Further detailed background information
In July 2020, I provided the full details of the
plagiarism of my research, by Dr Weale and Dr Dagg, to the Chief Editor of the
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society John Allen. The evidence I sent shows
my research was knowingly plagiarised. I also sent the original publication
details of my research, thus proving its provenance and that is has, therefore
been plagiarised.
John Allen replied to me by claiming that use of this key
and important original research finding without referencing the prior-published
research that the plagiarist took it from is not research plagiarism. His is
response in this regard is not only highly inappropriate but also totally
unacceptable.
Moreover, I think John Allen’s stated belief is surely, patently,
and profoundly wrong and out of line with all accepted, definitions of what
amounts to research plagiarism, as opposed to merely copying text.
The length and occasional repetition in this victim
statement will hopefully ensure that those now also in receipt of the same
independently verifiable evidence provided herein may be left in no reasonable
doubt that serious repeat research plagiarism has occurred and will understand
its serious nature, consequences, impact on me as the victim and the need to
act accordingly with integrity before the same or other authors further
plagiarise my research and further subvert the historic publication record.
I have never felt the need to complain officially about
plagiarism of my research before and I am shocked by the response I have
received. To date, I am extremely disappointed with the behaviour of The Editor
of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.
What, exactly, has been plagiarised?
Firstly, the research plagiarised is the relatively newly
uncovered fact, uncovered by my research, (e.g. Sutton 2014, 2014a, 2015,
2017b) that the naturalist Selby (1842) cited the recognised member of the
Scottish Enlightenment, botanist, agriculturalist, famous fruit hybridiser and
forester, Patrick Matthew (1831) in 1842. Secondly, this plagiarism includes
plagiarising the newly unearthed title and full reference for the book in
which, my research discovered, Selby (1842) cited Matthew (1831). Thirdly, by
default, the plagiarism includes plagiarising my unique research method (see
Sutton 2014b and particularly Sutton and Griffiths 2018 for full details of the
method) used to find this important new data in the historic publication record
in the field of the history of scientific discovery. Fourthly, by cherry-pick
plagiarising just one finding from my research, Dr Weale and Dr Dagg have
engaged in misleading science fraud by concealing the other evidence in my
research that can be used to dis-confirm the argument they make in their papers.
To emphasise by repeating the above point, plagiarism of
my ‘Selby cited Matthew in 1842’ original research finding also seriously
plagiarises the unique research method I developed and employed to find it.
Namely, the Internet Date Detection, Big Data, research method (see Sutton
2014b and Sutton and Griffiths 2018 to see our detailed peer reviewed article
on the method). Unless you were to know in advance that Selby’s book cited
Matthew’s book, which is something no known writer has ever mentioned before,
and so search on Selby or the title of his book, no other method tried before
or since was able to detect the fact it did. Therefore, to understand and
appreciate the seriousness of the repeat plagiarism of my research, it is
imperative to understand that without use of the IDD research method the ‘Selby
cited Matthew (1832) in 1842’ finding, could not, and arguably never would have
been found by future researchers in this field.
Pertinent contextual historical facts of the area of
research: Understanding the value of the finding that has been repeat
plagiarised:
- Matthew’s
(1831) book is accepted by the world’s leading experts on the topic (e.g.
by de Beer 1962, Mayr 1982, Dawkins 2010, Darwin 1861, and Wallace 1879)
as containing the first fully published theory of evolution by natural
selection.
- Professor
Loren Eiseley (1859) wrote a festschrift book on Darwin. Later he
discovered that Darwin had, in his private essay of 1844, replicated
Matthew’s (1831) highly idiosyncratic forester’s explanatory analogy of
differences between trees selected by nature, growing in the wild, and
those selected and raised artificially in nurseries. That one key research
finding absolutely convinced Eiseley that his hero had committed plagiarising
science fraud of Matthew’s prior published theory (Eiseley 1979). For my
own part, having first used my IDD research method to surprisingly debunk
a number of facts about who coined what term, phrase or concept, I used it
to research the process of natural selection and the term and concept
Selfish Gene in the expectancy that at least my science hero’s Darwin and
Dawkins should be rightfully attributed with their claims to science fame.
