Beware "The Lads" of the Patrick Matthew Burial Project

 

How I came to research Charles Darwin’s plagiarism and what happened next

                                                                        By Mike Sutton

The power of the IDD research method (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) was first proven by detecting that Professor Stanley Cohen never coined the phrase or concept of moral panic. I blogged about this and someone then put the new fact on the Moral Panic Wikipedia page with a discoverer link to my name. Then Wikipedia editors deleted that attribution in 2013. By deleting it, they plagiarised my research, implying either they discovered it or else that it was already common knowledge and they had never been wrong in the past.

Wikipedia steals other people’s research without attribution all the time. When not doing that, its corrupt editors deliberately delete or else misrepresent verifiable facts for cash. If you think I am exaggerating, just Google ‘Wikipedia editor fraud’. And check this out https://gen.medium.com/wikipedias-top-secret-hired-guns-will-make-you-matter-for-a-price-a4bdace476ae

Did you know that Charles Darwin never coined the term "natural selection," and he never discovered the process of natural selection; although many scholarly books claim he did both. In fact, that term was used by William Preston (1803) six years before Darwin was born. And the scientific breakthrough of natural selection theory as an explanation for macroevolution — the entire detailed description of its evolutionary biological process, the hypothesis for it and the key examples used to explain it—are all unquestionably Patrick Matthew's (1831) unique prior-published discovery and literary creation.

Even though the discovery had been fully published by Matthew, 28 years before Darwin replicated and boldly claimed to have independently discovered the theory himself, Alfred Russel Wallace made his own claim to have independently discovered the exact same thing.

During my research I detected the first glint of a possible fraud behind Darwin's and Wallace’s discovery story. Darwin lied. He lied because Matthew told him, in published print (Matthew 1860, 1860b) of other naturalists who had read his book, who had understood the original hypothesis in it, before Darwin (Darwin and Wallace 1858; Darwin 1859) replicated that hypothesis and so much more of the book’s content. Darwin lied because even after receiving that information, he continued to claim in print and in his private letters to other influential naturalists that no naturalist whatsoever had read the unique ideas in Matthew's book before 1860.

With the IDD research method, I found other naturalists, known to have influenced Darwin and Wallace who read and then cited Matthew's book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the theory in it. The unearthing of these naturalist authors is essentially the most important finding of my research in this area. 

Fact denial and avoidance are human traits, especially when motivated by fear or money.

There is a status quo in science and its history, academics who dare to question it are at real risk of losing their job. Therefore, it is not only easier but also safer to reject all new facts that challenge the scientific establishment’s approved ‘knowledge.’ The problem is when objective and inquisitive investigators go through the process of documenting independently verifiable facts to question ‘establishment’ approved knowledge beliefs, they begin by putting what they find on the confirmatory side of the ledger, or else the disconfirming side. And they soon start to add up to a greater or lesser weight of facts on one side versus the other. If they come down on the disconfirming side that means trouble.

Immediately after the first edition of this book (Sutton 2014) was published, George Beccaloni, then Curator of the Wallace Collection at the Natural History Museum of London, wrote to deny that the newly unearthed facts in it that show the ledger is no longer in Wallace’s or Darwin’s favour. And he did so whilst failing to disclose that he had not even read it. Beccaloni was caught in the act and confronted by my then publisher on Richard Dawkins’ website (See: Beccaloni 2014).

Seven years later Beccaloni (2021) writes that he is employed by the Wallace Fund, which is supported by the Darwin Foundation.

At the time of writing these words, Wikipedia editors are, on their pages, brute censoring disturbing verifiable facts from my research, whilst publishing falsehoods and misrepresenting the facts by citing desperate fact denial nonsense from silly private blog sites on the topic. In so doing they falsify ‘the ledger’ of facts in favour and facts against the life of the book NTA regarding its newly proven influence on Darwin and Wallace via their influencers and their influencer’s influencers.

Equally ironically, Mike Weale (2015), then employed as a senior academic at Kings College London, earlier used findings from my (Sutton 2014a) research, without citing its source. Weale then escalated his behaviour to write malicious correspondence to Professor Edward Peck, a former research manager at Kings College London specialising in mental health. Peck was then and is at the time of writing, Vice Chancellor of my former employer Nottingham Trent University.  Weale pulled out all the stops to press Pecks mental health sensitivities when he wrote in his three-page email that in the comments discussion we had on his blogsite on Patrick Matthew, I insinuated he is stupid, deranged, or deceitful and that such insinuations attacked his integrity and academic abilities. His email insists Professor Peck investigate me promptly and take appropriate action.

I do not think I Insinuated he is stupid, deranged and deceitful. I try to write directly, especially on social media.

