tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post8008699294718259372..comments2024-01-09T19:56:03.647-05:00Comments on Freshwater Gastropods of North America: Plagiarism, Paul Johnson, and The American Fisheries SocietyRob Dillonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09916618545870123585noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-57831772995633259042020-07-16T12:58:15.463-04:002020-07-16T12:58:15.463-04:00I will admit that I am commenting at least seven y...I will admit that I am commenting at least seven years late on this and the other related blog entries that are critical of NatureServe's Snail lists and Conservation Status Rankings (https://fwgna.blogspot.com/2013/08/delaware-and-what-we-think-we-know-that.html, https://fwgna.blogspot.com/2012/01/toward-scientific-ranking-of.html, https://fwgna.blogspot.com/2011/12/toward-scientific-ranking-of.html, etc.).<br /><br />This seems to be a bit of a pissing match between the two parties (or three if you add in the AFS contingent) that likely should have been kept a little more civil and maybe less public. <br /><br />I can personally attest to the passion Dr. Dillon has to for expanding the knowledge of Freshwater Gastropods of NA and making the data as transparent and publically available as possible. <br /><br />And while I do not necessarily agree with Dr. Dillon's categorization of this as plagiarism, I do find it curious that when I followed his instructions to look at NatureServe's Delaware Snail species list it does not seem to have changed at all over the past 7 years.<br /><br />I have read comments in these posts suggesting that NatureServer is more than welcome to update and correct their lists with additional information. Couldn't this be addressed despite the hard feelings in the name of science? <br /><br /> M. Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04174620529957699845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-41001085828500945452013-10-31T12:49:47.518-04:002013-10-31T12:49:47.518-04:00Thanks for the pearls of wisdom Mr. Chickenshit, s...Thanks for the pearls of wisdom Mr. Chickenshit, sorry Mr. Anonymous. My reference to antiquated views was that in todays world one cannot separate science, politics and public policy when dealing with conservation issues. As for your finding "fault" with my lack of civility, when someone engages in personal attacks the besmirch ones reputation and career they should expect the same in return. You can hit and run away or you can hit back. I suggest you crawl out on a limb and jump off.Kevin Cummingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00134772542080465882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-75221783808033737342013-10-08T14:27:09.746-04:002013-10-08T14:27:09.746-04:00On the commenter’s observation of 'intellectua...On the commenter’s observation of 'intellectual conversation' followed by a personal attack....I'd laugh out loud if this whole dialogue wasn't so serious.<br /> Back to Kevin's writings, starting with 'antiquated views'...if basing your writings on verifiable data, then label me a dinosaur. The farther you move away from the firm foundation of fact the more likely you are to get mired in a political agenda, personal aspiration, or at best … just plain error. First the ends justify the means, then you find out the ends are not justifiable. This is the inherent problem with long distance policy making. One only has to look at Atlantic Sturgeon in the Southeast, where a proposal to list was made on little to non-existent data and once the process gained momentum, new contradictory information was ignored and defunding of the (offending) project gave the appearance of an effort to suppress pertinent information that didn’t support the end goal. Then comes the face saving two step. <br /> As to a review paper, it should include every possible reference that pertains to the subject reviewed. Never heard of or can I conceive of a review paper with an incomplete bibliography. I particularly find fault with Kevin’s lack of ability to express oneself in a civil manner, which tends to undermines any credible point he might have made.<br />Thanks to Rob for exposing himself to ridicule posted here in order to point out that the King has no cloths or at least pointing out that we need to closely examine how sound the limb on which we crawl out on, truly is.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-83816926561065045822013-10-03T15:56:14.428-04:002013-10-03T15:56:14.428-04:00It is my understanding that such issues should be ...It is my understanding that such issues should be handled in peer reviewed journals. To post something such as thing in such a form on the Internet is nothing short of tabloid fodder and is therefore not worthy of consideration by the scientific community. If the allegations are worth pursuing they should be done in a manner worthy of academia. This particular blog serves only to demean the accuser as well as the accused. Shame on you. You are a Ph.D. You should know better and have more personal dignity than you apparently possess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-65609244344061856752013-10-01T14:45:43.015-04:002013-10-01T14:45:43.015-04:00Finally, some intellectual conversation on this bl...Finally, some intellectual conversation on this blog. This would be serious if the accuser did half the work as those who stand accused.