If this story was not true you would not dare to make it up.
'The term plagiarism derives from the Latin word “plagiarius,” meaning “kidnapper” or “abductor.” Although plagiarism is difficult to define in few words, it can be viewed as the stealing of another person's ideas, methods, results, or words without giving proper attribution. The ORI defines plagiarism as being “theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work.” The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), UK, has defined plagiarism as “the unreferenced use of others published and unpublished ideas.” ' (Source here)
"Among the more than 2,000 retracted life science papers that researchers reviewed in this study, only about 20 percent were retracted because of honest errors. A whopping 70 percent were pulled as a result of scientific misconduct — that is, lying, cheating and/or stealing." (Source here)
Left unchecked, Dagg and his fellow jealous research ne'er-do-wells and others will most likely try to misappropriate more of my prior-published and expertly peer reviewed research and then write about it once again with with no mention of its original prior published source. Left unsanctioned by those he has deceived by his actions, Dagg will probably become a repeat serial liar and repeat science fraudster by plagiarism and will teach others to do likewise.
To date, the Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society has refused to conduct an investigation into the published (by Dagg), independently verifiable, evidence provided to him of Dagg's deliberate and malicious conduct in plagiarising my research without citation to its source.
This deliberate plagiarism of my research is a legal matter that can have very serious consequences for the publisher and plagiarist author.
"What makes plagiarism reprehensible as such is that it distorts scientific credit." (Paper here).
In the context of stealing orignal research, even taking one important word from the research of another can constitute serious plagiarism.
A a renowned Oxford University Press Bibliographies author (Sutton 2017) on stolen goods markets, I never thought I would need to contact this esteemed publisher to report that one of it's journals was refusing to correctly investigate the verifiable evidence in a case of malicious plagiarism of my research.
In many ways theft of research findings is a far worse crime than other types of theft. I have no doubt that in the near future I will continue to research and publish in the field of stolen research, discoveries and original ideas. My own experience will be used as just one case study in the regard. I have many others.
Plagiarism of research findings means you are effectively passing them off as your own. When this is both deliberate and malicious, as is the case with Dr Dagg, this is arguably the most serious sub-type of plagiarism.
My research on plagiarism has been repeat plagiarised in 2 articles arguing the plagiarism never happened. I was plagiarise in the journal where the plagiarism I detected happened. Talk about multiple irony see: https://t.co/yQN4gai04q)— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 8, 2020
Similarly ironic https://t.co/szqB86wRhw
If you plagiarise, as Dagg has done, someone's research findings in a scientific journal, this is a most disgraceful offence of serious and gross professional misconduct known as science fraud by plagiary.
Since my own research findings have been twice plagiarised in an OUP journal (now under investigation) I am currently researching other victims:— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 4, 2020
"Why scientists would sabotage their careers with these practices is puzzling"https://t.co/ezE1I4f6D4
'Plagiarism can be defined in multiple ways, but the most basic definition refers to the act of representing another person’s work as one’s own. Derived from the Latin root plagiarius which means “kidnapper,” plagiarism involves stealing another person’s ideas, words, or results without appropriately assigning credit, effectively passing the work off as one’s own creative output. In defining plagiarism, it is useful to examine the multiple forms that plagiarism can take. Forms of plagiarism include blatant plagiarism, technical plagiarism, patchwork plagiarism, and self-plagiarism. Blatant plagiarism is a deliberate act intended to deceive others; in this case, a person copies work and knowingly omits citation or giving credit to the original source.' (Ref. Here)
Plagiarism of research is deemed to be particularly serious (legal issues explained: here).
Imagine you did some groundbreaking original research that proved the history books and learned journal articles and Darwin Medal winners all wrong for claiming no naturalist had read Patrick Matthew's (1831) theory of evolution by natural selection before Darwin (1858, 1859) and Wallace (1855, 1858) plagiarised it. Imagine that a fanatical Darwinite had written malicious reviews on Amazon of the book containing your research and set up a fanatical blogsite to do more of the same. Imagine then that the very same person plagiarised some of your research in a scholarly journal by failing to cite you as its discoverer? What would you do? What would you expect the journal, its editor and publisher to do? Truth is often stranger than fiction. Because that plagiarist is Dr Dagg. And the journal he used to commit this act of scientific fraud by plagiarism is the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, published by Oxford University Press.
Oxford University provides us with a famous definition of what constitutes plagiarism:
- 'Plagiarism in empirical research includes: i) copying or using any data without citation (and permission)' .
- ‘...data’ is a relational category applied to research outputs that are taken, at specific moments of inquiry, to provide evidence for knowledge claims of interest to the researchers involved. They do not have truth-value in and of themselves, nor can they be seen as straightforward representations of given phenomena. Rather, they are fungible objects defined by their portability and their prospective usefulness as evidence' (here).