Weal’s correspondence to Peck (now securely forensically archived) was sent in an l effort to have me disciplined or else dismissed as a senior academic, because I criticised, Darwin scholar Dr John van Wyhe for emailing a Scottish journalist in 2015, that my research on the topic of this book is a silly “conspiracy theory”. Most tellingly, Van Wyhe at that juncture had just resigned from the editorial board of the journal that published a peer reviewed article on my research (Sutton 2015).

Scottish journalist Michael Alexander interviewed van Wyhe and reported back in the press, whilst quite rightly leaving out van Wyhe’s conspiracy theory nonsense from his earlier email (Alexander 2016):

 ‘Dr John van Wyhe, a senior lecturer at the Department of Biological Sciences, at the National University of Singapore, said the recent claims by Dr Mike Sutton … were “so silly” and ‘based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'

Nottingham Tent University (NTU) appointed a professor of criminal justice to formally investigate the allegations, made in the email sent by Weale to Peck.

After several weeks, I was totally exonerated. And the professor NTU placed in charge of the ludicrously money wasting fiasco shook my hand and said how interesting my research was. But that was only after NTU had weeks earlier sent a Human Resources letter to my home saying I could lose my job!

As soon as the investigation was over, a senior member of the Human Resources department at NTU suggested I write to the VC of Weale’s university to let him know exactly what their employee had been up to. I declined. As someone who at least tries to be a proper academic criminologist, I am interested in crime, deviance, and other harmful behaviour – studying it, not being a part of it. As said, Weale’s behaviour is interesting data.

Independently verifiable facts trump myths, lies and wishful thinking every time. I tried (Sutton 2016d) to get Mike Weale to debate with me at any time and place of his choosing, before an audience of our peers and on camera. He declined the invitation, made just days before he sent his malicious communication to my employer! What is he so afraid of? Is it the truth of the New Data facts he apparently so hates? Weal’s malicious email to Edward Peck clearly sought to ruin my life and that of my dependents because I had the temerity to robustly defended my research against ludicrous comments made by van Wyhe and Weale.

More is the academic tragedy of van Wyhe’s misty-eyed love that it prevents him seeing the facts for the smog but leads him ever to defend the myth of Darwin.

‘…the man who pursues science for its own sake and not for the pride of possession will feel more gratitude towards the surgeon who dislodges a cataract from the mind's eye than towards the one who repairs the defect of the bodily organ.’ (Matthew, 1831. p. vii).

Turning back to John van Wyhe’s “so silly” reasoning, we should ask ourselves, therefore, whether the following original discoveries I made really are “so silly” as he wants you to believe:

1.       Is it so silly that I totally, 100 per cent, disproved the claims of the most highly esteemed biologists Darwin, de Beer and Mayr, who all wrote that no one read Matthew’s conception pre-1860? Is it silly that a self-proclaimed professional historian of science, van Wyhe, or any other so-called professional historian of science for that matter failed to find that data earlier?

2.       Is it so silly that I, a non-professional historian of science, did so disprove the ‘No One Read Matthew’s Ideas Before 1860 Myth’ with many newly unearthed historic publication examples including originally unearthing the fact that Selby cited Matthew’s 1831 book and then was chief editor of the journal that published Wallace’s (1855) Sarawak paper on evolution?

3.       Is it equally so silly that I discovered Chambers (1832) cited Matthew? The same Chambers (1844) who then wrote the hugely influential Vestiges of Creation, which all Darwin experts agree so influenced both Darwin and Wallace before 1858, because Darwin and Wallace each said so? To press this point home, precise mention of the Vestiges occurs in 36 items of post in the surviving letters to or from Darwin between its date of publication and the first publication of Darwin’s Origin in 1859 (see: https://archive.is/v1BKv).

4.       Is it so silly that Darwin met Chambers in the 1840’s (Darwin 1847b) and they corresponded thereafter?

5.       Is it so silly that the highly networked Loudon cited Matthew (Loudon 1831) and actually wrote that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on ‘the origin of species’, a phrase that years later Darwin used as the title of his famous book? Is it silly that Loudon was a part of Darwin’s close social and scientific network?

6.       Is it so silly that William Hooker’s regular correspondent, Jameson (1853), cited Matthew on the topic of trees when famous economic botanist and tree expert Hooker was a friend of Darwin and father of Darwin’s best friend, the famous botanist and tree expert Joseph Hooker?

7.       Is it so silly that three other naturalists and several agriculturists cited Matthew pre-1858 and that they were part of Darwin’s scientific network with clear routes for NTA knowledge contamination links to him?

