Are there any political science academics who can vouch for this claim?
[T]here is the reality that Gay’s field, political science, is a data-driven discipline in which abstracts from one paper are not-infrequently copied as parts of a literature review in another, and that the borrowed phrases and summaries that account for Gay’s “plagiarism” are not crimes of theft but of sloppiness, with little bearing on the originality of her work.
If this is true, then this article is a fascinating read which I recommend.
This thing seems to be a mess with huge rightwing dicks trying to find something that sticks, with people from the other side coming up to defend her.
I think as a scientist - and especially someone in her role - sloppiness is not a valid excuse, her stepping down was correct, and nobody should make excuses for that. It also is not OK how the rightwing nutjobs are behaving here, but I’ve lost my faith a long time ago that there are still people who can look at both issues, so that will just be a mud slinging competition from both camps until it is forgotten.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Are there any political science academics who can vouch for this claim?
If this is true, then this article is a fascinating read which I recommend.
I can’t speak to political science, but my background is computational maths. I’ve published papers in what I view as a very data driven field.
I cited every direct quote from prior work, and listed additional resources that I didn’t explicitly reference but consulted.
So it seems sloppy to me.
This thing seems to be a mess with huge rightwing dicks trying to find something that sticks, with people from the other side coming up to defend her.
I think as a scientist - and especially someone in her role - sloppiness is not a valid excuse, her stepping down was correct, and nobody should make excuses for that. It also is not OK how the rightwing nutjobs are behaving here, but I’ve lost my faith a long time ago that there are still people who can look at both issues, so that will just be a mud slinging competition from both camps until it is forgotten.