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-82559384725703433642013-09-10T23:00:52.919-04:002013-09-10T23:00:52.919-04:00Regarding your question (1) - I addressed an open ...Regarding your question (1) - I addressed an open letter to the President of the AFS Monday morning outlining the charges above, as well as posting them on the blog. Science is a public process, and and it is important that this business be conducted openly, don't you agree, Mr. Anonymous?<br /><br />Regarding your question (2) - Yes, that's a good point about the taxonomy in the Johnson/AFS paper. It's terrible. But that seems like a separate issue to me. Maybe we'll take a good look at the taxonomic problems in a future post.Rob Dillonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09916618545870123585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-37620722953661479002013-09-10T13:43:47.166-04:002013-09-10T13:43:47.166-04:00Much of what I wanted to say about this post has a...Much of what I wanted to say about this post has already been said. My comment is partly about the previous post but is related to this post as well and it seems the conversation is here. You worried that, “Fresh young students, casting about for research ideas, will tend to assume that the freshwater gastropod fauna of North America is in some sense “known,” and divert their energies elsewhere.” I’m not concerned about the data on NatureServe turning fresh young students away from studying freshwater snails. The database was around when I began my dissertation work in 2005 but that did not stop me from including a chapter on snail survey work (for which I received two grants). I’m more concerned about those fresh young students stumbling on to this blog and seeing the vitriol and mudslinging being spouted by one of the most productive malacologists alive today. Who would want to join a community where one of the most senior researchers is likely to slander you by calling you mentally ill (e.g. March 12, 2008, D. Taylor) or a make ridiculous claims of plagiarism and post it on the web for anyone and everyone to see? The content blog is much more of a deterrent to fresh new students than NatureServe or one AFS publication ever will be.<br /><br />Also, in the previous post you stated, "And (how many times must we warn our students?) the internet is a wild and woolly marketplace of information, both the good and the bad, and the buyer must beware." This statement is particularly fitting because I give the same warning to students in my Freshwater Invertebrates and Malacology classes about the content of the FWGNA site. David Hayesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-25310686014077052712013-09-10T12:59:25.075-04:002013-09-10T12:59:25.075-04:00Well said, Kevin.Well said, Kevin.Dan Grafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08839766050814831930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-14244142907958937602013-09-10T12:46:53.870-04:002013-09-10T12:46:53.870-04:00Two questions I had watching this unfold...
1. If...Two questions I had watching this unfold...<br /><br />1. If you feel this strongly regarding the Johnson et al. publication, why not address your concerns to the editor of the journal instead of an online slanderfest?<br /><br />2. The focus of your ire confuses me. You are very concerned about the exclusion of common fauna in a review paper on rare species, yet appear content that the authors maintained Elimia as a separate and valid genus in lieu of following your synonymy of it into Pleurocera. I'd be far more upset about the latter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-63094282363016427662013-09-10T12:25:35.596-04:002013-09-10T12:25:35.596-04:00The above screed cannot go unanswered. You are be...The above screed cannot go unanswered. You are besmirching and defaming colleagues and friends of mine and doing so without any credible evidence whatsoever. I helped Jeremy Tiemann work on part of this project so I know something about what went into the process. You summarized your involvement with the FMCS Gastropod committee and your reasons for opting out of the process. It would appear that it was a mutual decision that you stay on the sidelines and “hope for the best” as you put it. You stated that “it was my strong opinion that our committee’s first order of business ought to be a comprehensive survey of the continental freshwater gastropod fauna, only after which conservation priorities might be assigned” It’s certainly your right to voice your opinion, but your are extremely naive to think that such an undertaking could be funded and completed in timely fashion and not delay a first pass attempt at educating our fellow aquatic scientists and policy makers as to the plight of the fauna. And that is what this is – a first pass. You obviously have never collaborated on and listing process at either the state or federal level or you would know that it’s an iterative process. <br /><br />You also pontificate about your “moral scruples regarding the admixture of science, politics, and public policy” and you are certainly free to voice such antiquated views. However, given your admitted disregard for laws governing the collection and movement of species across international borders in direct violation of Federal Law (your blog of 22 April 2011) it is fortunate that those of us working with policy folks to conserve the fauna, stay as far away as possible from people like you. With your track record your participation would certainly damage our credibility. <br /><br />Now to the meat of your screed. Your claim of plagiarism is a serious one and cannot stand without comment. You begin by