Is it so silly then that in addition to the 7 points above, as Hugh Dower most kindly pointed out to me on social media in 2020, that before I found it, Eisley and later Dempster has already pointed out that Loudon went on to edit and publish Blyth’s (1835, 1836) influential articles, read by both Darwin and Wallace pre-1858, on adaptation within species? Is it further silly that Darwin (see Darwin 1848a) met Blyth in person, read his work, and corresponded with him at least a decade before 1858? Is the associated explanatory concept of written and oral “knowledge contamination” (Sutton 2015) silly then, when I have proven Darwin lied about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew’s breakthrough after his and Wallace’s influencers and influencer’s influencers cited Matthew’s 1831 book years before Darwin’s and Wallace’s claimed amazing independent replications of both the original theory in it and its essential explanatory analogy of differences? Is the alternative explanation of Darwin’s and Wallace’s independent, miraculous, virgin conceptions of Matthew’s prior published and cited theory, its unique explanatory highly idiosyncratic analogy of differences, and Darwin’s use of the same four words to name it, not silly?  The artist Gabriel Woods thinks so. I commissioned him to paint the ‘Virgins Darwin and Wallace with baby Matthew’ scene below as an allegorical explanatory analogy. It is a satirizing tribute to in The Holy Family by Francesco Francia (circa 1510) - shown here left of Wood's painting.

Darwin’s self-appointed reputation security guard, John van Wyhe, has a habit of calling other writers he disagrees with ‘conspiracy theorists’ (e.g., van Wyhe 2014). Maybe it is a conspiracy theory then that he flees new verifiable facts he hates in the history of science by deserting the editorial board of a journal for daring to publish them? Perhaps it is a conspiracy theory to write the following allegorical explanatory analogy:

Just as the mythical Virgin Mary conceived the child of a supernatural deity whilst surrounded by fertile men, so did Darwin and Wallace have dually independent virgin conceptions of a prior published theory whilst surrounded and influenced by men who read it and cited it in the literature.

Perhaps it would have been far less  silly if Dr John van Wyhe had used Google before I did, and so found for himself what I found, before I found it for him, rather than launder in the Scottish press what might appear to some to be madly indecorous jealousy of the New Big Data findings.

Will all such professional Darwinites remember to cite me as the originator of these newly discovered facts? Will they be madly considered “silly” scientific and historic facts then?  Apparently not, because we already know that my Selby research finding has been plagiarised twice in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. This was done first by Weale (2015) and then by Dagg (2018). What original research findings published in my books and articles will Darwinites plagiarise next in an obvious attempt to conceal from others the importance of my research data? Will professional historians of science, such as van Wyhe, flee from those facts too? Or just van Wyhe? Because surely they are all in competition and do not speak as one.

On a closely allied note, in 2020, I wrote to John Allen, Chief Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, and then following his outright refusal to deal properly with Weale and Dagg’s plagiarism of my research in that journal, by refusing to have those he intended to examine it be allowed to look at the archived evidence that the plagiarism was malicious because Dagg and Weale had earlier published online highly critical comments of me and of the research they plagiarized. For the record, I wrote also to the head of the journal’s publisher, Oxford University Press, in addition to the journal’s editorial board, the VC of Oxford University, and others, to let them know about that plagiarism and Allen’s refusal to allow the evidence to be fully examined.

 (see Appendix Two Here on PatrickMatthew.com)

At the time of writing in May 2021, Oxford University Press, and the Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean society have not remedied this serious matter. The history of science can judge them accordingly. In the meantime, however, their failure to act sends a toxic message to the miscreants and their associates that they are free to plagiarise more of my unique research findings, effectively passing them all off, perhaps just one more at a time in their own publications, down the years, as their own discoveries, or else pretending by default that what I first unearthed and revealed in the first edition of his book is just long established common knowledge not worthy of citation to its prior published origination.

Such concealment of disturbing facts is not ‘The New Normal’. For example, J.D Benal (1954) taken here from the 1969 (third edition) Pelican publication (pages 33-34), wrote:

‘In fact at all times the individual scientist has needed to work in close connection with three other groups of persons: his patrons, his colleagues and his public. The function of the patron, whether a wealthy individual, university, corporation, or a department of State, is to provide the money on which the scientist must live and which will enable him to carry on his work. The patron will in turn want to have something to say on what is actually done, especially if his ultimate object is commercial advantage or military success. It will apparently be less so only if he is operating from pure benevolence. Or in the pursuit of prestige or advertisement; then he will only want results to be sufficiently spectacular and not too disturbing.’

Disturbing results can lead some to try to re-bury them by ignorant dismissal. Take, for example the knee-jerk incurious rejection behaviour of Darwin biographer James Moore, who when questioned on my newly unearthed research findings by Knapton (2014) of the Telegraph is reported by her as responding to the new Big Data unearthed findings in this book, which he could not possibly have read at that point in time: “ I Would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence that had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.” With no apology forthcoming at the time of writing for his wilful ignorance in 2014, we must doubt if Moore has yet bothered himself by 2021 to be surprised by things he never knew before on a topic in which he is supposed to be expert. The problem is of course that such unscholarly state of denial behaviour by respected experts serves to enable others such as Weale, Dagg and van Wyhe to follow suit and expect to get away with it by association impunity. Maybe that is exactly what they want? After all, Wikipedia cited Moore’s comment as though it contains something more than evidence of his totally incurious blindsight ‘state of denial’ (Cohen 2001, p. 1) behaviour:

‘‘One common thread runs through the many different stories of denial: people, organizations, governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing, threatening or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly acknowledged. The information is therefore somehow repressed, disavowed, pushed aside or reinterpreted. Or else the information ‘registers’ well enough, but its implications - cognitive, emotional or moral - are evaded, neutralized or rationalized away.”

