Allegation of plagiarism against a professor at the university

It starts with a simple blog post that appears on Christmas Eve 2022. Title: «‹Nobody cares about your blog!›»

It continues with a group of scientists who, instead of celebrating, spend Christmas Day researching a colleague online – and uncover amazing things in the process.

And it ends for the time being on Boxing Day with many unanswered questions: Did a titular professor at the University of Zurich – as the blog post claims – violate the rules of science? Or is she – as the professor herself replies – the victim of a character assassination campaign?

In this case, nothing is clear except for one thing: the Zurich university landscape is currently experiencing a rather bizarre case of plagiarism allegations – carried out in public. However, this case is not bizarre because of the allegations themselves.

It is bizarre because of the dynamic that the allegations take on after the blog post was published – and because of the contrasting realities that are beginning to form in the professor’s statements and in the blogger’s Twitter bubble. It is a lesson in the difficulty of proving or refuting an allegation of plagiarism.

And one about what happens when this attempt is made live on social networks.

Serious allegations

The allegations are quickly summarized: A Zurich titular professor of the philosophical faculty – i.e. one without a chair and permanent position – is said to have copied some paragraphs in scientific work in whole or in part from the blog and other publications without naming the original source. She is said to have also used the image material on the blog. And she is said to have failed to appreciate the research work of the blogger – who, by his own admission, is an expert in the field.

In the world of science, these are quite serious allegations, but not comparable in caliber to those that are currently occupying the University of St. Gallen. A professor there is said to have plagiarized large parts of his qualification work.

For representatives of the relevant field, however, the allegations seem to be of great importance. After the blog post was shared on Twitter, it prompted heated comments. There is talk of a “Christmas thriller”, and the behavior is called “outrageous”, “disgusting” and “irritating”. Someone asks, “Is this a scam to get grants?”

The Twitter bubble investigates under the Christmas tree – and sees everything she finds as further confirmation of her theses: In fact, the professor for the book publication, which is at the center of the plagiarism allegation, was supported with 20,000 francs by the Swiss National Science Foundation. In the book she also thanks the University of Zurich for financial support. And she published the book in a small academic publishing house that she runs herself.

The next discovery follows at this publishing house and the associated private research center of the professor: Something is not quite right here with the employees. Although these are shown on the website with a photo, in at least four cases these images are so-called stock photographs. Symbolic images from the web, which can also be found on countless other websites. For example, that of a law firm specializing in drugs, a retirement home or a hair extension company.

Weird finds

While the bubble is happy about these bizarre finds, the next twist follows: the symbol images disappear from the website. And something else has changed: the book at the center of the allegations of plagiarism – an online publication – is suddenly there in a modified version, as can be seen in the so-called Internet archive. A source reference was inserted, several pictures were exchanged. By whom? One does not know.

One thing is clear: the changes relate to all points that were discussed in the blog.

At this point, the twitterers are well entertained. One writes: “After a canceled flight ruined my Christmas plans, I have time to enjoy this dismantling of an academic scam.”

Only late, when the opinions seem to have already been made, does the affected professor speak up. Her critic, the blogger, tried to contact her even before the publication. However, he got stuck with the assistant, who is said to have written the sentence that became the title of his post: “Nobody cares about your blog!”

Only after publication does the professor herself reject all allegations. In several public statements and a long email exchange with the NZZ, she presents her view of things.

The allegations against her are unfounded, she writes. Public criticism is tantamount to a defamation campaign. She can, she promises, explain and refute everything.

The professor’s answer

The allegedly copied sentences are similar because they and the blogger independently relied on the same sources and described the same subject of research. It is similar with the image material allegedly tapped without consent: some of it simply comes from the same source. In one case, post-processing with an image editing program increased the resemblance to an image on the blog.

Like the blogger, the professor also has extensive evidence for her explanations.

The professor admits that she found out about the blog and its parallel research shortly after completing her manuscript. But this goes much less far than theirs. What she has done scientifically in an almost 300-page publication, the blog author could not bring about with his resources.

In addition, contrary to what was claimed, she did not earn anything from the criticized project. Because the money from the SNSF did not go directly to her, but only to the publishing house that she runs.

In fact, this corresponds to the publicly available Award criteria of the SNSF. Accordingly, there was also an external report that attested the professor’s book the necessary scientific quality.

abuse on both sides

And what about the icon images on the publisher’s website that mysteriously disappeared? The employee responsible for the website once added it as a placeholder and never changed it. Due to the criticism, this was then corrected. And the sudden changes in the book published online? She denies that, according to the professor. You yourself have no direct access to the publication.

The professor writes that she receives angry e-mails every hour in which she is accused of being a fraudster. Your employees would also be harassed. She is particularly bothered by the fact that her critic’s blog posts pictures from her institute’s website showing her husband and daughters.

The entire family is given its full name and there is speculation about their role in the alleged machinations of the mother. This is why she calls the blogger a “madman”. In the meantime, she writes, she has filed a criminal complaint for slander and defamation.

University announces investigation

The whole story is a nightmare for the professor – the serious scientist suddenly has to fight against the overwhelming power of the online mob.

For the Twitter bubble, the story is the complete opposite: an example of successful resistance – blogging David versus professorial Goliath.

When asked by the NZZ, the blogger himself attaches importance to the statement that he himself does not want to accuse the professor of plagiarism. He just wanted to “present evidence of this”.

Who is right? An answer that satisfies both sides will probably only be able to be determined by an examination by independent experts. The information situation is too confused, the peculiarities of the subject concerned are too great.

Such an examination should now also take place, as the University of Zurich writes at the request of the NZZ. An independent investigation is being launched into the allegations made by the blogger. The presumption of innocence applies to the professor until it is completed.

On Boxing Day, the university hastened to announce that it attaches great importance to adhering to scientific standards.

The announcement was made – where else – on Twitter.