University of Augsburg: Barišić cleared of plagiarism charges

From what I recall, they used this exact format for local use back when some magazine used to cite it properly...

nimblelynx63 said:From what I recall, they used this exact format for local use back when some magazine used to cite it properly...

Please back that up with some actual proof. Don't just say "so she said."

Check this out. This is one of those articles talking about how

nimblelynx63 said:Check this out. This is one of those articles talking about how

Do yourself a favor and read this. I haven't seen this level of mental gymnastics in a long time. 😁

"Well, now that we've peeked at the contents of that footnote, I think any reader can decide for themselves if there's enough scientific weight here to justify plagiarism—or if the alleged plagiarist actually gains anything from it. The reality is, the content of Schlesinger's article isn't strictly scientific; it's political. The data Barišić pulled from it isn't some groundbreaking result of Schlesinger's own research, but rather just his observations regarding the public stances of political figures that were already out there in the public domain."

So, according to the author, it isn't plagiarism simply because Schlesinger's piece is "political" and the info is "public"?
That’s total bullshit. It's a blatant cover-up.

The whole point of me dropping that link is to prove my case: Barišić didn't just quote it, he published it outright. He didn't offer an apology or anything—he just went ahead and cited it in the next edition

nimblelynx63 said:The whole point of me dropping that link is to prove my case: Barišić didn't just quote it, he published it outright. He didn't offer an apology or anything—he just went ahead and cited it in the next edition

So what, if they catch you red-handed and you offer a little apology, suddenly everything is fine? 😁 Did it go through peer review again or something? The paper itself is different now, and those theories everyone thought were his aren't even his anymore... It’s like if I went out and published a study using someone else's experimental data, and then once I got busted, I just said "my bad" and claimed the results weren't mine to begin with. It doesn't really work like that... 😉

driftinggull13 said:So what, if they catch you red-handed and you offer a little apology, suddenly everything is fine? 😁 Did it go through peer review again or something? The paper itself is different now, and those theories everyone thought were his aren't even his anymore... It’s like if I went out and published a study using someone else's experimental data, and then once I got busted, I just said "my bad" and claimed the results weren't mine to begin with. It doesn't really work like that... 😉

Look, if it's been republished in a corrected form, it obviously passed review. Where it was first published, I have no idea... or if that initial version was even reviewed at all.

It's funny how you felt the need to lecture me on how things work, especially regarding experimental results...
I have plenty of papers in Q1 and Q2 journals to know exactly what I'm talking about.

Did that amateur, Đikić, actually bother apologizing to Mr. Barišić?

nimblelynx63 said:Look, if it's been republished in a corrected form, it obviously passed review. Where it was first published, I have no idea... or if that initial version was even reviewed at all.

It's funny how you felt the need to lecture me on how things work, especially regarding experimental results...
I have plenty of papers in Q1 and Q2 journals to know exactly what I'm talking about.

Give me a break... you can't just publish the exact same paper twice. Unless, of course, you're trying to get caught... which is apparently what some researchers out in certain parts of the world do—you know, sending the same study under different titles to multiple journals all at once... though occasionally you might see a corrigendum. If you actually had the publication record you claim to have, you'd realize what you're saying is impossible, and honestly, it's pretty telling that you didn't even bother addressing the comparison I made...

Steven Lee15 said:Did that amateur, Đikić, actually bother apologizing to Mr. Barišić?

Honestly, there’s zero reason for him to bother apologizing... He should just try reading, reading, and reading some more. Maybe start by catching up on the last ten pages of this thread at least...

driftinggull13 said:Honestly, there’s zero reason for him to bother apologizing... He should just try reading, reading, and reading some more. Maybe start by catching up on the last ten pages of this thread at least...

So what happens now? Has the University of Augsburg completely scrapped Barišić's work?

Look, it wasn't published as an identical copy; they just took that specific section from Schlesinger's text. And by the way, it was properly cited in that Spanish paper.

nimblelynx63 said:The whole point of me dropping that link is to prove my case: Barišić didn't just quote it, he published it outright. He didn't offer an apology or anything—he just went ahead and cited it in the next edition

Look, my argument is simple: Barišić read Schlesinger's text and basically copy-pasted a chunk of it into his own article. He made some minor tweaks to the word order and sentence structure, then conveniently "forgot" to credit Schlesinger—even though he cited every other single source in that piece.

For what it's worth, Barišić's article runs seven pages and has six footnotes, one of which is Schlesinger's text. I honestly can't wrap my head around how Barišić managed to miss citing that specific source.

At the end of the day, it's up to you guys to decide whose version of events actually holds water.

nimblelynx63 said:Look, it wasn't published as an identical copy; they just took that specific section from Schlesinger's text. And by the way, it was properly cited in that Spanish paper.

Like I said... catch me copying someone else and suddenly I'll start rambling and somehow everything is fine all of a sudden...😁

in passing said:Nope.
I'm also just sitting here waiting for them to actually show some backbone... though honestly, I'm starting to think we're all just wasting our time...

They showed plenty of character just by stepping up and filing that report. There's absolutely no need for apologies here. Maybe if we tattooed that concept onto the foreheads of those MAGA types, they might actually remember it for once...😉

Rebecca Diaz said:Look, my argument is simple: Barišić read Schlesinger's text and basically copy-pasted a chunk of it into his own article. He made some minor tweaks to the word order and sentence structure, then conveniently "forgot" to credit Schlesinger—even though he cited every other single source in that piece.

For what it's worth, Barišić's article runs seven pages and has six footnotes, one of which is Schlesinger's text. I honestly can't wrap my head around how Barišić managed to miss citing that specific source.

At the end of the day, it's up to you guys to decide whose version of events actually holds water.

The right wing will believe anything as long as it favors their own people. 🍿

Steven Lee15 said:So what happens now? Has the University of Augsburg completely scrapped Barišić's work?

🤦 Just read, read, and keep on reading... if you actually want to understand anything at all.

driftinggull13 said:Like I said... catch me copying someone else and suddenly I'll start rambling and somehow everything is fine all of a sudden...😁

To quote a forum regular: “read, read, and just keep reading”...

But you’ve got other things to worry about: you'd rather tattoo "conservative" on your skin.
Is your forehead really more important than your forearm?

nimblelynx63 said:To quote a forum regular: “read, read, and just keep reading”...

But you’ve got other things to worry about: you'd rather tattoo "conservative" on your skin.
Is your forehead really more important than your forearm?

🤦 so you're talking about Q1 and Q2......😁

driftinggull13 said:🤦 so you're talking about Q1 and Q2......😁

What a pathetic ad hominem attack. ☕