1. I find it interesting that the school was the one who promoted it first.
2. OMG, the dad is something else. Yes, your words in print can be misconstrued (and NPR did a fine job of botching both articles), but when it's coming from your own mouth on tv, that's something different.
3. I see no instance where Jud looks like a douchebag. The insistence that he was one because he posted on his own FB wall is weird.
So TL;DR is that Albrey was Zack's Director during this study. Zack did all the leg work for YEARSSS and published papers and did a presentation on it.
What's interesting/sad is that Both Zack and the girl did their presentations the same fall of 2012. The girl based her work on Zack's study: "Arrington added that his daughter had read the [2011] paper, and attended public lectures given by Jud and Layman explaining its results"
The poster did acknowledge Zack.
BUT - this year - there apparently has been a massive downplay of Zack's work in any/all media exposure. Albrey denies it, obvs..
IDK, I think if I was with my kid (which I would be) if the media was interviewing her on a project she did that rehashed my colleague's work, I'd be downplaying my child's contribution and directing them to the real work. Maybe that's just be. I also DEFINITELY WOULD NOT say shit like:
"It has been my experience that reporters are not as interested in linking Lauren with ‘just’ a graduate student, rather they think it makes a way better headline to relate Lauren’s work to a ‘real professor’." (ie. Albrey himself) WTF right there.
It sounds from this like Dr. Jud is actually kind of a nice guy and not even remotely a douchebag.
Agreed.
Bringing up his personal character is a red herring anyway. Even if he is a horrible person, his work was still plagiarized and he still deserves credit for his intellectual property. That's how science works.
Welllllll no I'm pretty sure copyright and trademark law only grants protection to nice people.
Post by cattledogkisses on Jul 29, 2014 9:45:19 GMT -5
I love it when random people show up on this board brandishing their credentials (or in the case of Megan Heimer, fake credentials) and think that they're going to intimidate and school us silly, uneducated ladies. It's really my favorite.
Clearly I should have seen if there was a way I could forgo court this morning so I could stay up all night to read this. I can't even keep up! Every time I think I'm at the end, another page pops up!
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
"It has been my experience that reporters are not as interested in linking Lauren with ‘just’ a graduate student, rather they think it makes a way better headline to relate Lauren’s work to a ‘real professor’." (ie. Albrey himself) WTF right there.
This statement is so typical of many people academia though, it's not that surprising. Grad students aren't fully scientists yet after all.
Unfortunately, this really is true. At some point early in their grad careers, it's probably fair to say that a fair portion of the real science is pretty heavily influenced by the advisor *for most graduate students* (obviously there are always exceptions). In those early-stage results, even though the grad student is doing the actual work, I do think it can be fair to consider the advisor as the primary researcher, again in some cases. However, as the PhD student moves along in his/her career, by the time graduation gets close that person is absolutely the lead researcher and should be referred to as such. However, it's convention to refer to work done by "Dr. [PROFESSORNAME]'s" group in general rather than by the graduate student's name.
Honestly, I think some of it is just because it's easier to remember the names of the professors you've been networking with for decades than the names of their most recent students. That doesn't make it right, but at least it's a little less nefarious.
I'm always tickled when someone resurrects a long dead topic with nonsense. Say what you will about springs1, but at least she's timely.
Sent from my EVO
FTFY.
That's two.....
C'mon, someone else DO IT! I mean, it's not ranch dressing, but this is clearly a case of *****************************NOT FAIR**************************
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
I'm always tickled when someone resurrects a long dead topic with nonsense. Say what you will about springs1, but at least she's timely.
Sent from my EVO
FTFY.
That's two.....
C'mon, someone else DO IT! I mean, it's not ranch dressing, but this is clearly a case of *****************************NOT FAIR**************************
So TL;DR is that Albrey was Zack's Director during this study. Zack did all the leg work for YEARSSS and published papers and did a presentation on it.
What's interesting/sad is that Both Zack and the girl did their presentations the same fall of 2012. The girl based her work on Zack's study: "Arrington added that his daughter had read the [2011] paper, and attended public lectures given by Jud and Layman explaining its results"
The poster did acknowledge Zack.
BUT - this year - there apparently has been a massive downplay of Zack's work in any/all media exposure. Albrey denies it, obvs..
IDK, I think if I was with my kid (which I would be) if the media was interviewing her on a project she did that rehashed my colleague's work, I'd be downplaying my child's contribution and directing them to the real work. Maybe that's just be. I also DEFINITELY WOULD NOT say shit like:
"It has been my experience that reporters are not as interested in linking Lauren with ‘just’ a graduate student, rather they think it makes a way better headline to relate Lauren’s work to a ‘real professor’." (ie. Albrey himself) WTF right there.
