.
Some people just don't get it do they. This is hilarious.
Failure to cite your prior-influencers on a new discovery, making it look therefore like your own, when you write about it in a publication, is plagiarism.
Martyn Shuttleworth on Science Fraud
"...not citing the research of others, and stealing ideas, is another common science fraud....
Most scientific papers, especially during the literature review, use other sources, but they need to be properly cited."
OK, so in the above screen shot from the history of edits page of the Wikipedia page on Patrick Matthew, we can see that Joachim Dagg most weirdly, or not, as the case may be, brags about the fact he never cited me as his own (prior published Sutton May 2014a, presented in London and published 2014b), nationally reported in Scotland following my presentation of the bombshell findings at the Edinburgh Festival of science event hosted by Edinburgh Skeptics Society (see Scottish Daily Mail April 2014) and then reported in the entire UK (Daily Telegraph May 28th 2014), prior -published and independent academic expert peer reviewed (Sutton 2014c) influencer on the my original - unearthed from the obscure literature discovery - of Selby (amongst seven naturalists) citing Matthew's (1831) book and original ideas on natural selection pre-1858.
Dagg the Plagiarist's paper can be read here
That Dagg used my original ground breaking research but failed to cite me as his prior-published, nationally reported on by the press, and peer reviewed by academic experts, influencer on this topic of Selby is very bad scholarship and is arguably very abysmal academic practice in my own opinion. It is academic and scientific serious misconduct in the form of plagiarism.
The Selby citation of Matthew was originally unearthed by me using the newly recognised IDD Big Data research method and was, as said and reported, first revealed to the world and published in my 2014 600 page e-book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'. Consequently, also in my own personal academic opinion, this failure to cite my original unearthing is an academic matter that should now be investigated, analysed, weighed and then debated at the highest levels in expert peer reviewed journals on the topic of plagiarism and poor academic practice, in order to settle the matter fairly, independently and academically, because I would argue that it is possibly capable of being deemed a sub-type of plagiarism, which I have called plagiarising science fraud by glory theft (Sutton 2015). I will be writing further academic articles including this data on that topic. On which note, Dagg has been obsessively and jealously following my original groundbreaking work since it was published on this topic in 2014 and blogging most vindictively about it by prolifically posting numerous silly and incorrect statements about my research in a number of areas, even obsessing about my original mythbusting discovery of the famous Spinach Supermyth (Dagg's weird obsessing on that is archived here) in a series of most desperate yet failed attempts to discredit me. Why? Because I made hugely disruptive original discoveries about who really did read Matthew's prior origination of macroevolution by natural selection - as opposed to the old beloved science myth that no one read it - before Darwin and Wallace replicated it along with many of Matthew's highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples and essential terminology, and before Darwin is proven to have lied about who he knew had prior read and cited Matthew's original groundbreaking idea.
We know Dagg read my prior-published original unearthing of the Selby, Matthew, Wallace connection in this particular story because, he wrote in 2014 about the contents of my 2014 e-book, which first revealed the discovery (see first screenshot image directly below taken from just one of his numerous obsessive and silly, incorrect online publications about me and my research publications, archived here). Moreover, as the following screenshot of his arguably similarly muddle headed Amazon review of my paperback book below proves, he admits in writing to having read my first e-book book and this later (vol 1) paperback - containing that breakthrough - before Dagg 2018 then uses the very same newly uncovered Selby information without citing me as its original (see Sutton 2014a, Sutton 2014b, Sutton 2015, Sutton 2017) influencing uncovering source in the story of Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing science fraud. Most ironically, Dagg then publishes it in the Linnean Journal - the very same journal where Darwin and Wallace (1858) published their papers, which replicated Matthew's prior published breakthrough without citing Matthew! Honestly, you could not make this stuff up for fiction because critics would write that it was unrealistic.
What Dagg has done by not citing my original breakthrough uncovering of the new data about Selby is to give the impression that he discovered it for himself. But he never. I did. More so, I prior-published my original breakthrough unearthing discovery in my (2014, 2017) book and two peer reviewed journals, as Dagg fully knows because he claims on his and other various blog sites to have read them all.
What of Dagg's (2018) Linnean Journal article that disgracefully plagiarizes my expert peer reviewed journal articles and other publications - we know he read - by failing to cite me as the prior published source he got the Selby discovery from and the other associated data I originally unearthed on Selby?