As my paper with Professor Mark Griffiths (Sutton and Griffiths 2018)
proves, I was wrong about Dawkins. As my books and peer reviewed articles
on Darwin Wallace and Matthew reveal, it surprisingly turned out I was
also surely wrong about Darwin too (Sutton 2014b).
- Prior
to my research (e.g. Sutton, 2014, 2015, 2018) expert knowledge had it
(e.g. de Beer 1962, Mayr 1982) that no one whatsoever/no naturalist and
certainly no one in Darwin or Wallace’s circles had read Patrick Matthew’s
(1831) published theory of what he called the “natural process of
selection” before Darwin and Wallace supposedly independently replicated
it in The Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society (1858) and
Darwin’s Origin of Species (1858), where Darwin named it the “process of
natural selection” and replicated many of Matthew’s unique explanatory
analogies of difference and other highly idiosyncratic yet key explanatory
examples of the theory. In reply to Matthew’s (1860) published letter
claiming his priority, Darwin (1860) claimed to have independently
discovered the theory. He went further to claim, ‘no single person’
(Darwin 1861a) and elsewhere ‘no naturalist’ (Darwin 1861) had read
Matthew’s prior published breakthrough before publication of the origin of
Species in 1859. That was a total knowing falsehood, a blatant lie if you
will. Because Matthew (1860) had already informed him otherwise and told
him of Loudon’s book review and of an unnamed Scottish naturalist who had
read it and feared to teach it for fear of pillory punishment for heresy.
Wallace kept silent on the matter and so effectively claimed innocence on
the question of his prior knowledge of Matthew’s prior-published
breakthrough. Later, however, Wallace (1879) wrote that Matthew was one of
the greatest thinkers in the first half of the 19th century
and did originate the theory he and Darwin replicated (Wallace 1879), and
more besides.
- As
said, the naturalist Loudon, who was editor of the Magazine of Natural
History, had read Matthew’s book. He reviewed it in 1832 and wrote that
Matthew appeared to have something important to say on what he termed “the
origin of species”, no less. Dempster (1983, 1996, 2005) pointed it out in
his important research in the field, but the fact Loudon was editor of a
famous naturalist magazine, was a naturalist known to Darwin and his inner
circle, and published two papers by Darwin’s prolific correspondent on
species, Blyth (1835, 1836) was seemingly unknown by other experts on the
topic. It has, therefore, been generally ignored in most of the academic
literature on Darwin apart from mention in the important published
research by Dempster. Eiseley (1979), did however produce convincing
evidence that Darwin (1858, 1859) had plagiarised important ideas on
evolution of varieties from Blyth.
- I
have a list of over 25 people newly proven by my 2014, 2018 research to
have cited Matthew’s (1831) book. Seven were naturalists, four of those
seven were known to Darwin pre 1858. Three of those four (including the
valuable, dual plagiarised, Selby discovery) played major roles at the
epicentre of influence on Darwin and Wallace pre-1858, on their
influencers and their influencer’s influencers. The Selby (1842) cited
Matthew discovery from that list, uniquely discovered by my research, is
among the most important in the new data on this topic. As my book (Sutton
2014, 2016) and peer reviewed article on this topic (Sutton 2015)
emphasise, Darwin’s father was a houseguest of Selby, as were other
naturalists known to Darwin and Darwin’s inner circle. Selby’s great
friend was Jenyns, who was Darwin’s friend and most prolific correspondent
(on Selby’s friendship with Darwin’s father and Jenyns see Jackson 1992).
Importantly, as my prior published research (e.g. Sutton 2014, 2014a,
2015, 2017b) reveals, Selby was, at the time it was published, editor of
the Journal that published Wallace’s (1855) famous Sarawak paper on
evolution, which Darwin read pre-1858.
- The
above facts prove why the newly unearthed Selby data from my research is
of high quality and is very important when it comes to the question of
whether Darwin read Matthew pre 1858 and whether Wallace read Matthew pre
1858.
What is plagiarism, particularly research findings
plagiarism?