criticizing the methods by which species were assessed and point to a single sentence that summarized their approach. I will concede that the methods section could have been expanded to make clear to novices how the data were collected. You harp on Natureserve but fail to mention the lack of museums that were also utilized in data gathering. It’s always nice to have a shout out or acknowledgment of your museum to use in preparing proposals and justifying budgets etc., but this is a review paper. I’ll say it again – this is a review paper. To include a detailed list of all data sources is unnecessary. You obviously have it in for Natureserve, but are you so blinded that you can’t even read that one of the authors of the paper is affiliated with Natureserve? How can you plagiarize your OWN data? For you to claim plagiarism would be laughable if it weren’t so serious. <br /><br />You also go on about how this or that COMMON species of snail has been negligently overlooked in the list for Delaware or New Jersey. Planorbella campanulata, Physella gyrina, P. acuta, P. heterostropha – who gives a SHIT. It’s fucking Delaware and New Jersey and it’s not the FOCUS OF THE PAPER – which if you need reminding is about conservation of rare species. In that section of your rant you go on about how the authors didn’t go on-line and check the ANSP for records that were plainly there. Are you so naïve to suggest that we take on-line museum records without verification and include them as publishable data? Seriously?<br /><br />You also complain that your emails weren’t returned. Well all I can say is that I don’t answer those that I receive from Nigerian Princes either. It’s usually a waste of time and I can only suppose the authors thought similarly about yours. As a colleague said to me yesterday, this blog has jumped the shark. And it ain’t pretty. <br />Kevin Cummingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00134772542080465882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-67097506189240132082013-09-09T17:28:31.052-04:002013-09-09T17:28:31.052-04:00Plagiarize is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dicti...Plagiarize is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as the following: "to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source". <br /><br />I have frequently worked with individuals from NatureServe and frequently use their website to find information regarding some species. What I know for certain is that NatureServe has not spent 1 day sampling in the state in which I work and thus the data that they use and post on their website is not collected by them. In fact, most NatureServe employees are largely data managers and clueless regarding the biology and distributions of the species in which they are dealing. Therefore, this data must be collected by someone else . Since there are so few researchers working with freshwater gastropods in North America, I suspect that much of the data provided to NatureServe for use one their website very well may have been provided by the author's themselves in the form of unpublished reports. This could occur through the state permitting processes in which species are reported to a state and then entered into a State's Heritage Database which is linked to NatureServe's website database. This leads to the question: Is it plagiarism if one uses one's own data to write a publication if the individual has shared this data? Another question is who made the first mistake in the data, the individual providing the data or NatureServe?<br /><br />Mr. Dillion is making serious accusations that he must substantiate with evidence rather than his experiences as a teacher. Has he verified all records in the NatureServe database? Has he contacted all of the sources of these records? Until these questions are answered, these accusations must be taken with much salt. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-58471714389958167392013-09-09T12:13:35.331-04:002013-09-09T12:13:35.331-04:00I think you might consider oversight here. The aut...I think you might consider oversight here. The authors assumed knowledge not present in the paper by their error, not plagiarism. The authors used the Natureserve database as a starting point with full knowledge of those at Natureserve. Jay Cordiero an author on the paper was the mollusc coordinator at the time at Natureserve. Natureserve has been involved in this effort from the beginning. I agree it should have been cited, that methods sentence is clearly lacking, but it was not plagiarism, Natureserve was a partner in the work from the start.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16318103396110006931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-87222029524418126662013-09-09T11:33:39.101-04:002013-09-09T11:33:39.101-04:00Bravo Rob. Things won't get better on the cons...Bravo Rob. Things won't get better on the conservation front or on the science-policy front until more of us stand up and point to the bad science.Andy Turnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02612589595135139837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1925453458905823877.post-38600717840369554162013-09-09T11:02:31.837-04:002013-09-09T11:02:31.837-04:00Wow. I am amazed by this. There may be more to the...Wow. I am amazed by this. There may be more to the story, I do not know, but this just seems to fit into the legacy of poor scholarship that seems to pervade much of the recent North American gastropod literature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com