• Kwakigra@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    Are there any political science academics who can vouch for this claim?

    [T]here is the reality that Gay’s field, political science, is a data-driven discipline in which abstracts from one paper are not-infrequently copied as parts of a literature review in another, and that the borrowed phrases and summaries that account for Gay’s “plagiarism” are not crimes of theft but of sloppiness, with little bearing on the originality of her work.

    If this is true, then this article is a fascinating read which I recommend.

    • aard@kyu.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      This thing seems to be a mess with huge rightwing dicks trying to find something that sticks, with people from the other side coming up to defend her.

      I think as a scientist - and especially someone in her role - sloppiness is not a valid excuse, her stepping down was correct, and nobody should make excuses for that. It also is not OK how the rightwing nutjobs are behaving here, but I’ve lost my faith a long time ago that there are still people who can look at both issues, so that will just be a mud slinging competition from both camps until it is forgotten.

    • krellor@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      I can’t speak to political science, but my background is computational maths. I’ve published papers in what I view as a very data driven field.

      I cited every direct quote from prior work, and listed additional resources that I didn’t explicitly reference but consulted.

      So it seems sloppy to me.