The University of Oxford (2020) provides us with arguably
the world’s most famous definition of what constitutes plagiarism (my
emphasis):
"Plagiarism is presenting someone else's work
or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it
into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished
material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under
this definition."
The article by Dr Weale and the article by Dr Dagg each use my prior published
Selby data without any acknowledgement whatsoever to where they found it. So
how is that not plagiarism?
Where research findings are used without reference to
where they originated then that is defined as citation plagiarism, which is a
sub-type of research plagiarism. That is what Dr Weale and Dr Dagg did in their
respective articles in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.
Citation plagiarism may occur through careless attitudes
towards citation (Saunders 2010) or it may occur through an act of what Allen
(2007) calls ‘blatant plagiarism’, which is done with an aim to steal the
research finding in order to deceive others by taking credit for it. However,
it seems reasonable to assume that in other cases citation plagiarism may be
motivated or by a sole or perhaps additional wish not to reference the original
source of the research finding due to professional embarrassment, malice,
jealousy or some other pseudo-scholarly ulterior motive. In that case the
motivation may be to have the finding wrongly perceived as something widely
known and not attributable to anyone. In some cases, perhaps citation
plagiarism is motivated by the plagiariser’s perceptions of academic discipline
rivalry that may involve trying to double-guess readership, peer review and
editorial arrogance, personal dislike of the victim, their research findings,
their interpretation of those findings and conclusions, or individual and
disciplinary jealously regarding the discovery of the data they decided to
plagiarise.
Plagiarising a research finding can also constitute
‘research method plagiarism’ if the method used to make that finding is
original, because if only that original method could make the finding the
plagiarist will also, by default, most certainly plagiarise the method used to
find it. As explained above, that is the case in the plagiarism of my Selby
cited Matthew pre-1858 finding. By plagiarising that research finding, both Dr
Weale and Dr Dagg have by default plagiarised the unique Big Data Internet Date
Detection research method (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) used to find it.
Independent expert peer reviewers of that peer reviewed article I wrote with
Professor Griffith’s agreed the unique IDD method is a new Big Data research
method that has been used in my research to make significant research findings
of this kind.
'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.” (Juyal, D., Thawani, V., & Thaledi, S. 2015). (My
emphasis).
The fact Dr Weale’s and Dr Dagg’s plagiarism of my
research is subtle does not make it any less serious. Arguably it makes it more
serious because it is so deceptive. This is something that the Editor of the
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society seems to know or care nothing about.
As Dougherty (2020. p.1) explains:
“I have requested retractions of 125 published articles
in humanities fields in recent years. A large portion of these articles
exhibited very subtle forms of plagiarism. … When undetected plagiarising
articles produce widespread inefficiencies in the wider system of knowledge
production, not only are researchers denied credit for their discoveries, but
plagiarizing articles take up space in journals that should have been reserved
for articles for authentic researchers.”
Quality not quantity
It is most important to repeat another point already
made, in order to emphasise the fact, that the plagiarism of my research by Dr
Weale and Dr Dagg is not an issue of a quantity being plagiarised, it is about
the quality of what has been plagiarised. It is also about the insidious
subtlety in which that was deliberately done and the malice behind it.
The Selby data, uncovered by my research, that has been
plagiarised is not only relatively new, it is also highly significant and of
extremely high quality in the specific field of research into the history of
scientific discovery and scientific plagiarism of breakthroughs in knowledge
and prior-published research findings of others. On the issue of whether Darwin
and Wallace plagiarised Matthew, it is highly significant, important and new.
As explained above, the Selby cited Matthew in 1842
discovery provides clear evidence of the existence of a previously totally
unknown route for potential ‘Matthew to Darwin and Wallace’ knowledge
contamination (Sutton 2015) of both Darwin and Wallace and their subsequent
publications. Such potential knowledge transmission, in whole or part, could
have occurred directly or in some way via others known to Selby, Darwin and
Wallace. Others including but not limited to Darwin’s father (who was Selby’s
friend) or Darwin’s and Selby’s mutual friend Jenyns.
