the Bureaucratic mills grind slowly, but they grind until they come to a result. Last fall, accusations of plagiarism against the Darmstadt sociologist Cornelia Koppetsch were known. You would have a collage in their works, his own theses with the statements of foreign authors mixed up, and without the need for third-party share of you know. Two publishers chose books by Koppetsch from the trade.The University began a private investigation.
Now the result was presented to the Public, it's a scientific View for Koppetschs devastating. Your own College certifies that the scholar is a serious violation of the rules of good scientific practice.
The core message of the report is: "The tested fonts contain single, point-to-point. Instead, they will be a variety of irregularities, which are spread widely over all of the reviewed texts. Many of the problematic areas as plagiarism, to evaluate a number as a distinctive text acquisitions. Add to this the obfuscation findings, and which correspond to the pattern of the 'pawn sacrifice'-document. Repeatedly in literature notes, which are included in the used source, omitted, or plagiarized papers not marked, which makes the 'actually' to the calling source of invisible acquisitions. In three cases, plagiarized be umdatiert – historical-descriptive statements, and thus materially altered.“
It is highly unlikely that the violations of the rules of Quotation marks and of dealing with literature, entirely unintentionally, are events in the sense of "accidentally". For many years, acted Koppetsch "ruthless". It is not a plagiarism. Also, the ratio to the empirical data remain in Koppetsch unclear. In her book, "the return of The conformity" from the year 2013, in the own empirical data will be used, lacked information on the case selection, the survey instrument and the analysis method. "This Lack prevents, the methodological approach to and reliability to assess," writes the Commission. In the book "The company of wrath" continue this line of work. The book contains no references to your own or created by other empirical research, the results of which are discussed in the interpretations. After Sandra cone, editor-in-chief in the Feuilleton of the F. A. Z., as a proposal at the end of join the jury of the Bavarian book award from accusations of plagiarism regarding the "society of rage", took the book in a public jury meeting on may 7. November, 2019 from the final selection for the award. Cornelia Koppetsch had refused before, and in turn the book, because of the to withdraw the allegation.Updated Date: 11 August 2020, 22:19