RIGHT ON!!! I concur most heartily with the sentiments expressed by Duncan.
cheers,
Rolf
On 23/09/15 12:33, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 22/09/2015 4:06 PM, peter dalgaard wrote:
Marc,
I don't think Copyright/Intellectual property issues factor into
this. Urkund and similar tools are to my knowledge entirely about
plagiarism. So the issue would seem to be that the R output is
considered identical or nearly indentical to R output in other
published orotherwise submitted material.
What puzzles me (except for how a document can be deemed 32%
plagiarized in 25% of the text) is whether this includes the
numbers and variable names. If those are somehow factored out, then
any R regression could be pretty much identical to any other R
regression. However, two analyses with similar variable names could
happen if they are based on the same cookbook recipe and analyses
with similar numerical output come from analyzing the same standard
data. Such situations would not necessarily be considered
plagiarism (I mean: If you claim that you are analyzing data from
experiments that you yourself have performed, and your numbers are
exactly identical to something that has been previously published,
then it would be suspect. If you analyze something from public
sources, someone else might well have done the same thing.).
I don't see why this puzzles you. A simple explanation is that Urkund
is incompetent.
Many companies that sell software to university administrations are
incompetent, because the buyers have been promoted so far beyond their
competence that they'll buy anything if it is expensive enough.
This isn't uncommon.
<SNIP>
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