“…whether or not one article plagiarises another may turn
on a judgement of the originality of the interpretation of scientific
experiment or a data set.” (Saunders, 2010). (My emphasis)
"...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 anyone." (Helgesson and Eriksson (2015). (My
emphasis).
The verifiable fact the unique Selby data from my
research has been twice plagiarised in the Biological Journal of the Linnean
society is clear proof of the high quality and importance of the research that
has been plagiarised. Surely it was plagiarised twice precisely because it is
such a valuable newly discovered fact that Selby read and cited Matthew’s book
before Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic of evolution by natural
selection. What other reason could there be?
The fact the unique Selby Data has been plagiarised a
second time in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is proof that the
scientific record in the history of science has been corrupted with one
incident of plagiarism leading to another and needs, therefore, to be rectified
before further incidents occur to corrupt the publication record in the history
of scientific discovery and research into priority and plagiarism.
Engaging in the subterfuge of cherry picking one author
from my prior published original research findings (Sutton 2014, 2017b), of who
I newly discovered did cite Matthew (1831) pre 1858, to effectively make
deceptive fact concealment arguments when examining the evidence for routes of
potential knowledge contamination (transmission) from Matthew’s (1831) book to
the later published works of Darwin, Wallace and others is misleading the
scientific community.
Using my Selby research finding without citation to the
research and method that uncovered it, in order to make the argument, as Dr
Weale and Dr Dagg do, that no naturalist understood Matthew’s theory, is, in my
opinion, engaging in science fraud not only by plagiary but highly deliberate
deceptive cherry picking. Because, by way of just one relevant example among
many others I found in my research, that I could use here, I also originally
unearthed the fact that Jameson (1853) cited Matthew’s 1831 book and
observations in it. Jameson was the nephew of Darwin’s Edinburgh Professor,
employee of the East India Company and regular pre-1858 correspondent of
William Hooker (father of Darwin’s best friend and botanical mentor Joseph
Hooker). William Hooker, also a friend of Darwin, was sponsor, mentor, customer
for his ‘collected’ wildlife and correspondent of Wallace. All pre-1858.
Jameson (1853) cited Matthew and wrote about one area of
Matthew’s book on how some species of tree may sometimes fare better when
transplanted outside their native areas. Jameson reveals that he fully
understood the importance of Matthew’s observation for economic botany. The
devout Christian gentleman scientist Selby, on the other hand, was writing in
1842, at a time when such an idea was deemed far more unacceptably heretical to
Christians who believed their God designed nature and put everything where it
was most ideally and best suited to serve the interests of humans above all
else. Most importantly, that idea, and other heretical for Christians ideas, in
Matthew’s book, was also mentioned in a major book review of 1831 in the United
Services Journal, which instructed readers to not even to dare think about such
ideas. And Jameson is just one example of the newly discovered to have cited
Matthew (1831) authors in my research findings that Dr Weal’s and Dr Dagg’s
cherry picking research findings plagiarism effectively, and misleadingly,
conceal by failing to cite the source of the Selby cited Matthew pre-1858
discovery.
To emphasise the point just made, plagiarising from my list
of those newly discovered by the IDD method to have cited Matthew (1831)
pre-1858, (As Dr Weale and Dr Dagg have done) not only plagiarises the IDD
method as well as my data, it also most seriously, effectively fraudulently in
my opinion, hides not only the other findings in my research but also hides the
power of that method by failing to acknowledge just how many authors (including
naturalists) in fact did read Matthew’s bombshell theory, how many were linked
to Darwin and Wallace, and in what way.
The image above is from Sutton (2014) and shows Selby in
the list of 25 people newly discovered in my research to have cited Matthew’s
(1831) book before 1858
Evidence of prior knowledge and malicious intent
regarding plagiarism of my research.
