In a curious twist to a sordid tale, the plagiarized article that surfaced in September 2006 and that was beaten into the ground has again resurfaced. And yes, we are in the process of beating it into the ground again. :)
In a tribute to laziness, Dr. X did not even have the energy to change the title of his new article. It remains : A "new" WSD approach using word ontology and concept distribution That sad reality is that there is a (hopefully small) class of academics that are quite simply lazy or incompetent, and who think nothing of plagiarizing, and then when they are caught, simply resubmit it somewhere else. They take advantage of the trust and presumption of good faith that exists in the academic community, and that makes them all the more detestable. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Stay tuned for the identity of Dr. X. :) Cordially, Ted --- In [email protected], ted pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is the sort of note you don't want to get, especially not from me. > But this is what happens in real life my friends. People cheat, and they > get caught. > > Read on. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:14:54 -0500 (CDT) > From: ted pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Subject: question regarding "A new WSD approach using word ontology and > concept distribution" > > Dear. Dr. X. > > I was recently reading your paper "A new WSD approach using word ontology > and concept distribution", now available as an in press corrected proof > from www.sciencedirect.com for the journal "ABC", and I was disappointed > to see that your equation 14 and surrounding text (regarding the sense > score) comes from a previous publication by myself and Satanjeev Banerjee. > > The previous publication is the following: > > Extended Gloss Overlaps as a Measure of Semantic Relatedness (Banerjee and > Pedersen) - Appears in the Proceedings of the Eighteenth International > Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, August 9-15, 2003, Acapulco, > Mexico. http://www.d.umn.edu/~tpederse/Pubs/ijcai03.pdf > > There are several problems here. First, the method that you refer to as a > "common approach" is in fact published above, and should have been cited > as such. Second, you copy both the equation and supporting text *verbatim" > from the IJCAI paper. For example, the two paragraphs that precede > equation 14 in your paper are largely verbatim copies from the IJCAI > paper, which is not acceptable in scholarly writing (as you know) under > any circumstances. > > Thus, I am writing to ask you to withdraw this paper from publication. I > believe it should not have been accepted in this form, and surely would > not have been if the reviewers or editors were aware of the situation I > describe above. > > I would appreciate it if you would respond to my request by noon your > time Weds Sept 27. If you do not, I will approach the editor of the > journal and explain my concerns and ask them to remove the article. If you > agree to remove the article, I thank you, and hope that future > publications based on this work more clearly cite our own previous work, > and do not include verbatim copying. > > Cordially, > Ted > > -- > Ted Pedersen > http://www.d.umn.edu/~tpederse >