Dagg attempts to show, as so many others have tried before him, that Darwin and Wallace did not replicate Matthew's work because the three theories are fundamentally distinct. But the hard facts of the 19th century publication record fly in the face of his desperate rhetoric.The facts are that having been challenged by Matthew, in print in 1860, on his replication without citation, of Matthew’s original prior-published breakthrough, Darwin replied: “I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species.” Darwin also (1861) admitted from the third edition onwards of The Origin of Species: “In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on ‘Naval Timber and Arboriculture,’ in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr Wallace and myself in the ‘Linnean Journal,’ and as that enlarged in the present volume.” Darwin further admitted that Matthew “…clearly saw the full force of the principle of natural selection.” In addition to that, in 1879 Wallace wrote to Samuel Butler and described Matthew as was one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the nineteenth century and further that: “Mr. Matthew apprehended the theory of natural selection, as well as the existence of more obscure laws of evolution, many years in advance of Mr. Darwin and myself.”
Given these facts from the 19th century
publication record, no amount of desperate 21st century beloved science myth protecting magical thinking can reverse the fact that Matthew, Darwin and Wallace
should be considered the foremost experts on what each wrote on macro evolution
by natural selection. And that means, given each expertly knew (knew far more than Dagg on the matter) and wrote that
Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew’s theory that they indeed did exactly
that! In other words, Darwin and Wallace replicated, without citation of its originator, Matthew,
essentially the very same theory. What we newly know is that the excuse Darwin and Wallace did so because no naturalist read Matthew’s origination is a new (Sutton 2014) Big
Data discovered myth that is now shown to have been built on a punctured
premise that began as a self-serving lie told by Darwin (See my 2014 peer reviewed article for proof of Darwin's great lie). Matthew's book and the original big idea in it was read and cited by naturists at the epicentre of Darwin's and Wallace's pre 1858 influence. Moreover, Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's essential analogy of differences between artificial and natural selection.
Even more conclusively, Loren Eiseley concluded that Darwin (his former science hero, about whom he had written a doting book) was a plagiarist after he uniquely discovered that in a secret 1844 private essay, Darwin replicated Matthew's, forester and arboriculturalist, highly idiosyncratic nursery versus forest trees example of that very same unique analogy. Equally condemning, Darwin uniquely four word shuffled Matthew's unique name for his theory from Matthew's 'natural process of selection' to his own re-branded 'process of natural selection' the three words natural, process and selection being replicated because they are essential to explain what Matthew's theory is.
The facts speak for themselves and no amount of wishful thinking can change them.
My book 'Nullius' goes into far more detail with far more independently verifiable fully referenced examples that suggest it far more likely than not that Darwin and Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud by plagiarism and lying glory theft. Dagg has read and reviewed Nullius, but failed to cite it, just as Darwin and Wallace failed to cite Matthew in the Linnean Journal. Dagg has repeated the same disgraceful behaviour by using the data on Selby that I originally unearthed and not citing where he learned of it.
Even more conclusively, Loren Eiseley concluded that Darwin (his former science hero, about whom he had written a doting book) was a plagiarist after he uniquely discovered that in a secret 1844 private essay, Darwin replicated Matthew's, forester and arboriculturalist, highly idiosyncratic nursery versus forest trees example of that very same unique analogy. Equally condemning, Darwin uniquely four word shuffled Matthew's unique name for his theory from Matthew's 'natural process of selection' to his own re-branded 'process of natural selection' the three words natural, process and selection being replicated because they are essential to explain what Matthew's theory is.
The facts speak for themselves and no amount of wishful thinking can change them.
My book 'Nullius' goes into far more detail with far more independently verifiable fully referenced examples that suggest it far more likely than not that Darwin and Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud by plagiarism and lying glory theft. Dagg has read and reviewed Nullius, but failed to cite it, just as Darwin and Wallace failed to cite Matthew in the Linnean Journal. Dagg has repeated the same disgraceful behaviour by using the data on Selby that I originally unearthed and not citing where he learned of it.
Facts
In 2014, I published my original 2013 unearthing of the fact the naturalist Selby (amongst others I originally unearthed) did, in 1842, read and cite Matthew's (1831) original ideas. Moreover, as I reveal with citations to sources in my book Nullius in Verba, I originally unearthed from the exceedingly obscure and hidden historic literature, the fact that Selby was also the editor of the journal that published Wallace's famous Sarawak paper on evolution, which Darwin read before 1858. Furthermore, my original research revealed from an obscure biography of Selby that Darwin's father and his best friend Jenyns were friends and houseguests of Selby. I uniquely revealed in the story of Matthew and Darwin's and Wallace's replications that the naturalist Jardine obtained a the copy of Matthew's book for Selby. These are exceedingly important findings. Having read my book (see archived proof here - and his demented fact denial barking mad jealous review here) Dagg, as further evidenced by his many online admissions, is fully aware I originally unearthed all of them because he has read all my published work on the topic!