In light alone of the facts presented above, my research
has been plagiarised in two articles in the Biological Journal Linnean Society,
as has the unique research method used. But this plagiarism is worse. Firstly,
it has taken place at a relatively very early stage following the publication
of my research findings. That greatly increases the chances that my research
findings will be misattributed to either Dr Weale, Dr Dagg or both. Worse still
is the independently verifiable evidence that Dr Dagg plagiarised my research
maliciously. That evidence now follows:
- Dr
Weale (2015b) read my prior published research and mentions in his article
in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society some online debates he
has had with me on it before failing to cite the source of the Selby
discovery in that article. Dr Weale explains (using my research without
attribution) that Selby cited Matthew in 1842 and Weale cites Selby’s
book, in which Selby did so, in his references section (again without
attribution to my research that found it). Clearly then, Dr Weale fails to
attribute that new ‘Selby cited Matthew pre-1858’ discovery to my
research. But that newly unearthed fact from my research, unlike the fact
that Loudon reviewed Matthew’s book knowledge, cannot be attributed to
“just anyone”. Arguably, Dr Weale is, if not deliberately falsely passing
it off as his own discovery, though giving that impression by default to
some readers, is also effectively portraying it falsely in his article to
be perceived by other readers as something widely known. The Selby finding
from my research is certainly at great risk now of being wrongly
attributed to Weale, or else falsely as something that was widely known to
anyone, as it might well be in the near future, if Dr Weale’s research
plagiarism of this high quality research finding and associated research
method plagiarism is not correctly remedied by the Biological Journal of
the Linnean Society.
- Dr
Dagg (2018a) writes that Dr Weale helped him extensively with his article.
Given the fact Dr Weale earlier plagiarised my research in his own article
and then helped another to publish an article that does the very same
thing is powerful confirmatory circumstantial evidence that Dr Weale
deliberately plagiarised my research in his article in the Biological
Journal of the Linnean Society. This supports the point made in the last
sentence of the preceding bullet point, directly above.
- Dr
Dagg, (2017) writing as “Joda” but signing his malicious review of my book
(Sutton 2017b), which contains the Selby discovery, with his real name
also proves by so doing that he read my prior published research,
including the Selby discovery, before failing to cite the source of that
research finding in his article. Dagg, therefore also commits knowing research
findings and research method plagiarism in his article, of the same kind
as Dr Weale.
- Dr
Dagg (e.g. 2014) has published various malicious blog posts about me,
before he plagiarised my research and has written and published more
malicious blog posts about that research he plagiarised after he
plagiarised it. That is verifiable evidence he has acted not only
knowingly but maliciously in plagiarising my research.
- Dr
Dagg (2016) proves on his dreadfully malicious blog that he was fully
aware of my prior-published original research finding of other
naturalists, including Jameson who cited Matthew pre-1858, before he
cherry pick plagiarised the Selby data from my research to use in his
article.
- Dr
Dagg, (2018a) in what seems to me at least to be a breach of COPE
guidelines for authors publishing in peer reviewed journals has published
a blog post to mock one peer reviewer of his paper, name another and to
write about the extensive help he received from Dr Weale and from the
Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.
- Dr
Dagg (2018a) writes that Dr Derry helped him write his article. Dr Derry
has also published an insanely jealous and weirdly obsessive malicious
blog site about me and my published research and other staff at Nottingham
Trent University (NTU) and has been warned in writing by senior management
at NTU to cease sending obscene and harassing communications (e.g. Derry
2014, 2017, 2018a 2018b), libelling and harassing members of academic and
senior management there, including obsessive emailing, cyberstalking and
harassing Professor Griffiths, associated with me and my research.
- Dr
Dagg (2018b) publishes on Wikipedia to emphasise the fact that he has not
referenced my research in his article in the Biological Journal of the
Linnean Society. He does so in reply to his malicious associate Dr Derry.
Thank you for carefully reading and understanding the
importance and important consequences of the above independently verifiable
evidence.
I put the work in for many hours each day, often seven
days a week, for over two years and know the uniqueness and value of my
research results and how extremely time-consuming and difficult that research
was to conduct, as do those who plagiarised it, which is why they did so, and
why it has been done twice.
Research in the field of criminology reveals that the
best-known prediction of victimization is victimization (e.g. Farrell and Pease
2001) and that is confirmed in this case. Therefore, if not dealt with
properly, even more plagiarism of my research will almost certainly follow.
