DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[_moksha]

Lemmie has graciously provided the encouragement to make Dr. Peterson into a more conscientious scholar.

[_Stocks]

The BYU College of Humanities is quite specific in terms of expected teaching and scholarly work from all continuing faculty members.

• Teaching: 6 courses per calendar year minimum, assuming active engagement in scholarship & research (otherwise, 8 courses/year is expected)

• Scholarship: standard is "one scholarly article published in a peer-reviewed journal" per year.

(Link + relevant text below)

This standard applies to full professors, who are expected to exemplify the model for assistant and associate professors.

Of note, DP teaches the minimum 6 courses per year - and has for the last 3 years (furthest back I bothered to check).

Therefore, peers in the Humanities department would reasonably expect their esteemed colleague to be pulling his proverbial weight, by actively contributing to peer-reviewed scholarship.

What of this scholarship standard?

Searches on Google Scholar and ResearchGate turn up nothing since 2007. He lacks so much as a profile page on either resource.

It is as if, to the academic universe, he does not exist, and has not existed for more than 10 years.

By comparison, a peer in Asian & Near Eastern Languages, full Professor Kirk Belnap shows 165 citations and 1,040 reads on ResearchGate. Google Scholar shows pages of articles written by Prof. Belnap. As it should be.

And this is no surprise! Why?

Because, even for a tenured polymath, publishing novel scholarship every year is simply impossible when one chooses to waste >40 hours per week, for more than a decade, obsessively satisfying an addiction to apologetic pornography.

Now I personally could not care less if DP chooses to spend his time on such activities. Have at it. But it continues to bother me that BYU pays for and tacitly endorses a full professor who:

(a) lies about what BYU pays him to do, when using ~half of a tenured professor's salary to play apologist

(b) dishonestly wields the authority of a serious scholar in writing on DesNews, editing and authoring at Interpreter, and countless tours, firesides, speeches, etc.

(c) safe in his ivory tower at BYU, mocks the serious scholarship of serious scholars whose work contradicts his or the church's dogma -- for instance, Brian Hauglid



Highlights from guidelines on rank and status for BYU Humanities professors below.




TEACHING
https://humanities.BYU.edu/wp-content/u ... elines.pdf

B. The Typical Workload for Professorial Faculty.

1. Scholarship. Faculty members in professorial ranks are expected to be actively engaged in ongoing scholarship. While recognizing that publishing schedules are sometimes long and variable, chairs have the responsibility to ensure that scholarly activity is significant and sustained.

2. Teaching. Assignment to the professorial track in and of itself is insufficient to qualify for a reduced teaching load. However, professorial faculty who meet research expectations generally receive lower teaching loads than are assigned to professional faculty and are assigned to teach six courses during a ten month contract (based on the assumption that in most cases, these courses are three credit hours).



SCHOLARSHIP
https://humanities.BYU.edu/wp-content/u ... n-2018.pdf

2.4. Scholarly and Creative Work (“University Policy” 3.6-3.7).

2.4.1. Humanities scholars at BYU are expected to be active contributors to peer reviewed, published conversations on topics in the humanistic disciplines in ways that capitalize on their academic training and expertise and that typically address current issues and problems with which their disciplines and the larger academic community wrestle. Each discipline and sub-discipline has its own standards and models for consequential scholarship; the evaluation of scholarly projects, products, and publication venues is best left to the discriminating judgment of qualified peers in the field. The quality of the work (as measured by such factors as its substance, originality, soundness of methodology, and demonstrated impact on the field as provided by the candidate under review for promotion) is more important than the quantity or type. At the same time, the type of work should be appropriate to the scholar’s faculty development plan and to the needs of the department, and the quantity should be sufficient to “demonstrate consistent productivity” over the course of a career (“University Policy” 3.4.3). As a general rule, “consistent productivity” is understood in the College of Humanities to approximate the equivalent of one scholarly article published in a peer-reviewed journal of national or international reach per year.

2.4.2.2 Peer review is the fundamental criterion to be used to determine whether
or not published faculty research meets the scholarship expectations that come
with a professorial faculty appointment. Although the ways in which peer review
occurs and is administered may vary somewhat from discipline to discipline, the
objectivity of the peer review process is most evident when it is “double blind.”

2.4.2.3 Faculty are expected to publish their work with organizations and
presses that are respected by peers in their particular disciplines and that observe
high editorial and professional standards. ...

2.4.2.5 Papers and presentations delivered at reputable professional meetings are
meaningful scholarly activities. They permit faculty to participate in productive
scholarly dialogue while becoming personally acquainted with other peer-scholars
who also contribute to that dialogue. But most important of all, conference
participation gives faculty an occasion to receive feedback from these peers on
work that will be turned into published pieces. ...