Re. the first bolded section, my interpretation from the blog is that Albrey was the director of the institute that provided funding, not director of the group in which Zack did his research. That person was Craig Layman, who I understand was also Zack's research advisor.
Re. the second bolded and the "real professor" comment, that was (again according to the blog) in reference to Layman, not Albrey. I'm not going to defend the attitude that only the professor counts, but at least he wasn't referring directly to himself.
There are absolutely a lot of big heads in academia/research.
"It has been my experience that reporters are not as interested in linking Lauren with ‘just’ a graduate student, rather they think it makes a way better headline to relate Lauren’s work to a ‘real professor’." (ie. Albrey himself) WTF right there.
This statement is so typical of many people academia though, it's not that surprising. Grad students aren't fully scientists yet after all.
I have been SOOO lucky along the way that I have always felt incredibly valued and was given full credit for my work. I wonder if part of that is due to my specific sub-discipline or because I had primarily female mentors along the way (or some combination of the two.)
I love it when random people show up on this board brandishing their credentials (or in the case of Megan Heimer, fake credentials) and think that they're going to intimidate and school us silly, uneducated ladies. It's really my favorite.
to be fair, at least megan heimer who spreads misinformation came on here with her real name. this cat could be a second year art student for all we know.
I feel the need to come back and add that the only two times I've ever listed myself as first author in work performed jointly with graduate students was when the student ended up leaving with the work significantly incomeplete and I completed the work myself (and in those cases the student was second author). So, I'm absolutely not going to defend the whole system of downplaying grad students' roles.
I do know some professors who refuse to allow the student to be first author until some milestone has passed. Frankly, I don't get that attitude at all. I actually receive just as much credit from my university for a paper co-authored with a graduate student as a sole-authored paper because, after all, a big part of my job is training graduate students.
So TL;DR is that Albrey was Zack's Director during this study. Zack did all the leg work for YEARSSS and published papers and did a presentation on it.
What's interesting/sad is that Both Zack and the girl did their presentations the same fall of 2012. The girl based her work on Zack's study: "Arrington added that his daughter had read the [2011] paper, and attended public lectures given by Jud and Layman explaining its results"
The poster did acknowledge Zack.
BUT - this year - there apparently has been a massive downplay of Zack's work in any/all media exposure. Albrey denies it, obvs..
IDK, I think if I was with my kid (which I would be) if the media was interviewing her on a project she did that rehashed my colleague's work, I'd be downplaying my child's contribution and directing them to the real work. Maybe that's just be. I also DEFINITELY WOULD NOT say shit like:
"It has been my experience that reporters are not as interested in linking Lauren with ‘just’ a graduate student, rather they think it makes a way better headline to relate Lauren’s work to a ‘real professor’." (ie. Albrey himself) WTF right there.
Re. the first bolded section, my interpretation from the blog is that Albrey was the director of the institute that provided funding, not director of the group in which Zack did his research. That person was Craig Layman, who I understand was also Zack's research advisor.
Re. the second bolded and the "real professor" comment, that was (again according to the blog) in reference to Layman, not Albrey. I'm not going to defend the attitude that only the professor counts, but at least he wasn't referring directly to himself.
There are absolutely a lot of big heads in academia/research.
Ah ok I see.
I wonder if Zack Jud would have done the same thing if this was just Arrington going to the press all by himself - or even Layman and Arrington together. But I think the weird twist is the inclusion of his daughter. So basically, "yeah we did some research BUT THEN MY DAUGHTER DISCOVERED THIS GREAT THING" and then the action of allowing his daughter alone to be covered in the media over and over.
I dunno - I'm from a world where you over-thank and over-credit every single person who you ever talked to about a subject. I know that this world is different, but considering Jud wasn't part of a larger team and was basically doing it all himself with what seems fairly mild if any oversight by his directors just seems to highlight the issue.
Here's another word to spell: c-i-t-a-t-i-o-n-s. I teach it over and over again to my high school juniors and seniors every year. It's fine (in fact, it's expected) that academic research at all levels will not be wholly original, but will rather build upon the ideas of those who have published in your field of study before you ever thought to study it. Plagiarism and academic dishonesty come into play when you fail to give credit to those earlier authors and researchers. There's a very clear line here, and you're unsuccessfully trying to kick sand over it.