References
Allen, M. (2017). The sage encyclopedia of communication
research methods (Vols. 1-4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://methods.sagepub.com/reference/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-communication-research-methods/i10779.xml
Caven, B. (2014) ‘Did Darwin copy ideas for Origin of
Species?’ Daily Mail [Scotland edition] April 11th. p.11.
Cohen, S. (2001) States of Denial: Knowing about
Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge. Polity Press.
Dagg (2014) His blog site post about my research http://archive.is/HprqF
Dagg (2016) His blog post proving he was aware the Selby
data he plagiarised is from my prior published research and that he cherry
picked it from a much larger list from my research data of those I newly
discovered to have cited Matthew (1831) pre 1858 https://archive.is/N03ek
Dagg (2017) His review of Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s
Greatest Secret. http://archive.is/PoF79
Dagg, J. L. (2018) Comparing the respective transmutation
mechanisms of Patrick Matthew, Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Biological
Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 123, Issue 4, April 2018, Pages
864–878, https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/bly003
Dagg (2018a) His blog post naming a peer reviewer and
mocking another http://archive.is/RZSjh
Dagg (2018b) Wikipedia talk page on Patrick Matthew http://archive.is/TY26z
Dagg (2019) His blog post about my Selby discovery http://archive.is/TWIw2
Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858) ‘On the tendency
of species to form varieties, and on the perpetuation of varieties and species
by natural means of selection.’ Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean
Society of London.
Darwin, C. R. (1860) Natural selection. Gardener’s
Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette. 21st April. pp. 362-363.
Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life. (third edition). London. John Murray.
Darwin, C. R. (1861a) Letter to Qatrefages de Brèau, J.
L. A. de. April. Darwin Correspondence Project.
Dawkins, R. (2010) Darwin’s Five Bridges: The Way to
Natural Selection. In Bryson, B, (ed) Seeing Further: The Story of the Royal
Society. pp. 202-228. London. Harper Collins.
De Beer, G (1962) The Wilkins Lecture. The Origins of
Darwin’s Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 155 (960) pp. 321-338.
Dempster, W, J. (1983) Patrick Matthew and Natural
Selection. Edinburgh. Paul Harris Publishing.
Dempster, W. J. (1996) Evolutionary Concepts in the
Nineteenth Century. Edinburgh. The pentland Press.
Dempster, W. J. (2005) The Illustrious Hunter and the
Darwins. Sussex. Book Guild Publishing.
Derry (2014) WARNING this is an archived tweet from Dr
Derry that includes the most obscene language: http://archive.is/8tH1C
Derry (2017) His weirdo stalker, insanely jealous,
website http://archive.is/mg2Cg
Derry (2018a) WARNING This archived text also includes
obscene language published by Dr Derry. Cyberstalking in the comments
section of the Times Higher Education website, where he writes about Dr Weale,
Dr Dagg and the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society: http://archive.is/reG0s
Derry (2018b) Derry’s obsessive cyberstalking blogsite as
evidence of his obsessive cyberstalking and malicious harassment behaviour:
http://archive.is/fqNil
Dougherty, M. V. (2020). DISGUISED ACADEMIC
PLAGIARISM a typology and case studies for researchers and editors. SPRINGER
NATURE. Eiseley, L. (1959) Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered
it. London. The Scientific Book Guild.
Eiseley, L. (1979) Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X. New
Light on the Evolutionists. New York. E. P. Dutton.
Farrell, G. and Pease, K. (2001) ‘Repeat Victimization’.
Crime Prevention Studies 12. Monsey. Criminal Justice Press.
Helgesson G, Eriksson S: “Plagiarism in research”,
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18:1 (2015):91-101) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263743965_Plagiarism_in_research
Iphofen, R. (2017). Finding Common Ground: Consensus
in Research Ethics Across the Social Sciences. Edited by Ron Iphofen.
Advances in research ethics and integrity. Volume 1. London Emerald Publishing.
p. Xiii.
Jackson, C. E. (1992) Prideaux John Selby: A Gentleman
Naturalist, Spredden Press, Northumberland 1992, p. 86.
Jameson, W. (1853) Contributions to the History of the
Relationship between Climate and Vegetation in the various parts of the Globe.
