@Is it Big data?
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) December 27, 2017
Big Data Always Finds its Own: Due to Big Data Analysis of Big Data, Big Data Paper Cites Big Data Paper: on Darwin's Proven Lies Cited in China and Detected by Google Scholar Big Data and then Disseminated here via Social Media Big Data https://t.co/MkB7203ySj pic.twitter.com/9roOzIAc4O
+ (Archived post http://archive.is/8VpVe)So, my nice Xmas present for 2017— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 26, 2017
1. Google Big Data detects the New Data evidence for Darwin's plagiarizing science fraud. Published Dec 2014
2. Google Scholar detects work on Big Data in China citing it
For 1 & 2 See https://t.co/XRWUtppttk
What will 3 be in Xmas 2018? pic.twitter.com/vp4finmSgL
Facts are facts and are Insuppressible.
Facts are facts.
My peer reviewed discovery of Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing science fraud britsoccrim.org/volume14/pbcc_… is now cited by Chinese authors: "Impact of Data Literacy on Scientific Research Performance: A Model Analysis" scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=…
The paper cited is from
Papers from the British Criminology Conference 2014
(Archived here)
Paper title: The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery
Papers from the British Criminology Conference 2014
Vol. 14 ISSN 1759-0043
Crime, Justice, Welfare: Can the Metropole Listen?
Hosted by University of Liverpool
Hosted by University of Liverpool
Editor’s Note
In 2014 the British Society of Criminology Conference was hosted by the University of Liverpool. Held from 9th to 12th July the conference had the title “Crime, Justice, Welfare: Can the Metropole Listen?”. Sixteen papers were submitted to this conference journal, with five being accepted for publication. The journal has a rigorous peer-review process but (hopefully) a sympathetic approach to authors – especially early career and postgraduate authors – with helpful feedback and advice. I am hugely indebted to the editorial board, the various reviewers and the authors for making this journal a success in a very tight timetable.
Andrew Millie (Edge Hill University).
Editorial Board
Jon Bannister, Manchester Metropolitan University; Alana Barton, Edge Hill University; Karen Bullock, University of Surrey
Jon Bannister, Manchester Metropolitan University; Alana Barton, Edge Hill University; Karen Bullock, University of Surrey
Other reviewers
Rachael Armitage, University of Huddersfield; Jana Arsovska, John Jay College of Criminal Justice; Mark Brown, University of Melbourne; Mark Button, University of Portsmouth; Hazel Croall, Glasgow Caledonian University; Rod Earle, The Open University; Paul Ekblom, University of the Arts London; John Flint, University of Sheffield; Loraine Gelsthorpe, University of Cambridge; Simon Holdaway, Nottingham Trent University; Ross Homel, Griffith University; Martin Innes, Cardiff University; Zoƫ James, Plymouth University; Yvonne Jewkes, Leicester University; Ronnie Lippens, Keele University; Christopher Mullins, Southern Illinois University; Jill Peay, London School of Economics; Ryan Powell, Sheffield Hallam University; Layla Skinns, University of Sheffield; Helen Wells, Keele University
Rachael Armitage, University of Huddersfield; Jana Arsovska, John Jay College of Criminal Justice; Mark Brown, University of Melbourne; Mark Button, University of Portsmouth; Hazel Croall, Glasgow Caledonian University; Rod Earle, The Open University; Paul Ekblom, University of the Arts London; John Flint, University of Sheffield; Loraine Gelsthorpe, University of Cambridge; Simon Holdaway, Nottingham Trent University; Ross Homel, Griffith University; Martin Innes, Cardiff University; Zoƫ James, Plymouth University; Yvonne Jewkes, Leicester University; Ronnie Lippens, Keele University; Christopher Mullins, Southern Illinois University; Jill Peay, London School of Economics; Ryan Powell, Sheffield Hallam University; Layla Skinns, University of Sheffield; Helen Wells, Keele University
Published annually and available free online at www.britsoccrim.org © 2014 the authors and the British Society of Criminology
The Chinese citation of 'The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery' is in
Marxism College, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100089 Journal of Capital Normal University (Social Sciences Edition) 2016 Issue 02 (2016/05/03) P75 - 80 Social Science
Archived http://archive.is/n3DRm
ABSTRACT from Shen Jiujiu et al
'In the era of big data, the opportunities and challenges of scientific misconduct governance coexist.As a new tool for scientific misconduct governance, big data technology provides a shortcut for the identification of scientific misconduct, ensuring the comprehensiveness of data processing and making scientific research However, at the same time, the research misconduct in the era of big data is more subtle, the big data technology itself needs to be perfected, and the privacy issues caused by big data are lack of institutional regulation.Therefore, we need to build a scientific research system based on scientific integrity The legal system is based on the protection, integrity of scientific research education, big data technology as the support of the three research misconduct governance model, to minimize the occurrence of scientific misconduct'
The internationally cited Big Data discovered facts of Darwin's lies, plagiarising science fraud by glory theft, and many more unique bombshell discoveries besides are uniquely published in Vol 1 of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (volumes 2 and 3 forthcoming).
