Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Pak/Befunde

< Pak

31.349Seiten 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.

OverviewBearbeiten

  • Problematic text parallels can be found in the following chapters (state of analysis: 06.04.2014):
  • 1. INTRODUCTION
  • 1.1. Haematopoiesis and development of blood cellular components
  • 1.1.2. Classification of human haematopoietic stem cell (p. 8-9): pages 8, 9
  • 1.1.3. The haematopoietic colony forming cell (CFC) (p. 9-11): pages 9, 11
  • 1.1.6. Sources of haematopoietic stem cells (p. 12-13): pages 12, 13 – [almost completely]
  • 1.2. Developmental pathways in human haematopoiesis
  • 1.2.1. Long term-HSCs in xenotransplant models (p. 13): page 13 – [completely]
  • 1.2.2. The subsets of human lymphoid and myeloid progenitor (p. 14-16): pages 14, 15, 16 – [completely]
  • 1.2.2. [sic] Lineage-Bias in HSCs (p. 16): page 16
  • 1.3. Extrinsic and intrinsic factors affecting the haematopoiesis
  • 1.3.1. Cytokines (p. 16-17): page 17
  • 1.3.2. Cooperative interactions of cytokines (p. 17-19): pages 17, 18, 19 – [completely (text)]
  • 1.3.3. Tyrosine kinase receptor and cell signalling (p. 19-20): pages 19, 20 – [completely]
  • 1.3.4. The role of transcription factors (p. 20-24): pages 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 – [completely (text)]
  • 1.4. The role of HOX and non-homeobox genes in haematopoiesis
  • 1.4.3. The TALE homeodomain protein family PBX (p. 27): page 27 – [completely]
  • 1.4.4. The novel Haematopoietic PBX-interacting protein (HPIP) (p. 28): page 28
  • 3. MATERIAL AND METHODS
  • 3.1. Materials
  • 3.1.3. Mammalian cell lines (p. 31-32): page 32
  • 3.1.4. The NOD/SCID mice (p. 32-33): pages 32, 33 – [almost completely]
  • 3.1.5. NOD/SCID mice related reagents and equipment (p. 33): page 33 – [completely]
  • 3.1.6. Bacterial Strain (p. 33): page 33 – [completely]
  • 3.2. Methods
  • 3.2.6. Purification of umbilical cord blood CD34+ (CB CD34+) from mononuclear umbilical cord blood (UCB) (p. 48-49): pages 48, 49 – [completely]
  • 3.2.11. Colony forming assays (p. 53-54): pages 53, 54 – [completely (text)]
  • 3.2.14. Human bulk long term culture initiating cell assay (Bulk LTC-IC) (p. 55-56): page 56
  • 3.3. Analysis
    • 3.3.1. Statistics (p. 59, 2 sentences)
    • 3.3.2. Gene expression profile (p. 60, 1 sentence)
    • 3.3.3. Confocal Microscope (p. 60, 2 sentences)
  • 4. RESULTS
  • 4.5. Colony forming cell (CFC) assay
  • 4.5.1. Quantification of committed haematopoietic progenitor cells in vitro (p. 68-71): page 68
  • 4.9. Analysis of wt and mutant HPIP functional in the xenotransplantat NOD/SCID model
  • 4.9.2. The assessment of lymphoid/myeloid ratio in vivo (p. 85): page 85
  • 5. DISCUSSION (p. 100-110): page 103.

Prominent FragmentsBearbeiten

  • Fragment 024 01: Text copied from the Wikipedia literally without attribution, even including the formatting of internal Wikipedia links.
  • Fragment 019 04: Almost an entire page copied almost literally without attribution.
  • Fragment 053 05: An example of a literal and unattributed copy of text in the "Methods" section.
  • Fragment 068 06, Fragment 085 02: Most copied text is used in the introduction and the methods section. These shorter fragments however are from the results section.

Prominent SourcesBearbeiten

  • Hapel & Stanley (2006): This "Marie Curie Report" is not mentioned in the thesis anywhere, but is the source of significant copied text in the introduction (pages 17, 18, 19, 20).
  • Ahmed (2007): This dissertation of a member of the same research group is not mentioned anywhere in the thesis, but nevertheless is the source of very substantial copied text predominantly, but not exclusively in the methods section. It is not surprising that some of the methods employed by P.K. might be similar or even identical to the methods employed by her colleague and using an identical description of those methods might be an efficient and precise way of registering those methods. However, it is not clear, why this has not been made transparent to the reader.
  • There are substantial copies from various Wikipedia articles that are not mentioned anywhere in the thesis:

Other observationsBearbeiten

  • On page 18 there is a copy from the Wikipedia with the links intact. On page 59 there is a clear font change in a paragraph.
  • The pages with number 28, 59 and 60 exist twice in the thesis. For the purpose of the documentation the double pages are treated as one page.
  • The page numbers in the table of contents do not fully correspond to the actual body of text.
  • The regulations governing dissertations (="Promotionsordnung") valid at the time of submission demand the following:
    "eine Erklärung darüber, dass der Bewerber die Dissertation selbständig angefertigt hat, sich außer der angegebenen Hilfsmittel keiner weiteren Hilfsmittel bedient und alle Erkenntnisse, die aus dem Schrifttum ganz oder annähernd übernommen sind, als solche kenntlich gemacht und nach ihrer Herkunft unter Bezeichnung der Fundstelle einzeln nachgewiesen hat;"

StatisticsBearbeiten

  • Currently there are 42 reviewed fragments documented that are considered to be violations of citation rules. For 38 of them there is no reference given to the source used („Verschleierungen“ and „Komplettplagiate“). For 4 fragments the source is given, but the extent of the used text is not made clear („Bauernopfer“).
  • The publication has 107 pages that have been analyzed. On a total of 28 of these pages violations of citation rules have been documented. This represents a percentage of 26.2%. The 107 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 79
0%-50% text parallels 11
50%-75% text parallels 3
75%-100% text parallels 14
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 13% of the main part of the publication.

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki