Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Amh/Befunde

< Amh

31.359Seiten in
diesem Wiki
Seite hinzufügen
Diskussion3 Share

Störung durch Adblocker erkannt!


Wikia ist eine gebührenfreie Seite, die sich durch Werbung finanziert. Benutzer, die Adblocker einsetzen, haben eine modifizierte Ansicht der Seite.

Wikia ist nicht verfügbar, wenn du weitere Modifikationen in dem Adblocker-Programm gemacht hast. Wenn du sie entfernst, dann wird die Seite ohne Probleme geladen.

FindingsBearbeiten

  • Problematic text parallels can be found in the following chapters (state of analysis: 07.05.2014):
  • Introduction (p. 5-7): pages 5, 6, 7 – [almost completely]
  • Clinical relevance of SD (p. 8-10): pages 8, 9, 10
  • Dopamine (p. 10-11): page 10, 11 – [almost completely]
  • Dopamine and spreading depression (p. 11-13): page 12
  • Material and methods
  • Statistical analysis (p. 14-15): page 14
  • Dsicussion [sic] (p. 23-25): pages 23, 24.

Prominent sourcesBearbeiten

  • Gorji (2001): Substantial parts of the introduction are taken from this source that is not mentioned anywhere in the dissertation.
  • Wikipedia Dopamine 2009: A section in the introduction has been taken from the Wikipedia without attribution.
  • Stanwood (2008): A section in the discussion chapter has been taken from this source that is not mentioned anywhere in the dissertation.

Other observationsBearbeiten

  • The supervisor of the thesis Prof. Dr. Gorji is the author of Gorji (2001) as well as the supervisor of Sheikh (2009) so it would have been possible for him to spot the very substantial text parallels between the dissertation Amh (2010) and these studies.
  • The regulations for the submission of dissertations in effect at the time demand a declaration accompanying the thesis that "die Doktorandin/ der Doktorand sie nur unter Benutzung der im Literaturverzeichnis angegebenen Quellen angefertigt hat und sonst kein anderes gedrucktes oder ungedrucktes Material verwendet wurde" (§2 (1) 4.)
  • The dissertation Granz (2009) has had the same pair of examiners and was submitted only marginally before the here analysed dissertation (The day of the oral exam was 7/10/2009 compared to 20/11/2009 for Amh (2010)).
    There are very substantial text parallels between the two dissertations, but due to the close proximity of the publication dates it is not clear who has copied from who and the text parallels have not been counted as plagiarism. As an example, see Fragment 014 01.
  • A photograph has been taken without giving a source. This, however, is not plagiarism as the reader would not expect that this photo has been taken by the author of the thesis. See Fragment 006 00.
  • Substantial text passages from the methods section of the dissertation (or alternatively for instance Granz (2009)) have been reused in an academic paper of which the supervisor of the thesis is a co-author: Kazemi et al. (2002).
  • Substantial content also exists in parallel in the theses Tmm, Aeh und Clm submitted to the same faculty and investigated in the VroniPlag Wiki.

StatisticsBearbeiten

  • Currently there are 19 reviewed fragments documented that are considered to be violations of citation rules. For 17 of them there is no reference given to the source used („Verschleierungen“ and „Komplettplagiate“). For 2 fragments the source is given, but the extent of the used text is not made clear („Bauernopfer“).
  • The publication has 21 pages that have been analyzed. On a total of 11 of these pages violations of citation rules have been documented. This represents a percentage of 52.4%. The 21 analyzed pages break down with respect to the amount of text parallels encountered as follows:
Percentage text parallels Number of pages
No text parallels documented 10
0%-50% text parallels 4
50%-75% text parallels 2
75%-100% text parallels 5
From these statistics an extrapolation of the amount of text of the publication under investigation that has been documented as problematic can be estimated (conservatively) as about 26% of the main part of the publication.


IllustrationBearbeiten

The following chart illustrates the extent and the distribution of the text parallels found. The colours show the type of violation of citation rules diagnosed:

  • grau="Komplettplagiat" (copy & paste): the source of the text parallel is not given, the copy is verbatim.
  • rot="Verschleierung" (disguised copy): the source of the text parallel is not given, the copied text will be somewhat modified.
  • gelb="Bauernopfer" (pawn sacrifice): the source of the text parallel is mentioned, but the extent and/or the closeness of the copy to the source is not made clear by the reference.

Amh col2.png

(state of analysis: 07.05.2014)

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki