no, not just any reputable scientist, but also the administrative court in Berlin, and retrospectively for the year 2001 published doctoral thesis. Also at the time this rule applied from the point of view of the judge already. This shows a previously unpublished judgment to a plagiarism case in the case of a doctoral thesis at the Department of political and social Sciences, FU Berlin (VG 12 K 412.17), which is present in the F. A. z exclusive. It States: "a sanction capable of act of Deceit is also assumed when only the so-called 'ultimate source' – the origin of the textual statement , but not the 'between the source' is quoted, from the literal Adoption of the passage derives, refers in turn to the content of the last source."
reason: the alleged quotation, you give the appearance that I have quoted above, read it myself, although the quote was taken from a third source. In the specific plagiarism case, the deception was detected, because a first name error from the (not cited) was applied between the source, which would probably hardly ever happens, if the cited the latter source has actually been read.
the detection of deception is made easier
In practice, this means the following: Who can find in a book or an apt quotation from Niklas Luhmann, must make on the basis of the citation on the search for the original source and read it, if he quoted the original source. The original source is not available, he must make that he quoted only the between the source, i.e.: "(Luhmann 1990, p. 12, as cited in DOE 2000, p. 99)
in April 2009 and had need to refer to the administrative court of Berlin (for the first time) to this question (12 A, 319.08). At that time, however, it was only a student house work, which was rated "failed". The court argued, the author does not deny that he made the "his" Text, reflecting the Interpretation of the "ultimate source" and their semantic rendering itself, but the wording is identical from a "between-source" has taken over. "This approach is not only contrary to the basic rules of scientific work, but in testing, a deception is working."
This view was taken from the University of Hamburg in the year 2017, in a Handbook of the law office.Updated Date: 04 August 2020, 11:20