Much like our beloved counterparts, Fox News, we like to stick to the old adage of “We Report, You Decide”.  Above all else, we at STSOD are committed to bringing you only the truthiest in truth.  With that in mind, we would like to present our latest investigative report.

The issue in question surrounds the chorus of one My Chemical Romance track, which came under gross scrutiny earlier this month by none other than yours truly.  However, having received no response from either party and having heard nothing regarding the matter anywhere on the internet, I now bring the concern to you, dear reader.  So, without further delay, permit me to demonstrate.

“The Ghost of You” by My Chemical Romance (released 2004)
(please take note of the chorus beginning at approximately 39 seconds.)

Now, I present the second song in question.

“Loss Leader” by Codeine (released 1994)
(once again, please take note of the chorus beginning at 45 seconds)

Astonishing, isn’t it?  Save for some differences in tempo, the chord progressions are EXACTLY THE SAME.  Anyone who says otherwise is obviously deaf.  It could be simply dismissed as coincidence, however.  It is a simple four chord progression.  Anyone who writes music has undoubtedly taken from someone else, be it knowing or unknowing.  And of course, the My Chemical Romance version is far more ornate in comparison with regard to supplemental instrumentation, but there is no doubt in my mind as to the conclusion.

But what do you think?  Was their theft intentional or unintentional?

-Aaron

“Sociologist was allowed to resume duties after tribunal judgment. A prominent academic in the University of Birmingham’s threatened sociology department was permitted to continue working with full management responsibilities after being found guilty of plagiarism …” (more)

[Melanie Newman, Times Higher Education, 26 November]

Here is an example of why sites like GraphicRiver are very problematic. It took only 2 minutes for me to spot a stolen design like this. Who knows what else is there.

This is the original by Kelli Anderson:

A great idea elegantly implemented by an accomplished designer bastardized and sold for 3 dollars; that’s what you get with this whole “template design” system. Live with it.

Reminder:

New Blog at

http://tinyurl.com/d48ge4

However this “old blog” has

good archives about Real English and

the Deaf, the Webheads (1) and (2),

Real English Victiom of Extreme Plaigiarism

and other items of interest to

ESL EFL students & teachers,

especially Real English users

As it is, it seems the cheats win – right up to and including the highest level. This is a dark day indeed in the history of NZ culture.

Valerie Grant, PhD, honorary senior lecturer at the Psychological Medicine faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland. – in The NZ Herald on Witi Ihimaera’s plagiarism

And by that I mean the OTHER two Californians, my compadres, the other two Musketeers, the other two Stooges, the other two California transplants who must quickly evolve to snow storms or our genes won’t be carried on to the next generation (sorry, we’re learning about speciation in biology right now and I can’t help but make a lame reference to it), the C. and the L. to my CAL (a term L. invented, I should mention, so I’m not accused of plagiarism)–basically, we’re going to be in New York together, TONIGHT.

Yay yay yay yay!!!  Hear ye, hear ye, the (rest of us) Californians are coming!

Someone  called Alok Gogoi is a plagiarist who is ripping off content from both my blogs, this one and Amlokiblogs.

I have tried to contact this person, but he has no contact email on his blog. I will file a DMCA complaint against him, if he does not take down the posts immediately.

Since Alok Gogoi comes here to Plagiarise, I’m sure he would be notified.

1. What is a gnomon?

2. Which New Zealand author lost his left leg in 1940?

3. Who wrote Wilfred Gordon McDonald Partridge?

4.  Which author rode the Queen Mother’s race horses?

5. Who said, If you steal from one author, it’s plagiarism; if you steal from many it’s research”?

미국에서 다시 M&A가 되살아나고 있다. 경기 회복의 신호인지도 모르겠다. 얼마 전 Google이 mobile 광고 회사인 Admob을 $750 million (약 9000억 원)에 인수하기로 결정했다. 구글은 앞으로 한 달에 한 개 꼴로 회사를 인수할 것이라고 발표한 바 있다. [주] Admob은 내가 괜찮은 회사라고 생각해서 관심 있게 보고 있었던 차였길래 이 인수 소식이 더 흥미롭게 다가왔다.

그보다 더 전의 일이지만, Intuit의 mint.com $170 million (약 2000억 원) 규모의 인수도 매우 흥미로웠다. mint.com은 내가 따로 소개해 보고 싶은 웹사이트인데, 개인 자산 관리를 아주 편하게 해 주는 서비스이다. Intuit은 이미 Quicken이라는 Mint와 비슷한 서비스를 가지고 있었지만, mint.com의 품질이 우수한 것을 보고 $170 million이라는 돈을 주고 구입했다. 많은 사람들이 아주 현명한 M&A였다고 평가했다.

자고 일어나면 한 건씩 터지는 미국 기업들의 M&A 소식. 하지만 한국의 대기업이 기술력 있는 중소기업을 인수했다는 소식은 듣기 힘들다. 왜일까 궁금했다. 미국에서는 기업을 세울 때 IPO를 해야만 exit할 수 있다고 생각하는 사람은 없다. 오히려 MS, Google, CISCO 등 대기업에 매각하는 걸 더 가능성 있는 exit strategy로 생각하고, 투자자들에게도 그렇게 설명한다. 한편, 한국에서는 투자를 받을 때 회사 매각을 전제로 하는 경우는 보지 못했다. 물론 없지야 않겠지만 그게 투자자들에게 좋게 보일 지는 잘 모르겠다.