What Dagg conveniently left out of his apology for an academic article when he plagiarised and so effectively stole my Selby discovery by failing to attribute its source to its discoverer is that the naturalist Selby was editor of the journal that published Alfred Wallace's (1855) famous Sarawak paper on evolution by natural selection (a paper read by Darwin pre-1858). Dagg also conveniently failed to mention that Selby was also was a friend of Charles Darwin's father (who was a house guest of Selby) and that Selby was a very close friend of Darwin's close friend and prolific correspondent Leonard Jenyns - and others in Charles Darwin's close knit circle). Full citations to the source of all these facts are in my books of 2014 and 2017 (both maliciously reviewed on Amazon by Dagg before he plagiarised the Selby cited Matthew discovery!) Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.
Dagg's failure to cite my research as the source of new knowledge about Selby (1842) citing Matthew (1831) in the field of Darwin's plagiarism research, and Dagg's linked use in his references section of the book unearthed, in that context, solely by my research. is serious research findings plagiarism even it was accidental. The fact it was clearly maliciously deliberate makes it all the more reprehensibly serious and in need of a serious and fitting deterrent punishment to Dagg and to others.
"...plagiarism (in principle) can consist in as little as one word, while there are many standard sentences describing research methods that will not be plagiarism even if, in fact, copied from someone else. This is to say that the unmarked reuse of some very short passages might be plagiarism, even though the reuse of other equally short passages would not. The conclusion to draw from this is that plagiarism has to do with quality rather than quantity – or, more precisely, with what is unique rather than so common that it cannot be attributed to [just] anyone." (see: Helgesson G, Eriksson S: “Plagiarism in research”, Medicine,Health Care and Philosophy 18:1 (2015):91-101)
Matthew (1831) uniquely coined the term 'natural process of selection' to name his bombshell break through and Darwin (1858), who later knowingly lied (after Matthew had informed him otherwise) by claiming no other naturalist had read Matthew's theory and that he had not read it before replicating it, uniquely four-word shuffled Matthew's term to 'process of natural selection'. It being a process, natural (as opposed to artificial - as Matthew explained first by analogy with regard to forest trees) and about selection.
Please note that Loren Eiseley (1979) discovered that Darwin had earlier replicated Matthew's exact same unique forest trees v those raised in nurseries explanatory analogy in a private essay in 1844. Matthew was a forester and arboriculturalist as well as a noted botanist, internationally famous hybridiser of apples and farmer. Darwin would later try to portray Matthew as a non entity by describing him as 'an obscure Scottish writer on forest trees'!
That fact of Darwin's use of Matthew's unique and powerful explanatory analogy for natural selection alone was enough to turn Professor Eiseley from a Darwin fan, who had earlier written an entire book praising Darwin, to an accuser that he committed science fraud by plagiary. Since then an overwhelming preponderance of further evidence has been unearthed to allow any reasonable person to conclude that it is far more likely than not, and probably beyond all reasonable doubt, that both Darwin and Wallace in their Linnean Journal papers of 1858 and Darwin (1859) in his book 'The Origin of Species' committed the worlds greatest science fraud by plagiary.
Sadly, today others are engaging in serious academic misconduct - some arguably amounting to concerted criminal harassment over several years - in an attempt to re-bury this important research data.
In addition to the Selby cited Matthew in 1842 discovery, my original research uncovered many others, including famous naturalists who were close associates of Darwin and Wallace, their influencers and their influencer's influencers who cited Matthew's (1831) book in the literature before Darwin and Wallace replicated the theory in it and then claimed independent discovery of the same theory, same name for that theory and same explanatory analogies of difference between natural and artificial selection for it, and much more besides. All these independently verifiable facts are fully referenced and discussed in depth in Nullius in Verba. All these original facts were detected using the innovative Internet Date Detection (IDD) research method (see Sutton and Griffiths 2018). That method only worked for a limited period of time. Were I to have begun my research today I would never be able to find what I found back in 2013/14. And so Dagg would not have been able to plagiarise my research.
Since it is important and in the public interest that the history of science and discoveries made in that field be informed from the original research that first unearthed them, who actually first unearthed them (On the Selby discovery alone see Sutton 2014, 2015 and this 2016 press article as just a few examples among many), I have very recently written to the academic journal editor Of the Linnean Journal informing him of Dagg's actions - supplying him with the proof that Dagg had read my prior published research containing the fact that the famous naturalist (a friend of Darwin's father and Darwin's friend and prolific correspondent Jenyns) "Selby cited Matthew in 1842" and Selby wrote on aspects of his theory therein.
Dagg - who like his correspondent, (a well known criminal cyberstalker, harasser, obsessive poison pen emailer and criminal harasser of Nottingham Trent University staff) and fellow harasser, Darwin fanatic, Julian Derry - had prior been following me all over the internet to harass me and Patrick Matthew's third great grandson Howard Minnick.
