paper after she received this letter? She notably does not go into it. I also can't believe how she says "I had never heard of this essay ... much less read it." As if that is a valid response to this sort of response? Consider the following (oversimplified) back-and-forth:
Do you see the gap in logic??
Obviously if she never read the earlier paper she is innocent of plagiarism, but if the earlier paper is legitimately similar to hers, then she has no claim to say that her work was plagiarized. She doesn't seem to understand the fact that simultaneous, independent development of similar ideas is in fact, very common in academia. Newton and Leibniz independently created calculus at the same time, which is well known.
A more recent example is that in 1964, three different papers were published, independently, in the same year predicting the existence of the Higgs boson, which we have all heard about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_PRL_symmetry_breaking_pap...
While I fully believe that she did indeed face an extremely hostile academic environment, I don't think the facts, as they are presented by the author, are enough to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that there was indeed plagiarism with ill intent. She seems unwilling to face the prospect that someone else might have thought of her ideas before she did. If she is serious about her claims, she will provide references to each of the three papers in question: her own, Dr. Mao's, and the earlier unnamed paper which is cited as pre-empting both of them. Then we can see if there is real merit in her claim. As it is now, this is just whining.
She also mentions submitting multiple drafts and requests for feedback, over the course of years, which Dr. Mao (who based on the description appears to be her thesis advsior) ignored. E.g. when she says "Dr. Mao had provided me with next to no feedback on my dissertation--- nothing substantial anyway. Emails with drafts went unanswered. There was the occasional promise to read it the following month, which always went unfulfilled."
If the very basis of the dissertation "had no validity" or the missing references were so fundamental as you imagine, her thesis advisor should have mentioned those things before the day of the defense.
She also seems to state (though she is less clear about this) that actual substantial wording from her essay (not just ideas) were copied. Several credible people she consulted (including her fellowship director) seemed to concur. I suppose it's possible for substantial amounts of exact wording to be "accidentally" plagiarized, but it's a lot less likely.
At least in the sciences, your thesis committee is supposed to continually/regularly keep tabs on your progress, and help ensure you're making progress towards a passing dissertation. This is the committee's responsibility.
For sure, but the committee should know how things are progressing. In the sciences, the thesis defense is not really a "defense". It only gets scheduled when everyone basically agrees you will pass, and it's more of a celebration. It's very rare to have hostile defenses, and extremely rare for someone to fail. (If that happens, it's usually due to politics.)
True, but it is concerning if they're bringing up possible plagiarism by her and Dr. Mao, while not following through on any kind of punishment/censure of the two of them.
Hey now, no need to resort to name calling ("dummy"). I think you are reading far to much in her statements about her worth as a researcher to be charitable. "Petty" is easily read as being attached to "accusations" and not the rest of the sentence. Her point in that passage is that she wasn't given a chance to present her work and they decided to ruthlessly attack it. She said she was able to fend off attacks politely -- I see no reason to assume that she was not "able to answer these questions precisely and with good reasons."
I'm sure she would love to, but is afraid of having to deal with a frivolous lawsuit, as her lawyer warned her about.
A big question is why didn't Dr. Mao mention this essay during the defense. I read the "why had this not been brought up to me four years prior when I submitted my dissertation proposal" as just one example of Dr. Mao's continual poor advising. Others are mentioned throughout the series.
Maybe she understands, maybe she doesn't -- I found this part of the series to be more rushed, and I believe it would be a gap in logic to assume she doesn't. She talks about how the university suggested that she might have plagiarized the essay herself, which is probably why she focused on this line of narrative. "[My lawyer] pointed out that if the department really believed that I had plagiarized this new essay, it seemed ridiculous that they would agree to grant me my Ph.D. Further, he reasoned, if I had been the one doing the plagiarizing, why did they agree to let me keep the portion of my dissertation that contained the now infamous content?"
It's true that there are many unanswered questions, but I don't think it's right to read her series as an attempt to prove her case. It's telling a story that's well within the realm of believability. This professor also has a history of at least one such case brought against them just a year before.
Mao and the department have a strong motivation to find work that predates both the papers in question so they can present a possible sequence of events in which neither parts consciously copied the others work.
Yes, thanks for clarifying what I said into what I meant. If this essay was really such a problem, it is rather suspicious that it suddenly appeared as the basis for both of their respective works. "I'd never heard of it" could indirectly mean "and I doubt Dr. Mao had, either." I'm curious whether this essay was cited in Dr. Mao's work...