Scientists have named the social and psychological phenomenon of knee jerk rejection of bombshell paradigm changing data the Semmelweis Reflex, after Ignaz Semmelweis. Before the discovery of antibiotics and before even the germ theory of contagion, the work of Ignaz (first named Ignác) Semmelweis in the mid-nineteenth century in Vienna seems almost universally understood to be unique in terms of his discoveries about how puerperal sepsis - puerperal fever - (childbed fever) was spread by doctors to patients. He is likewise hailed for uniquely implementing hand washing practices in hospitals and so cutting the death rate from childbed fever of mothers giving birth to around one per cent (Varga 2009). According to the story, Semmelweis was ostracized at the time for his radical thinking, which eventually drove him insane to the point where his last years were spent in an asylum. The story is used to demonstrate the dangers of 'experts' ignoring, without properly thinking about, new findings that do not fit orthodox 'knowledge', or else responding with automatic denials. Hence the term Semmelweis Reflex is routinely relied upon to make the point.

However, with great irony, the Semmelweis story was first comprehensively busted as a myth 91 years ago (Adaiwi 1921); and in the greatest of detail by Nuland (1979). And yet the term is still used today as though its background story is veracious. See for example, Wikipedia (2001). The knee jerk rejection phenomenon is as real as the behaviour of fanatics towards New Data. But it needs renaming. Perhaps we might call it ‘Kuhn’s Crisis Fever’, after his famous work detailing resistance to knowledge change (Kuhn 1962).

I am not alone as an academic harassed by malicious communications sent to my place of work. For one example, the scientist Edzard Ernst was similarly harassed by the Office of Prince Charles for outing him as a fake-remedy salesman. Ernst suffered terribly, physically and mentally, from being professionally investigated by managerialists at his university, even though he too was later  exonerated (see Ernst 2015).

Today we live in an environment, where people are dying because anti-vaccination and anti-clinical medicine propaganda (see Sutton, Gibson and Henn 2017) is believed by people who know no better. And the reason they know no better is because the environment in which we all live does not sufficiently value veracity over unevidenced claptrap, lies, irrationality and mere wishful thinking.

Yet, even in this environment, unethical angry people may choose to ignore an employer’s protocols, rules and regulations regarding public conduct on social media. Take for example Jason Rosenhouse, who is professor of mathematics at James Madison University. Following a very positive article on the highly influential FiveThirtyEight website (Engber 2016) about various areas of my myth-busting research. Rosenhouse (2016) laid weirdly heavily into its author Daniel Engber then called me a crackpot! When, on his blogsite, I messaged Rosenhouse to address the newly discovered facts from my research, he weirdly deleted my invitation and immediately closed the blog to further comments.

Rosenhouse is not alone as a facts fleer. By way of another similar example, Professor of History of Biology Nathaniel Comfort called one of my peer reviewed articles on Matthew and Darwin (Sutton 2104b) an “ignorant piece of crap”. When politely asked where he could possibly earlier learned that Matthew’s book was read and then cited by those known to Darwin before Darwin replicated Matthew’s theory, he blocked me (Comfort 2014).

To provide an example of just how much the New Data has upset ‘The Lads’, to extend the Patrick Matthew Buriel Project to me for daring to draw back the curtain on Darwin’s science fraud, Desperate Dagg has written online (Dagg 2016) about my famous decimal point spinach myth bust (Sutton 2016e), as has his equally fanatical partner (Derry 2020b). Once again, you really could not make this stuff up. But their otherwise unbelievable conduct needs to be recorded as confirmatory evidence to show how in the 21^st Century Khun’s account of “how very dare he” reactions to paradigm change is confirmed.  

As I have mentioned, in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Joachim Dagg (2018) plagiarised my original IDD facilitated research finding see. E.g. (Sutton 2014, 2015, 2017) that Selby, in 1842, cited Matthew’s 1831 book and mentioned the unique ideas in it. When asked to address the issue, the editor of that article blatantly and rudely refused to admit that Dagg had, by plagiarising my original, prior published, important research finding, seriously plagiarised my research by either passing it off as his own discovery or else making out it was a long-time commonly known fact.  Consequently, the Editor of that journal, to his eternal shame, blatantly refused to correctly investigate and remedy the proven plagiarism issue. With great irony, it is important to understand that his behaviour may well be explained by the fact that very journal is the direct descendant of the Linnean Journal that first facilitated Darwin’s and Wallace’s (1858) plagiarism of Matthew’s bombshell breakthrough. The same editor has published another article that desperately refutes the newly unearthed facts of Darwin’s plagiarism, simply by failing to include them, co-authored by Dagg and a person who has, along with Dagg written childish and malicious fact denial reviews of ‘Nullius un Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ (Sutton 2017) on Amazon sites in the UK, USA and many others all over the world. Dagg’s co-author, Julian Derry, in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society called me a cunt and made obscene insinuating male rape remarks on social media (http://archive.is/8tH1C ).