Dagg is also aware of my original discovery that the naturalist Loudon (after writing in 1832 that Matthew's 1831 book apparently had something original to say on the question of the 'origin of species' - no less) then edited two of Blyth's most influential pre-1858 articles on evolution. Wallace's pre-1858 notebooks prove he read those Blyth articles. For his part, Darwin admitted in 1861 that Blyth was his most valuable informant on the topic of species!
Dagg is aware also that I originally discovered that the famous naturalist Robert Chambers cited Matthew's book in the journal he published with his brother. Then Chambers cited Matthew's second book "Emigration Fields" and most tellingly he then (with his brother) wrote his very own guide on arboriculture! And Chambers did all that all before anonymously authoring the 'Vestiges of Creation, (a bestselling science book said to have put evolution the air in the first half of the 19th century). Chambers then met and corresponded with Darwin. And all of this was pre-1858. Then in 1859, Robert Chambers first to be second in print with Matthew's original term "natural process of selection". And I have much, much more in my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' - all read by Dagg before he took my original Selby data without citing me as the source of its discovery.
These important original findings are amongst a great many others, I originally unearthed and reveal in Nullius and expert peer reviewed papers on the topic. They originally prove knowledge contamination routes exist - contrary to the wishful thinking nonsense Dagg shared on Wikipedia with his associate the malicious harasser, obscene Twittering intimidator and nasty cowardly cyberstalker J F (Julian) Derry when he bragged to him about not citing my prior-published research.
The fact is that my prior-published scholarly, peer reviewed and widely publicized original groundbreaking research influenced Dagg, because I originally unearthed the important Selby connection, that he replicated in his 2018 Linnean Society article. I will argue my opinion on camera before journalists and academics in December 2018, and in future peer reviewed papers on science fraud and plagiarism, that Dagg has shamelessly, boastfully, deliberately, and knowingly plagiarized my original groundbreaking research.
The reality, as opposed to Dagg's desperate rhetoric, is that many pre-1858 routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination exist from those who we newly know read and cited Matthew's (1831) breakthrough origination. Those routes led to the pre-1858 brains of Darwin and Wallace and to their known influencers and facilitators.
The degree of self-serving poor scholarship here is historically an exciting discovery in its own right for scholars interested in that particular topic. And, as said, following one invitation already, I will most certainly be giving public talks and writing about it in the academic press and elsewhere - using the verifiable hard evidence presented in this blog and much more besides, including data from desperately malicious and yet ludicrously disingenuous laughable hypocritical and dishonestly infantile emails sent to my employer by Dagg's online associate Derry and also another of their malicious and desperate associates, and more besides, who I will be naming in the interests of protecting academic freedom of speech from cowardly harassing bullies who seek to intimidate academics for what they have uniquely found that so upsets them. And I will be doing so to protect veracious science and the veracious history of scientific discovery from those who seek to maintain beloved "establishment" confort myths.What exactly is plagiarism in academic papers?
"...not citing the research of others ....is....science fraud. It is very easy to ‘spin’ the words of others, and pass it off as the researcher’s own. ...they need to be properly cited." (Shuttleworth)
Dagg's many mistakes, it seems to me, are due to his apparent bias-blinkerd binary thinking abysmal inability to understand that he needs to actually read and cite primary sources and then to read, think about and then understand what a knowledge contamination route for prior-published information is and how it might variously work, so very simply, to transfer ideas, original terms and phrases etc directly and through other parties etc. Dagg's daft comments about me and what has been newly unearthed can be seen, just for example here and archived here, in his numerous publications online about his ideas on my original breakthroughs, since 2014.
