NRLgate -
Plagiarism by Peer Reviewers
Sections 8 thru 9
This page is part of the NRLgate Web site presenting evidence of
plagiarism among scientific peer reviewers involving 9 different peer review
documents of 4 different journal and conference papers in the fields of
evolutionary computation and machine learning.
This page contains section 8 entitled "Preliminary Conclusions"
and section 9 entitled "Proposal for binding arbitration, under auspices
of the American Arbitration Association, by a retired federal judge of the
issues and plagiarism and scientific misconduct"
Go to top of NRlgate Home Page
Go to Abbreviated Table of Contents
Go to Detailed Table of Contents
Go to Complaint Letter
to the Evolutionary Computation journal
Go to top of Previous Page
Go to top of Next Page
8. Preliminary Conclusions
I believe that a definitive identification of the wrongdoers involved in
creating these plagiarized reviews should be done by an impartial person
who is experience and trained in reaching findings of fact and making judgments
based on the evidence. Specifically, I advocate a complaint resolution procedure
involving a retired federal judge acting under the auspices of the American
Arbitration Association for the purpose of making a definitive determination
of the truth. No final judgment or opinion should be formed at this time
on any of the matters herein. Instead, the truth concerning all of these
matters herein should be definititvely determined in a thorough and impartial
investigation and factual determination made under the proposed arbitration
procedure by a retired federal judge.
9. Proposal for binding arbitration, under auspices of the American
Arbitration Association, by a retired federal judge of the issues and plagiarism
and scientific misconduct
The previous sections have provided more than sufficient evidence to establish
that there is good reason to doubt that the 9 scientific peer review documents
submitted to 4 different conferences and journals were written by peer reviewers
acting independently in accordance with the fundamental principles of the
peer review. No reasonable person can simply dismiss all of these items
as unrelated coincidences or pure chance.
Plagiarism or collusion or fabrication in the peer review process are serious
offenses in the scientific and academic communities.
A question of collusion, plagiarism, fabrication, or other abuses of the
peer review process goes to the very heart of the board's responsibilities
to maintain the scientific integrity of the publication. In fact, a reasonable
possibility of plagiarism or collusion or fabrication must be regarded seriously
by the editorial board of any journal that aspires to any degree of scientific
credibility. The editorial board of the Evolutionary Computation journal
is responsible for maintaining the scientific integrity of the journal.
Once it is established that there is good reason to believe that there may
have been a serious offense, the only appropriate course of action is to
acquire all the information that may possibly be useful in uncovering the
whole truth.
Perhaps when all the relevant information is disclosed, it will become clear
that there was no misconduct at all and that only pure chance and coincidence
were operating. If, after complete and careful investigation motivated by
a desire to get at the truth, this situation proves to be entirely benign,
then everyone involved (including myself) should (and will) openly acknowledge
that. I have tried to be careful in gathering the facts and raising the
issues that I have presented concerning possible abuses of the peer review
process. And, I believe that there is a real and significant problem of
misconduct concerning the 9 scientific peer review documents submitted to
4 different conferences and journals However, I have repeatedly said if
I make an error (of detail or substance) at any time, I will correct and
retract that error. And, if this situation proves to be entirely benign,
I will be the first to say so.
The only way for the Evolutionary Computation journal to maintain its credibility
in the scientific community is to undertake a completely open and above-board
investigation and disposition of this matter and "let the chips fall
where they may."
It is puzzling that some academics and scientists embrace the utopian notion
that there is no such thing as scientific misconduct (even though they seem
to have no difficulty in accepting the possibility that a Harvard PhD in
mathematics may, for example, be a serial bomber and that a Nobel prize
winner may be a child molester). Even worse, some think that the truth
is less important than maintaining a false image that nothing can ever possibly
be wrong in the academic and scientific worlds (as if members of the academic
and scientific communities did not have any human frailties).
But the only legitimate motivation at this point should be to get at the
truth.
In pursuing the facts and the truth of this situation, one hopes not to
hear of any more wishful thinking from those who fantasize that the problems
of ethics concerning the Evolutionary Computation journal will conveniently
disappear without an honest and truthful resolution. And, in pursuing the
truth of this situation, one hopes not to see any perverse misplaced sympathy
for the perpetrators (who, if there is any misconduct, have only themselves
to blame for their own actions and for creating this situation). And, one
certainly hopes not to see any more of the blame-shifting to the victim
for stepping forward, complaining, and demanding that the truth come out.
Finally, one hopes not to hear any more about how hard so-and-so may have
worked on the journal (particularly since overwork is probably best viewed
as a vice, not a virtue, in the field of peer reviewing and journal editing).
There is only one proper consideration at this point --- to find the truth.
I propose that the task of making a definitive determination that an offense
has been committed and making a definitive identification of the wrongdoers
be put into the hands of a person who
- is trained and experienced in making findings of fact and judgments
BASED ON EVIDENCE,
- has no emotional, professional, or personal connection to any of the
parties,
- has no motivation other than finding the truth and has no inclination
of any kind to participate in the suppression of the truth,
- has no interest in the business or financial aspects of the journal
or conferences involved,
- is trained and experienced in being scrupulously fair to whoever may
be identified as the accused in the process of reaching a decision and in
being scrupulously fair to the victim of the wrongdoing, and
- whose decision will be accepted as being fair and impartial.
Specifically, I propose
- that the Evolutionary Computation journal and I submit to binding arbitration,
under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association, by a mutually
acceptable retired federal judge,
- that the arbitrator, operating under federal civil rules, be engaged
- --- to supervise the discovery and collection of evidence, hear open
testimony, hear (and read) arguments from the parties,
- --- to take action to obtain evidence for discovery,
- --- to reach a decision on each separate question raised, and
- --- to write a public opinion stating his decision and the reasons for
his decision supported by a preponderance of evidence on each separate question,
and
--- to assess damages of up to $1 on the responsible person(s) for each
separate issue that is raised in the arbitration and that the arbitrator
finds to be supported by a preponderance of evidence and to assess damages
of up to $l for each separate charge that is raised, but which the arbitrator
finds was not so supported by the evidence.
- All parties agree that the decision reached in these proceedings be
a final and complete settlement of all disputes of any kind existing between
all the parties involved.
- Since I feel strongly that the facts of this situation will support
my position and in to make this offer to arbitrate as attractive as possible,
I will offer to pay all of the fees of the AAA and of the arbitrator for
his time and services. (The arbitrator would, as usual, be told only that
the participating parties had a mutual agreement concerning fees).
- This offer to arbitrate remains open until September 20, 1996, and is
subject to all the parties having reached a mutual agreement on all the
necessary preliminary details of the arbitration procedure and having all
signed an agreement to submit to binding arbitration with the AAA. Once
the agreement to arbitrate is signed by all the parties, any procedural
issue that subsequently arises will be settled by the arbitrator.
The above proposal will permit everyone else to go about their business
while the truth of this situation is impartially and fairly determined.
I hope the editorial board will urge all the parties to agree to this proposed
arbitration.
Author: John R. Koza
E-Mail: NRLgate@cris.com
Go to top of NRlgate Home Page
Go to Abbreviated Table of Contents
Go to Detailed Table of Contents
Go to Complaint Letter
to the Evolutionary Computation journal
Go to top of Previous Page
Go to top of Next Page