Furthermore, the obscene harasser, Derry has published an obsessive fanatical hate site on me and has been manically editing the Wikipedia pages on Matthew and the one on me. Go figure, as my American cousins like to say.

No wonder Wikipedia is considered by many to be the worst encyclopaedia in the World and no wonder proper academics will not let their students cite it.

Considering these facts, what should we think of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its current editor and publisher – Oxford University Press? More importantly, what explains such disgraceful behaviour? Particularly given that they have now escalated the Patrick Matthew Burial Project to publishing an article penned by Derry and Dagg (2020) that urgently argues, by way of the New Data fact avoidance, that Darwin never plagiarised Matthew.

I suppose the disgraced Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its publisher Oxford University Press will have no problem at all with the fact that the Darwinite harassment fanatic  Derry provides what certainly appears to me to be a fake personal address for his serial dishonest self on the ludicrous Dagg & Derry Show 2020 article as 30 Yeaman Place Edinburgh, EH11, which is actually the exact address of a pub (Golden Rule Pub 2020) about which Derry wrote a scathing customer review in 2020 (Derry 2020a). Incidentally, the proven serial liar Darwin reckoned he had a famous "Golden Rule".    

But more on that later.

.....to be contnued

References

Adaiwi, J. G. (1921) Charles White of Manchester (1728 1813) and the Arrest of Puerperal Fever. Lyod Roberts Lecture. Manchester Royal Infirmary. http://archive.org/stream/charleswhiteofma00adamuoft/charleswhiteofma00adamuoft_djvu.txt  

Alexander, M. (2016)  Perthshire Charles Darwin claims are ‘so silly’, claims leading international academic. The Courier. May 17. Archived: http://archive.is/APKHv

Beccaloni, G. (2014) Darwin and Wallace are wrongly accused of plagiarism by UK criminologist. Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret" is published. http://archive.is/HrxUg#selection-1997.1-1997.72

Beccaloni (2021) Employed by the Wallace fund, funded by the Darwin Foundation. (https://archive.is/EMEhg)

Bernal, J. D. (1969) Science in History: Volume 1: The Emergence of Science. Penguin books. Harmondsworth, Middlesex. England.

Blyth, E. 1835 An attempt to classify the "varieties" of animals. The Magazine of Natural History. (8) (1), Parts 1-2.

Blyth, E. (1836) Observations on the various seasonal and other external Changes which regularly take place in Birds more particularly in those which occur in Britain; with Remarks on their great Importance in indicating the true Affinities of Species; and upon the Natural System of Arrangement.  The Magazine of Natural History: Volume 9. p. 393 – 409.

Chambers, W. and Chambers, R. (1832). Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. Vol. 1. Saturday November 3rd. pp. 313-314.

Chambers, R. (anonymous) (1844) Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. New York. Wiley and Putnum.

Cohen, S. (2001) States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge. Polity Press.

Comfort, M. (2014) Tweet from his Twitter account @DarwinsBulldog Dec 13^th http://archive.is/X0VvO

Dagg, J. L. (2016) The real decimal error that transmogrified into the spinach-iron-decimal-error myth. https://archive.is/8LjyZ

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

Darwin, C. R. (1847b) Letter to Hooker, J. D. 18 April. Darwin Correspondence Database, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-1082.  Accessed on Tue Jun 11 2013.

Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858). Two separate papers: 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. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London. John Murray.

Derry, J. (2020a) Scathing Customer Review of the Golden Rule Pub that has the exact same postal address the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society Associates with Derry’s supposed home address  https://archive.is/mj4Ih

Derry (2020b) Popeye Spinach Iron. mrsuttonntu.wordpress.com https://archive.is/NOrEg

Engber, D. (2016) Who Will Debunk The Debunkers? Five Thirty Eight. Aril 28^th. https://archive.is/sxSLj

Ernst, E. (2015) A Scientist in Wonderland: A Memoir of Searching for Truth and Finding Trouble. Imprint Academic. Exeter.