2.4.2.10 Electronic publications, including videos, compact disks, and web sites,
are not discounted simply because they appear in electronic form. Such work,
when presented as scholarship, should be judged by the same principles as apply
to the evaluation of printed scholarship, including peer review, intellectual
substance, originality, soundness of methodology, contribution to the field, and
the identity and reputation of the publisher.



(emphasis added)

[Guest]

Stocks,

Thank you for your effort in providing an overview of DCP's scholarly accomplishments and reputation - such as they are. Your findings were a real surprise, so I had a look for myself.

Unlike Google Scholar which is tightening up their citation criteria, the criteria for ReserachGate (RG) do not require that cited publications originally appeared in peer reviewed journals. RG only requires that the citations themselves appear in published works. These criteria seem to be more aligned with the BYU criteria for 'scholarly and creative works' cited in your post.

For example, technical papers that are self-published on websites, with no peer review, and are then cited by others in published articles, are counted by RG. (We have well over 1,000 RG reads and dozens of peer reviewed literature citations for a single white paper posted on our company website, for example).

Given the fairly generous criteria for citations and reads picked up by ResearchGate, I found it unbelievable that DCP did not have a profile, citations and a read count on at least a few papers there, especially since he does have a Wikipedia page.

The only citation of DCP's work that I could find anywhere on the internet was the following, which was a link from what appeared to be a Springer Verlag ad:
___________________________________
Muhammad, prophet of God
DC Peterson - 2007 - books.google.com
Founding not only a world religion but also an empire and a civilization, the prophet
Muhammad was undoubtedly one of the most influential men in history. Amid the swirl of
current judgments regarding Muslims and their religion, this book by Daniel Peterson offers
a concise, objective, accessible biography of the first Muslim. Blending the texts of traditional sources into an engaging narrative, Peterson begins with the impoverished and orphaned childhood of Muhammad, highlighting his evident strength of will, character, and …
Cited by 35 Related articles
__________________________________

Unbelievable.

[_Physics Guy]

Six three-hour courses per year is a full teaching load. It's only nine hours per week in front of students but preparation and grading take the most time in teaching. I think BYU is being reasonable in expecting only one paper per year on top of that, mostly getting done between semesters.

I also note, though, that BYU seems to count two more courses taught as equivalent to that one paper. So as far as honesty and fairness in earning his BYU salary is concerned, the question is not necessarily whether Peterson's apologetic outreach and blogging are equivalent to an annual scholarly paper. It could instead be whether they are equivalent to one more undergraduate course per semester.

And I'm not sure it would be crazy, from BYU's point of view, to say that they are. I think universities in general do sometimes see it as part of their mission to offer accessible education to the general public. Sometimes the universities also see public outreach as good advertising that will attract students and donors. So I think it's not so uncommon for some professors to be given teaching credit for outreach to the general public. Since BYU is a private institution with a religious base, maybe it is perfectly happy with Peterson's apologetic work as fulfilling one quarter of his duties as a professor (i.e. counting as two additional courses on top of his six actual ones).

[_DrW]

Six three-hour courses per year is a full teaching load. It's only nine hours per week in front of students but preparation and grading take the most time in teaching. I think BYU is being reasonable in expecting only one paper per year on top of that, mostly getting done between semesters.

I also note, though, that BYU seems to count two more courses taught as equivalent to that one paper. So as far as honesty and fairness in earning his BYU salary is concerned, the question is not necessarily whether Peterson's apologetic outreach and blogging are equivalent to an annual scholarly paper. It could instead be whether they are equivalent to one more undergraduate course per semester.

And I'm not sure it would be crazy, from BYU's point of view, to say that they are. I think universities in general do sometimes see it as part of their mission to offer accessible education to the general public. Sometimes the universities also see public outreach as good advertising that will attract students and donors. So I think it's not so uncommon for some professors to be given teaching credit for outreach to the general public. Since BYU is a private institution with a religious base, maybe it is perfectly happy with Peterson's apologetic work as fulfilling one quarter of his duties as a professor (i.e. counting as two additional courses on top of his six actual ones).

If DCP's apologetic outreach efforts are indeed considered to be a legitimate component of his duties as a university professor, it is all the more reason why his superordinates at BYU should be very concerned about the fact that his apologetic work products fall far short of adherence to BYU published standards of scholarship and ethical behavior.

If these administrators are doing their job, they are surely aware of the kind of legitimate criticism that DCP's work accrues on Mormon oriented sites such as MDB and reddit. The fact that they take no action to correct the situation reflects poorly on BYU and the LDS Church in general.

47K+ page views of this thread on DCP's plagiarism, and 30K+ page views of 800+ negative comments on the paper by the Drs.Dale in DCP's Interpreter, are not indicative of a constituency that should be ignored by the LDS Church PR Department or its top leadership.