The internationally cited Big Data discovered facts of Darwin's lies, plagiarising science fraud by glory theft, and many more unique bombshell discoveries besides are uniquely published in Vol 1 of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (volumes 2 and 3 forthcoming).
~~~
Earlier related blog post below and archived here
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.
| Recent Posts Categories Archives | Link | Print | Email | Edit | Share | RSS |
Publication of Big Data Criminology Means Patrick Matthew Will No Longer Be Buried In Oblivion
Dec. 17, 2014 12:51 pm
I learned today that my first academic journal article on Darwin's and Wallace's science fraud has passed expert peer review and will be published very shortly.
Postscript (29 December 2104) my paper is now published and is available free here
Following the positive reception of my paper The Hi-tech Detection of Charles Darwin’s and Alfred Wallace’s Great Science Fraud, at the 2014 British Society of Criminology Conference, I was invited by the editor of the society's journal, Professor Andrew Millie, to submit an article, based on my paper, to the Papers from the British Criminology Conference Journal of the British Society of Criminology.
Papers from the British Criminology Conference
© 2014 the authors and
the British Society of Criminology
www.britsoccrim.org
ISSN 1759-0043; Vol. 14: xx-xx
Panel Paper
The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery
By Mike Sutton, Nottingham Trent University
AbstractPriority for discoveries is awarded to those who are first to publish. If a scholar writes claiming to have discovered something or originated a theory that has been earlier published, or presented in public by another who got their first, then the peer review process, professional and public disapproval is relied upon to identify and correct the self-serving irregularity. Thereafter, the pretender to the throne of discovery is expected to retract and apologise. If there is evidence that such a counterfeit originator had prior knowledge of their supposedly independent discovery being first discovered by another, the professional repercussions are likely to be catastrophic. This article is about the devastating Big Data facilitated 2014 discovery that the world’s most celebrated and studied natural scientist Charles Darwin, and his lesser known associate Alfred Russel Wallace, more likely than not committed the world’s greatest science fraud by apparently plagiarising the entire theory of natural selection from a book written by Patrick Matthew and then claiming to have had no prior knowledge of it.
MOVING ON TO ANOTHER POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Another new Big Data discovery
Those familiar with the story of Darwin, Wallace and Matthew will know that my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret' reveals a multitude of brand new and independently verifiable disconfirming evidence for the earlier Darwinist mere 'knowledge beliefs', initiated - self-servingly - by Darwin (1860, 1861) and supported by Wallace (1871) that Matthew's (1831) book and ideas had been unread by any naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace pre-1858 and that it was an obscure publication.
In addition, to my earlier unique discovery that an advert for Matthew's(1831) book took up 3
Nullius in Verba (Sutton 2014) reveals why the protocols of the 19th-century gentleman of science forbade them from mentioning Matthew’s heretical and deduced discovery in print. The non-committal language used on page 291 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica - no less - is, therefore, most tellingly cryptic:
'...Naval Timber by Patrick Matthew; a work which abounds in much practical information though mixed up with many things irrelevant to its subject.'
Yesterday (17/12/2014) I shared this latest new discovery with the statistical geneticist Dr Michael Weale of Kings College London, so that he could include it, along with the many other unique discoveries I have made using Big Data analysis in Google's Library project - all of which constitutes hard, independently verifiable evidence that Matthew was, contrary to prior fallacious Darwinist rhetoric, read and cited pre-1858.
Dr Weale has listed a few, but by no means all, of my important unique discoveries of who cited Matthew's 1831 book pre-1858, which are published in Nullius in Verba (Sutton 2014), on his superb website resource:The Patrick Matthew Project . Furthermore, Dr Weale has, most usefully, included some others besides those that I found.
Given what they wrote, and what they mention but never wrote about - for good reason, it seems plausibly possible that the author of this cryptic line in the mighty Encyclopedia Britannica had read all of the so-called 'things irrelevant' that Matthew (1831) wrote about that he uniquely included under the term he coined 'the natural process of selection' and that Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) later replicated along with Matthew's unique explanatory examples, and that Darwin (1859) uniquely re-named (by four word shuffling the exact same words used by Matthew) the 'process of natural selection'.
I wonder if we might ever discover who authored that 1842 encyclopedia entry that cited Matthew? Perhaps the encyclopedia has an archive?