On the Physical aspect of the Punjab in Agriculture and Botany. Journal of the
Horticultural Society of London. Vol 8. Pp. 273-314.
Juyal, D., Thawani, V., & Thaledi, S. (2015).
Plagiarism: an egregious form of misconduct. North American journal of
medical sciences, 7(2), 77–80. https://doi.org/10.4103/1947-2714.152084
Loudon, J. C. (1832) Patrick Matthew on Naval Timber and
Arboriculture with critical notes on authors who have recently treated the
Subject of Planting. Gardener’s Magazine. Vol. III. P. 703.
Matthew, P. (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with
critical notes on authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting.
Blacks of London and Longman and Co. London.
Matthew, P. (1860) Letter to the Gardener’s Chronicle.
Nature’s law of selection. Gardeners Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette. 12
May. P. 433.
Mayr, E. (1982) The growth of biological thought:
diversity, evolution and inheritance. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University
Press.
Nottingham Trent University (2014) ‘Did Darwin lie
about discovery of natural selection?’: https://www.ntu.ac.uk/about-us/news/news-articles/2014/06/did-darwin-lie-about-discovery-of-natural-selection.
Archived: http://archive.is/2Hz1A
Saunders, J. (2010). ‘Plagiarism and the Law’. Learned
Publishing, 23:279–292. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1087/20100402
Selby, P. J. (1842) A History of British Forest Trees:
Indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.
Sutton, M. (2014) Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest
secret. E-Book. Thinker Media Press. http://archive.is/NIEDR
Sutton, M. (2014a) ‘A Dreadful Discovery: Big Data Proves
Wallace and Darwin Counterfeit Discoverers’. Conway Hall. Conway Hall Ethical
Society, London, Sunday Lecture. https://conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/a-dreadful-discoery-big-data-proves-wallace-and-darwin-counterfeit-discoverers/
Sutton (2014b) The High-Tech Detection of Darwin’s and
Wallace’s Possible Science Fraud: Big Data criminology re-writes he history of
contested discovery. Papers from the British Society of Criminology Conference
(peer reviewed) British Society of Criminology. https://patrickmatthew.com/onewebmedia/Darwin%20Science%20Fraud.pdf
Sutton, M. (2015) ‘On Knowledge Contamination: New Data
Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of
Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis’. Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy — 2015, t.
12. Philosophical Aspects of Origins. 1-39 https://core.ac.uk/reader/42392608
Sutton, M. (2017a) Fencing and Stolen Goods Markets.
Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University Press: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0219.xml
Sutton (2017b) Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest
secret. Vol. 1. Paperback. Vae Victus. Amazon Books. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-greatest-secret/dp/1541343964
Sutton, M.; Griffiths, M.D. (2018) Using Date Specific
Searches on Google Books to Disconfirm Prior Origination Knowledge
Claims for Particular Terms, Words, and Names. Soc. Sci. 7, 66. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/4/66
The Scotsman (2016) Darwin may have stolen evolution
theory from Perthshire farmer: CHARLES DARWIN may have 'stolen' his theory of
evolution from a little-known Perthshire farmer, according to top
academic. https://www.scotsman.com/whats-on/arts-and-entertainment/darwin-may-have-stolen-evolution-theory-perthshire-farmer-1480324
The Daily Telegraph (2014) ‘Darwin ‘Stole’ theory of
natural selection’. p. 12. Wed. May 28th.
Wallace, A. R. (1855) On the law which as regulated the
introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series
2. 16. pp 184-196.
Wallace. A. R. (1879) 9 May. Letter to Samuel Butler.
Unique WCP identifier WCP1586. Wallace Letters Online. Natural History Museum.
Weale, M. E. (2015) Patrick Matthew's Law of Natural
Selection: Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 115, Issue 4,
August 2015, Pages 785–791 https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/115/4/785/2530994
Weale, M. (2015b) March. The Patrick Matthew
Project: http://archive.is/XkwOO
University of Oxford (2020) Plagiarism: https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism#:~:text=Plagiarism%20is%20presenting%20someone%20else's,is%20covered%20under%20this%20definition.
Archived: http://archive.is/BxUjn