Jameson, W. (1853) Contributions to a History of the Relation between Climate and Vegetation in various parts of the Globe. On the Physical Aspect of the Punjab its Agriculture and Botany. By Dr. Jameson Superintendent of the Botanic Garden Saharunpore. In The Journal of the Horticultural Society of London. Volume 8.  p. 273-314.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (second edition, enlarged). Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Knapton, S. (2014) Did Charles Darwin ‘borrow’ the theory of natural selection? Telegraph. Online Wednesday May 28. (Archived with reader’s comments https://archive.is/Emz8w). www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10859281/Did-Charles-Darwin-borrow-the-theory-of-natural-selection.html

Loudon, J. C. (1831) An Encyclopædia of Agriculture: Comprising the Theory and Practice of the Valuation, Transfer, Laying Out, Improvement, and Management of Landed Property; and the Cultivation and Economy of the Animal and Vegetable Productions of Agriculture, Including All the Latest Improvements; a General History of Agriculture in All Countries; and a Statistical View of Its Present State, with Suggestions for Its Future Progress in the British Isles. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green.

Matthew, P. (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture; With a critical note on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Edinburgh. Adam Black. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DmYDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=of%20selection&f=false

Matthew, P.  (1860) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April): 312-13. Darwin Online: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A143&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

Matthew, P. (1860b) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (12 May) p. 433: Available free online here:  http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yiQ1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA433&dq=Letter+from+Patrick+Matthew+in+The+Gardeners'+Chronicle+12+May+1860&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u5bRUfrEKabF0QXGmIC4CA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Patrick%20Matthew&f=false

Nuland, S. (1979) The Enigma of Semmelweis - an interpretation. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences. http://jhmas.oxfordjournals.org/content/XXXIV/3/255.full.pdf

Preston, W. (1803) THE ARGONAUTICS OF APOLLONIUS RHODIUS, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH VERSE. WITH NOTES CRITICAL, HISTORICAL, AND EXPLANATORY, AND DISSERTATIONS. Vol. III. Dublin Graisberry and Campbell.

Rosenhouse, J. (2016) Crackposts. Evolution Blog. May 2^nd. http://archive.is/uXa4e#selection-1065.94-1065.97

Sutton, M. (2014) Internet Dating with Darwin: New Discovery that Darwin and Wallace were Influenced by Matthew's Prior-Discovery. https://dysology.blogspot.com/2017/12/internet-dating-with-darwin.html Original link now broken. http://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/biology_and_nature/genetics_and_molecular_biology/internet-dating-with-darwin-new-discovery-that-darwin-and-wallace-were-influenced-by-matthew-s-prior-discovery

Sutton, M. (2014a) Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret. Thinker Press. Thinker Media Inc.

Sutton, M. (2014b) 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. Vol. 14: pp. 49-64. 

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. Issue No: 12. Pp.167-205.

Sutton, M. (2016d) Writing as Super Mythbuster. Comment on Mike Weale’s site The Patrick Matthew Project. May 3^rd.  https://archive.is/dMmuw

Sutton, M. (2016e) How the spinach, Popeye and iron decimal point error myth was finally bust. Healthwatch Newsletter. 101. 7. https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://supermyths.com/onewebmedia/MikeSuttonHealthWatch.pdf

Sutton, M., Gibson, L. and Henn, M. (2017) What is the impact of the US president’s belief that ‘Vaccines Cause Autism’? Health Watch Newsletter for Science and Integrity in Medicine. Issue 105 Spring/Summer. pp. 1-2.  https://www.healthwatch-uk.org/images/Newsletters/Number_105.pdf, 

Sutton, M. and Griffiths, Mark. D. (2018). Using Date Specific Searches on Google Books to Disconfirm Prior Origination Knowledge Claims for Particular Terms, Words, and Names. Soc. Sci. 7, no. 4: 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7040066

Van Wyhe, J. (2014) A Delicate Adjustment: Wallace and Bates on the Amazon and “The Problem of the Origin of Species.” Journal of the History of Biology. Vol. 47. Number 4. pp. 627-659.

Varga, B (2009) The Myth and Cult of Ignaz Semmelweis: Constructing History of Science during the 20th Century. Paper presented at Oxford Brookes University, History of Medicine Seminar Series. 20 Oct. http://www.pulse-project.org/node/177   

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

Wallace, A. R. (1855) On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. 184-196.