Dagg has also written two ludicrous and malicious attacks on Amazon books about my published original research findings - also prior to plagiarising parts of that research in the Linnean Journal (e.g. here - archived here [scroll down to read Dagg's malicious November 2017 review], also published before his 2018 Linnean Journal article that deliberately plagiarises my important bombshell "Selby research discovery" of 2014).
Following the publication of my research that proved (contrary to prior knowledge based on Darwin's published defence falsehoods) that many other naturalists in fact did read and cite Patrick Matthew's (1831) book, Dagg also set up a ludicrous website to write at great and obsessive length his absurd claims about my other published research on the Spinach, Popeye, Iron and Decimal Point error myth. (See Dagg 2016) and other ludicrously malicious obsessive and clearly demented issues invented inside his mind about me and my research findings.
In the interests of public protection against plagiarisers and harassers, the actions of Dagg and his friends can be studied in greater detail on the Patrick Matthew website (here).
History will not be kind to these people for their fraudulent and anti-scientific disservice to the history of science and discovery
A second instalment in the story of criminal harassment of myself & others, & malicious plagiarism by those seeking to re-bury the newly unearthed facts that Darwin & Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud by plagiarism and subsequent lies. https://t.co/yQN4gai04q pic.twitter.com/EvyLr4j1N0— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 8, 2020
Imagine what would happen next if these sly machinating and maliciously jealous plagiarists Weale and Dagg were allowed to escape without severe and appropriate punishment for their plagiarism of my research? What would they plagiarise next and pass off as their own? Maybe they also jealously covet my other original research discovery that the naturalist geoplogist and publisher Robert Chambers who met and corresponded with Darwin pre-1858 (said to have put evolution in the air in the first half of the 19th century) cited Matthew pre-1858? Maybe they would plagiarise any number of the others in List 1 from my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. What about Jameson, whose sponsor was William Hooker, father of Darwin's botanical mentor and collaborator in the Linnean Journal plagiarism debacle of Matthew's (1831) theory in 1858?
By misappropriating my research discovery about Selby, by not referencing my prior published books containing it (Sutton 2014 & 2017), and so passing it off as their own discovery based on their own research, Weale and Dagg effectively also, by default misappropriated my unique IDD research method that discovered Selby's citations of Matthew and the book he wrote them in. In the future, if this plagiarism, is not redacted there may well be unintended consequences if the negative impact of Google's Rank Brain autonomous artificial intelligence program on research in the Google Library is not part of our future knowledge about the negative impact artificial intelligence can have on human society (Sutton and Griffiths 2018). Because the research that discovered Selby, and others in my List 1 of those who we newly know cited Matthew (1831) pre-1858 only worked for a limited period of time. If I was to begin my research on this issue today, those books would all be undetectable, as they had been for over a century before.
Surely, according to the COPE guidelines on plagiarism (here), both Dagg and Weale should have their papers retracted by the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and then both authors should be placed on a plagiariser 'black list', simply because their individual papers each contain acts of plagiarism of my important research that first informed the world that Selby had read Matthew's research in 1842, written about it and where it is absolutely proven he did so.
Plagiarists, once discovered are made an example of. It is to protect us all from those who seek to corrupt the history of discovery by stealing research results, and also so pretending they found them without recourse to my IDD research method, by slyly inserting themsleves where they have no right to be. It is bad enough that Darwin and Wallace got away with it when they plagiarised Matthew's prior published theory. We must not allow their fanatical worshippers to do the same. It is our duty to protect those who follow us from what we know is the great evil of jealous thieving dishonesty, slyly perpetrated to steal the truth.
.Thanks Andy. Dr Mike Weale, who plagiarised my research in his article in Biological Journal of Linnean Society, wrote a malicious email to the VC of Nottingham Trent University trying to have me fired for defending my research. More on Darwin's Lads here https://t.co/BKYCq88xcX https://t.co/zUU2JR5rJj— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 24, 2020
We all have a right to know the truth.
List 1 from Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret (2014, 2017) with my latest research discovered updates in blue font.
. To be continued....Dr Dagg, of the @RoninInstitute published malicious blog posts about my published, peer reviewed research, then plagiarised that same research (Selby cited Matthew data) in the Linnean Journal!— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 11, 2020
Malicious blogs https://t.co/6d2YDSHA40
Malicious Plagiarism https://t.co/Nqw6wrdaEd pic.twitter.com/mZy8ObWvdX
Indeed.— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 23, 2020
Here is a frightening yet true academic crime story about deliberate and malicious plagiarism or research which nobody would dare make up if it was not 100% accurately veracious. Now under formal investigation by Oxford University Press:https://t.co/yQN4gai04q https://t.co/6XllmTz2Pu pic.twitter.com/gPUtzc9WTY