What then of Derry, Dagg's correspondent on Wikipedia? Derry is someone who along with Mike Weale (more forthcoming on him and his shamefully laughable, vindictive, failed, juvenile, attempts to intimidate me at the highest level of my workplace later) Dagg thanks for helping him with his Linnean Journal article in the acknowledgments section of that article. All three, Dagg, Derry and Weale are named in its history of revisions section as editors of the Patrick Matthew page on the world's worst encyclopedia. On that page of Wikipedia, Dagg openly boasts (here) to Derry of his failure to cite me - his prior-published, obsessively prior-read by himself, influencer on this topic on the Selby publication he cites - and how he then edited the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page with the intention of giving the impression - via overt claims - that he has somehow (perhaps magically?) disproven the knowledge contamination hypothesis. Well now, let us allow the independently verifiable published facts speak for themselves - as we always should:
Julian (J.F) Derry began his prolific juvenile vendetta of poison-pen cyberstalking from his email account (now taken off him for that atrocious unprofessional malicious harassment behavior) at Edinburgh University. He now publishes so many vindictive and malicious cyberstalking falsehoods. Having lost his position at Edinburgh university (according to himself in a number of self-incriminating ranting poison pen outbursts in the comments section to an article on the Times Higher Education blog) for persistently harassing others about my original discoveries, including a young women in Scotland, and others, associated with my research, in typical stalker escalation behaviour he has now turned his sad weirdo unwanted harassment attentions on students. Laxmi Aggarwal (one of my PhD students, incidentally also female) has never even read my book 'Nullius in Verba' and she most certainly did not review it! This weirdo behaviour typifies Derry's malicious harassment and intimidation cyberstalking campaign. He makes a wrong assumption, then abuses someone based on that wrong assumption, or other misrepresentation of reality. In the case in point he is naming an anonymous reviewer in order to intimidate them. But of course, he names the wrong person entirely. In reality, I know that a Tanzanian university agent reviewed it after reading it. Yet Derry has published nasty bullying intimidating falsehoods about one of my students instead in one of his many typically barking mad rambling nonsense cyberstalking poison pen comments on an Amazon review of my book.
I have NOT read the book and I do not intend to! my interest is illegal wildlife trafficking and any means to mitigate this. This has been attacked in this reply by a member of Edinburgh university! As a student I beg for me and my research to be left out of this discourse.— Laxmi Aggarwal (@LaxmiAggarwal1) May 30, 2018
Derry is a very sad case in need of help.
This review was NOT written by me. a shame that I have been involved in this just by having, a supervisor who I respect very much on my PhD. team. Difficult to believe the person who wrote this reply to a review was also once in charge of students in higher education.— Laxmi Aggarwal (@LaxmiAggarwal1) May 30, 2018
it was also claimed that "yebo" is Swahili which i found a bit patronising or ignorant for a lack of a better word haha !— Laxmi Aggarwal (@LaxmiAggarwal1) May 30, 2018
A pdf file detailing the verifiable evidence some of Derry's malicious falsehood abuse and stalking, with a link to the PatrickMatthew.com website detailing more from him and others can be found here
The degree of Wikipedia editor J. F. Derry's immature, vile abusive, obsessive cyberstalking hatred and vitriol is clearly proven by his language in this harrassment comment on the review of my book. Elsewhere he has used the misogynistic "c" word to abuse me. And that has been reported in the press. Abusers need to understand that they cannot cover their malicious cyberstalking by deleting their abuse after it has been read. Because on the internet "delete never means delete".
For links to the press reports and other publications including social media publications (including those achieved before the perpetrators deleted them) see all the fully documented evidenced researcher resources and more besides from others deeply upset by the facts that hugely disruptive Big Data technology has newly uncovered to bust the much beloved sacred science myths about Darwin and Wallace here: http://patrickmatthew.com/Book%20Reviews.html
And what is the knowledge contamination hypothesis? My colleague Andy Sutton sums it up better than I in a review he wrote of Nullius (here).
"I would ask readers to imagine themselves as a juror. Suppose Emma in village A invents the wheel. Several people in villages B, C, D and E see the wheel and know about it. There are paths from all those villages to village F that are known to be in use. Daniel in village F later, apparently independently, invents the wheel. Not only that but Daniel’s wheel, which is of course the same concept, is made of the same materials and has similar features to Emma’s wheel. Daniel has been friends with, and talked to, some of the people in those other villages, who we know have seen the wheel. They know he is working on a wheel concept. When challenged by Emma, Daniel claims nobody in his sphere knew about her wheel, but this can be shown to be false, ie they did know. Daniel is then credited with inventing the wheel. Members of the jury …
The wheel analogy isn’t perfect, but that is in essence the case that Dr Sutton builds, and he isn’t saying “might have read Matthew” or “might have known Darwin”, he is showing us irrefutable proof that you can see for yourself if you have internet access. There are other aspects to the argument which give further support, which you will find in the book.
So, I find the argument completely persuasive."
If you wish to see more of Derry's obsessive unreadable cyber stalking nonsense, you will see that he has responded to Andy, not just with malicious emails sent to his university email address, (emails that along with many others I have in my possession for further action), but also with a long tirade in response to Andy's book review.
Here is just a bit of it for now by way of screenshot.
.