Agreed. A professional scientist would not be a scholar if she didn't cite prior work. I assert that is a ridiculous standard to apply to a 12-year-old's science fair project. No one has disagreed yet although that's fine if you do. (I don't mind if you're wrong).
Do they not have common core in Florida yet? My kid is learning about citations and references in 3rd grade. Hmmmm...
Re. the first bolded section, my interpretation from the blog is that Albrey was the director of the institute that provided funding, not director of the group in which Zack did his research. That person was Craig Layman, who I understand was also Zack's research advisor.
Re. the second bolded and the "real professor" comment, that was (again according to the blog) in reference to Layman, not Albrey. I'm not going to defend the attitude that only the professor counts, but at least he wasn't referring directly to himself.
There are absolutely a lot of big heads in academia/research.
Ah ok I see.
I wonder if Zack Jud would have done the same thing if this was just Arrington going to the press all by himself - or even Layman and Arrington together. But I think the weird twist is the inclusion of his daughter. So basically, "yeah we did some research BUT THEN MY DAUGHTER DISCOVERED THIS GREAT THING" and then the action of allowing his daughter alone to be covered in the media over and over.
I dunno - I'm from a world where you over-thank and over-credit every single person who you ever talked to about a subject. I know that this world is different, but considering Jud wasn't part of a larger team and was basically doing it all himself with what seems fairly mild if any oversight by his directors just seems to highlight the issue.
I can absolutely understand Zack being disappointed not to be mentioned in the mainstream media coverage (which honestly wouldn't have even happened if it wasn't a 12-year-old, so the situation is unusual), and I don't blame him at all for asking for advice on that.
It sounds from this like Dr. Jud is actually kind of a nice guy and not even remotely a douchebag.
Agreed.
Bringing up his personal character is a red herring anyway. Even if he is a horrible person, his work was still plagiarized and he still deserves credit for his intellectual property. That's how science works.
I'm just two classes short of my bachelors in accounting, but my last APA paper was so well sourced and cited that my professor with his fancy-shmancy plagiarism software gave me a perfect score. So I have no problem making bad jokes and fish puns up in here.
He cited his work, didn't represent any previous work as his own, and since he was post-puberty, the media didn't give two shits about his original work so he didn't need to/get to go on a junket wherein he would be required to reflect previous work. That's life and I suspect as a scientist he wouldn't have cared. I had a first author Science and Nature paper. They've been cited by literally over a thousand other studies. One got covered in NPR but never on national news since, ya know, I wasn't a tween. If some kiddo tried to represent my work as her own without attribution you'd bet I'd be outraged too. It's not insecurity - it's respect for the scientific process.
ETC because my citation record just broke 1000!
What, you are first author in a Science and Nature paper - that is really cool. I think I just decided that epphd is my new GBCN mentor.
I love it when random people show up on this board brandishing their credentials (or in the case of Megan Heimer, fake credentials) and think that they're going to intimidate and school us silly, uneducated ladies. It's really my favorite.
to be fair, at least megan heimer who spreads misinformation came on here with her real name. this cat could be a second year art student for all we know.
Dr. Second Year Art Student, you mean. Or Second Year Art Student, Ph.D.
He cited his work, didn't represent any previous work as his own, and since he was post-puberty, the media didn't give two shits about his original work so he didn't need to/get to go on a junket wherein he would be required to reflect previous work. That's life and I suspect as a scientist he wouldn't have cared. I had a first author Science and Nature paper. They've been cited by literally over a thousand other studies. One got covered in NPR but never on national news since, ya know, I wasn't a tween. If some kiddo tried to represent my work as her own without attribution you'd bet I'd be outraged too. It's not insecurity - it's respect for the scientific process.
ETC because my citation record just broke 1000!
What, you are first author in a Science and Nature paper - that is really cool. I think I just decided that epphd is my new GBCN mentor.
DTE, while I'm super proud of the work I did, it was a long time ago (2002/3) AND I joined a lab that had just cracked open some really exciting avenues of exploration. I was at the right place for sure - I take credit for the work I did but it was certainly made easier by an amazing group of researchers and the best Ph.D. advisor EVAR. The Nature paper we had to battle in, but the Science paper sailed. It was like a birthday and many Christmases all wrapped in to one. If only my postdoc had been as productive I might have had the wind in my fins to stay at the bench...
So here's my scenario - Dad and the student had a torrid affair. They part amicably. But then Dad rips off the research for his daughter's science fair project. Dad gets all butthurt that his former secret lover is calling his precious a plagiarist and BAM! We get this where he's oddly fixated on calling the guy a douche bag.