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

Wikipedia (2001) Ignaz Semmelweis. Archived May 2021.  https://archive.is/iHvKC

~~~

On The Charles Darwin Fake Discovery Alternate Reality Show

 When confronted by Matthew in 1860 for plagiarising his work. Darwin smogged the scientific world by claiming he had not read Matthew's work, which he claimed was unsurprising given it was a book on the 's book also contained topic of naval timber. However, Darwin's dishonest wriggling failed to mention the full title of Matthew's (1831) book is On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. Arboriculture was a great passion among the landed gentry - many of whom were naturalists.  Darwin was a member of the landed gentry as were many of his friends. The naturalist Selby - who cited Matthew's (1831) book in 1842 -  was a member of the landed gentry and editor of the journal that published Alfred Wallace's Sarawak paper (a fact I discovered in 2014 that was slyly plagiarised in the Linnean journal by Dagg The Plagiarist).

 Darwin's deliberate obfuscating of the facts also hid from the incurious and credulous scientific community the fact that naval timber was a very important subject for economic botany. Darwin's best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker was an economic botanist, as was his father William. To prove the point, we can see that very subject of naval timber raised in Hooker's Journal of Botany: HERE in 1854.  The same subject of naval timber was also written about by other friends correspondents and influencers of Darwin, including Lindly, a friend and co-author of Loudon - who cited Matthew's 1831 book in 1832 and wrote that Matthew appeared to have something orignal to say on the "origin of species" no less! A term that would become the very title of Darwin The Plagiarist's 1859 book. 

Contrary to Darwin's proven deliberate lies, written after he had already been told of naturalists who did cite Matthew's book pre-1858, that no naturalist had read Matthew's unique ideas long before he replicated them in 1858 and 1859, many naturalists did so. See my List 1 (updated) below:

List 1 (From Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret 2014 See blog here)

Those who/that cited Matthew (1831) before Darwin's (1858) and Wallace's (1858) plagiarism of Matthew's theory in the Linnean Journal, where they further stole his unique terminology and explanatory examples, and before Darwin's plagiarising 'Origin of Species' (1859)

1. Matthew's (1831) Edinburgh publisher Adam Black
2. Matthew's (1831) London publisher Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green 
3. The Farmer’s Journal – Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
4. The Perthshire Courier - Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
5. The Elgin Courier - Currently unknown reviewer (18311)
6. The Country Times - Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
7. The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine (1831) – unknown reviewer
8. The Edinburgh Literary Journal – unknown reviewer (1831)
9. The Metropolitan – unknown reviewer (1831)
10. John Claudius Loudon (1832) (And cited many times by Loudon thereafter. All refs in 'Nullius').
11. Robert Chambers (1832)

12. The Quarterly Review (here) Unknown reviewer on topic of dry rot. (Newly added here 14th March 2021)
13. John Murray II in (1833)
14. John Murray III (1833) personally or by association – via the same publishing house as John Murray II
15. Edmund Murphy (1834)

16. Thomas Horton James (1839) [Newly added: Discovered May 2020] (and here)
17. Gavin Cree (1841)
18. John William Carleton (1841)
19. Cuthbert William Johnson (1842)
20. Prideaux John Selby (Selby 1842)
21. The Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (1838) (1842) – Anonymous 
22. Publishers - Cradock and Co. (1843)3 in ‘British Forest Trees’
23. Henry Stephens (1851)
24. John. P. Norton (1851)4 (Co-published with Stevens above)
25. Levi Woodbury (1832) (1833) (1852)

26. William Lauder Lindsay (1852) [Newly added: Discovered Jan 2019]  (and here)
27. William Jameson (1853)
28. Wyatt Papworth (1858)

The World's Most Ironic Story of Research Plagiarism: Biological Journal of the Linnean Society Dissects Itself

 

The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP), are knowingly acting like a fence for stolen goods in selling my stolen research findings to their innocently unknowing subscribers and other paying customers in order to mislead them into believing the underhand cherry-picked plagiarized data and desperate arguments of Dr Dagg and Dr Weal. Why on Earth would they do such a thing? Perhaps the answer is because the newly discovered facts of my research are simply too painful to bear and the New Data from my research so valuable they couldn't resist stealing it? And as a world-renowned expert (published by OUP no less) on stolen goods markets I think that criminal fence analogy is most fitting. 

In their respective papers, in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society Dr Weal and Dr Dagg do the following:

1. They plagiarise one of my important research findings, under every widely accepted definition of what constitutes research plagiarism.
2. They cherry-pick plagiarised it and so conceal from their readership the other data in my list, which undermines the arguments they make. Cherry picking your own data to do such a thing is serious science fraud. Cherry pick plagiarising the findings of another is surely equally, or more, serious.
3. Dr Dagg committed this plagiarism maliciously, which is proven by his own blog posts on both me and my finding that he has plagiarised; comments he published before and after he plagiarised it.
4. Because the research finding Dr Weale and Dr Dagg plagiarised could only ever have been found with my IDD research method (Sutton 2014b, Sutton and Griffith 2018), they also, in effect, plagiarise that original research method.

Read on to learn the full story, with all the independently verifiable facts and sources, of the most ironic plagiarism in the history of science.

References

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

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

~~~

Perhaps the un-scientific embarrassing multiple irony of what has been done is not lost on those who have seriously plagiarised my research, and on those who have, to date, arguably, undermined scientific integrity and the publication record by refusing to acknowledge and deal with that serious repeat victimisation plagiarism. That irony being my research into the history of plagiarism of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the theory first published by the Scot Patrick Matthew, has been most seriously plagiarised by two authors, in two separate papers in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, which effectively seek to argue that Darwin and Wallace did not plagiarise Matthew’s theory in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society in 1858, of which the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is a direct descendant. On which note, as (Iphofen 2017) poignantly writes about my peer reviewed research on plagiarism:

'...we must guard against the temptation to corrupt practices that many see as undermining scientific integrity. These include plagiarism, failure to acknowledge prior-work, biased peer-reviewing, and, in effect, poorly constructed desk or secondary research. Of course, there is nothing new in such discreditable activities. Sutton (2014) offers evidence that Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace clearly plagiarised the earlier ideas of Patrick Matthew without sufficient acknowledgment and Darwin then used his elite connections to ensure he would not be scooped by Wallace.' [My emphasis].