[_moksha]

1. Scholarship. Faculty members in professorial ranks are expected to be actively engaged in ongoing scholarship.

Many are called to engage in ongoing scholarship, but few are chosen to be full-time apologists. Once you've been anointed by one of the Brethren, in that secret chamber in the bowels of the Maxwell Institute, to follow the path of apologetics - well, Dr. Peterson was under a holy obligation to forsake all else and do whatever was necessary to promote the faith.

[_Tom]

Does anyone have easy access to the second edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam? I’d be interested to know if the material on the Muslimphilosophy webpage regarding “Nights” is simply a copy of the entry titled “Alf Layla wa-Layla” (credited to E. Littmann).

I've now gained access to the full Encyclopedia entry by Enno Littmann titled “Alf Layla wa-Layla” and compared it to the muslimphilosophy webpage material. They seem to be the same.

Thus, it appears that Dr. Peterson's post consists of material taken from the Encyclopedia of Islam without any attribution.

[_Physics Guy]

I think I misinterpreted Stocks's summary of BYU's expectations of faculty. It looks as if "professional" academic staff may be expected to teach extra courses instead of research but professors are all expected to be active in research. So it's less easy than I thought to let Peterson off the hook for not publishing anything for several years.

If DCP's apologetic outreach efforts are indeed considered to be a legitimate component of his duties as a university professor, it is all the more reason why his superordinates at BYU should be very concerned about the fact that his apologetic work products fall far short of adherence to BYU published standards of scholarship and ethical behavior.

And this is true in any case. It is indeed hard to see what value Peterson or his employer might think he is adding to the world with these minimally retouched versions of unsourced quotes. If you just read through them without any idea where they come from, they look like exactly the sort of learned and lucid recitation that one would want from a professor. So maybe Peterson's colleagues and superiors really think he is doing something more than just posting a few links every week—which is all that he would be doing if he were doing this honestly, since so many of his posts seem to be very slightly modified versions of other articles readily accessible online.

Peterson himself has to understand what he's doing, however. I don't understand why he keeps doing it. Even if he were a moustache-twirling villain he ought to realize it's dangerous.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think one of the great lessons Mr. Peter$on has imparted to the casual observer is that attempting to be a polymath is akin to being everywhere, but nowhere at the same time. You spend all your mental energy attempting to impress, to con the unobservant into believing you're something you're not, only to wake up one day that you're 12 years older and you've produced nothing while parasitically nourishing yourself off the works of others.

Perhaps it's like the traveller who has spent his years abroad, and can find plenty of places where he finds hospitality, but never develops true friendships, friendships that fall apart once an imaginary line shifts, and the house across the street might as well be a state over.

Or perhaps it's trying to find nourishment from food having just been consumed, but is immediately vomited up. Quick-quoting written tomes that others have labored over does no one any real good because as soon as you publish stolen thoughts as your own you move on to the next nibble of food only to vomit it up as a blog post, never really having allowed the morsel to digest and become a part of the body, of your mind.

Mr. Peter$on is a conman. He's been plagiarizing others since he was a student at UCLA. Virtually everything he has written, from his dissertation to his blog at Sic et Non, is a pastiche of stolen ideas, unattributed work, and since the 90's hastily cobbled together internet searches re-worked into the illusion that he's the one having these genius moments, one after another, and thus the LDS church is somehow true and BYU is somehow justified at keeping him on the rolls.

- Doc

[Guest]

You spend all your mental energy attempting to impress, to con the unobservant into believing you're something you're not, only to wake up one day that you're 12 years older and you've produced nothing while parasitically nourishing yourself off the works of others.
...
Virtually everything he has written, from his dissertation to his blog at Sic et Non, is a pastiche of stolen ideas, unattributed work, and since the 90's hastily cobbled together internet searches re-worked into the illusion that he's the one having these genius moments, one after another, and thus the LDS church is somehow true and BYU is somehow justified at keeping him on the rolls.

Right.

Again, none of this behavior is problematic for a private citizen.

That it comes from a tenured BYU professor is shameful.

That it has been going on for >10 years, and appears to chronically violate University rank & status standards, suggests the problem is a systematic failure on the part of BYU to uphold its own academic mandate. And by association, the Apostles (Trustees) and the church itself looks absolutely foolish for not merely looking the other way, but tacitly endorsing it.

That the behavior was acknowledged in 2011 to be complete waste of time (see here: https://youtu.be/BTx-n8Yx5eg?t=1033) suggests a horrifically unhealthy addiction.

Let me say that a different way.

He literally compares his own addiction to internet debate boards as being like an alcoholic, who walks past the saloon doors and cannot resist looking inside.

Watch the video. It's astonishing.

That cry for help was in 2011. It is 8 years later. Where are the friends and colleagues who profess to care?

If it were drug addiction or alcoholism, what a tragedy it would be for this person to have lost another 8 years before seeking help. But somehow, because the behavior pretends to be in service of the Kingdom, it is OK?

What the hell is wrong with these people?