RE: Favorite NON-fiction  

Ruhlen, Rachel Louise (UMC-Student) RuhlenR at missouri.edu
Tue Jan 28 11:18:06 PST 2003

> -----Original Message-----
> From: H. T. [mailto:electrictwilight at hotmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:53 PM
> To: Randi128 at aol.com; dragaera at dragaera.info
> Subject: Re: Favorite NON-fiction  
> >It is not unusual for several different scientists, or teams of 
> >scientists, to be working on the same theory at the same 
> time. The one 
> >that puplishes first, gets the credit, even if thier 
> research is based 
> >upon another persons initial research. Remember- one source 
> is called 
> >plagiarism, several sources
> >is called research.
> I hate to be a pain in the butt... okay actually I love to be 
> one, but 
> that's beside the point... but last time I looked one source 
> without citing 
> its creator is plagiarism, two sources without citing their 
> inventors is 
> plagiarism, twenty-sources without citing their originators 
> is plagiarism... 
> and basing one's research off of anothers data that is 
> created at the same 
> time as the research you are working on, and especially the 
> information of 
> who you are in direct competition with, without giving them 
> their due, is 
> usually industrial espionage...

What the uncited author of the first passage might have been referring to is the phenomenon where the first author (the one who wrote the paper and may have done some or most of the actual research) and the last author (the one whose lab the work was done in, also known as the one who writes the grants that funded the research) get most of the credit while the middle authors (of which there are frequently many), although technically an author on the paper, don't get much notice. However, I also disagree with the final statement. "Getting credit" for something is entirely different than failing to cite or acknowledge contributers.