Detailed Repeat Victim Impact and Context Statement Regarding the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society Refusing to Admit to or Address Repeat Victimization Plagiarism of my Prior-Published Original Research

                                                                                      (Dr Mike Sutton, August 2020)

Please Note: Full references to all publications cited are included at the end of this repeat victim statement.

The plagiarism and cherry picking plagiarism fraud comprises Dr Weale and Dr Dagg in their separate papers doing the following in each paper:

1. Using one important high-quality finding from my prior published research (Sutton 2014, 2014a, 2015. 2017b) without citation to that research.
2. By default, plagiarising the unique Big Data mining method (Sutton 2014b, Sutton and Griffiths 2018) used to make the finding, because the finding could not have been made without that method.
3. Cherry-picking plagiarism of that one important finding from my research to effectively mislead readers by not mentioning other findings in that same prior-published research. Those other findings independently, and as a collective weight of evidence, can be understood to disconfirm the arguments the plagiarisers make using the one finding they plagiarised.
4. The fact that only one of my high quality research findings has been plagiarised cannot ethically, rationally, or reasonably – in accordance with all guidance, rules and regulations on research plagiarism – be used as a guilt neutralisation excuse by the plagiarisers, Editor or OUP. This is a most important point, that I cannot emphasize enough, because the fact that only one of my findings has been plagiarised means three things (a) as in point 3 above, readers have been misled by deliberate cherry picking from my research findings, (b) high quality (not quantity) research findings plagiarism is the serious issue here (c) not dealing appropriately with this example of serious repeat plagiarism of my research will effectively give the authors and others a perceived licence to do the same with that and many more future illicit “use of one single research finding plagiarism” from my research and from the research of others in future OUP publications and elsewhere.
5. The fact the same finding first plagiarised by Dr Weale has been repeat plagiarised by Dr Dagg, in the very same journal, is proof of the high value of that finding and also strongly suggests that unless this plagiarism is dealt with appropriately, repeat victimisation by plagiarism will multiply even further by the same or by other authors in the same journal and or in other publications.
6. The plagiarism is deliberate, because both authors are proven to have prior read and prior-published their knowledge of my research and that finding in it. What they each publish on their own blog sites about my research before they plagiarised it is independently verifiable evidence of their prior knowledge of that finding. Both Dr Weale and Dr Dagg clearly took that finding directly from my original prior-published research with no reference to the research they took it from. That is serious research plagiarism under any definition.
7. It is my considered belief that in plagiarising my research in the way they have, given the weight of the independently verifiable evidence presented in this victim statement, both Dr Weale and Dr Dagg have committed serious academic science fraud by deliberate cherry-picking plagiarism of my research.
8. In the case of Dr Dagg, what the has written in his reviews of my books and his own blog posts about me and my research, published before he plagiarised my research, and after, confirm his plagiarism is malicious.

The research that has been plagiarised was conducted in 2013-2014, when I was employed as Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University (NTU). NTU published a press brief on the research (see Nottingham Trent University 2014).

The plagiarised research is by no means of minor significance. My research findings have been reported in many newspapers and other publications, including national newspapers: The Daily Telegraph (2014) and the Daily Mail [Scotland Edition] (Caven 2014) and The Scotsman (newsroom 2016).

The ‘Selby cited Matthew in 1842’ original finding from my research is not yet common knowledge. Yet that exact research finding has been cherry-picked plagiarised from my larger list of those newly discovered, in my research, to have cited Matthew (1831). To be clear, my research finding has been plagiarised. It has been repeatedly plagiarised, because it has been published in two different articles in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. My Selby finding was taken from a larger list of my research findings, of writers I newly discovered cited Patrick Matthew’s (1831) book pre-1858, without credit to the source of my research that originally uncovered and first published it. In fact, it was used with no credit to me whatsoever. That is serious intellectual property theft of my research finding and the method used to make the finding.

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 19^th 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 11^th. 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. 21^st 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 28^th.

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

The World's Most #Ironic Story of Research #Plagiarism: Biological Journal of the Linnean Society Dissects Itselfhttps://t.co/8ZW1bhvThi pic.twitter.com/uiQgnOtrUO

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 14, 2020