얼마 전 IDG Ventures에서 일하는 Henry (@ohohenry)와 Palo Alto에서 만나 이런 얘기를 풀어놓았다. 한국에는 왜 M&A가 많지 않을까? 있다 하더라도 왜 M&A를 통해 성공적으로 시장에서 성공한 케이스가 많지 않을까? 얘기를 하다보니 생각이 정리되어 글로 남겨볼까 한다.

한국의 대표적인 M&A 성공 사례는 네이버와 한게임의 합병이다. 내 기억에 의하면 Naver는 별로 존재감이 없는 검색 엔진이었다. 더 좋은 인터페이스와 검색 quality, 그리고 더 큰 마케팅 파워를 가진 empas가 잘 나가고 있었고, Naver는 엠파스, 야후 등과 경쟁하며 힘든 싸움을 하고 있는 수많은 검색엔진 중 하나였다. 그 판도가 한 번에 뒤바뀐 사건이 네이버와 한게임의 합병이다. 한게임은 이미 돈을 벌고 있었다. 한게임의 유료화를 통해 지속적인 cash가 들어오기 시작했고, 그걸 Naver 브랜드를 알리는 데 사용하고.. 검색엔진과 인터넷 게임의 결합이 직접적인 시너지 효과가 있는지는 모르겠지만 어쨌든 Naver 한게임은 이렇게 합병을 통해 화려하게 성장했다.

SK 커뮤니케이션즈의 싸이월드 인수도 내가 보기엔 성공적이다. 네이트온과 싸이월드를 통합하는 건 기가 막힌 아이디어였고, 그 덕에 MSN 메신저를 쓰던 수많은 사람들이 네이트온으로 옮겨 탔고, 싸이월드의 수명은 수년이 지난 지금까지도 이어지고 있다.

그 외 어떤 사례가 있을까 궁금해서 중소기업청에서 발간한 “2007년 벤처기업 M&A 성공사례집” 이라는 글을 찾았다. 다양한 사례가 있었지만 성공 사례는 거의 없었다. 물론 크고 작은 성공적인 M&A 사례는 있겠지만, 별로 기억에 남을 만한 성공적인 사례는 별로 없다. 실패 사례가 대부분이다. 왜 그런걸까? 왜 한국에서는 M&A가 많지 않을까? 있더라도 왜 M&A 성공 케이스가 많지 않을까? 특히 CISCO, Oracle, Google, Apple, Microsoft같은 미국 대기업들은 어느 정도 성장하고 나면 공격적인 M&A를 통해 innovation을 일으키고 시장을 확장해 나가는데 왜 삼성, 현대, LG가 다른 기업을 acquire했다는 소식은 거의 듣기 힘들까? 하는 의문이 들었다.

그러면서  재미난 생각을 해 봤다. 삼성전자가 iRiver를 샀더라면 어땠을까 하는 것이다. 아이리버는 제품을 잘 만들어 시장을 선두하고 있었고 삼성은 자원이 많고 강력한 global marketing 팀을 가지고 있었으니 말이 된다고 생각한다. iRiver는 내가 대학 다닐 때 히트를 쳤는데, 그 때 서울대에 방문했던 양덕준 사장의 이야기를 들으며 대단한 사람이고, 존경할만한 사람이라는 생각을 했다. 특히 직접 디자인을 하려 하지 않고 Inno Design과의 합작을 통해 감탄할 만한 디자인의 제품을 내놓은 것을 보고 앞으로 크게 되겠구나 생각했고, 1, 2년이 지나자 세계 MP3 플레이어 시장에서 좋은 리뷰를 받고 market share를 높여서 뿌듯하게 생각한 적이 있다. 그러나 이는 오래 가지 않았다. 삼성전자가 아이리버를 누른 것이다. 2005년과 2008년 국내 MP3 시장 점유율은 다음과 같다.

2005년 MP3 시장 점유율: 아이리버 41%, 아이오디오 20%, 삼성 11%, 애플 9%, 아이옵스 5%, 모비블루 5% [주]
2008년 MP3 시장 점유율: 삼성전자 40%, 아이리버 10%, 애플 10%, 코원 5% [주]

아이리버가 성공하고 MP3 시장이 성장하는 걸 보자 가만히 있던 삼성은 Yepp이라는 제품을 만들어서 마케팅하기 시작했고, 그로부터 수 년이 지난 지금은 국내 MP3 시장 점유율 1위를 차지했다. 이 자체에는 아무런 문제가 없다. 중소기업이 먼저 시장을 발굴하고 대기업이 경쟁을 하기 시작한 것이고, 결국 싸움에서 이긴 것이다. 그러나 뭐가 문제일까? 해외 시장에서 경쟁력이 약해졌다는 것이 문제이다. MP3 player를 처음 시작해서 시장을 선두한 것은 Apple이 아니라 iRiver이다. 아이리버가 삼성과 싸우느라 에너지를 소진하는 동안 Apple이 놀라운 제품을 내놓았고, 결국 지금 미국에서 iRiver나 Yepp은 절대 찾아볼 수가 없다. 미국 뿐 아니라 유럽, 호주 등의 국가에서도 당연히 같은 상황이다. Business Week에서 발표한 현재 MP3 플레이어 시장 점유율은 다음과 같다. [주]

MP3 Player Market Share

Top 10에 삼성도 없고 아이리버도 없다. Sandisk가 놀랍게도 6위를 차지했다. 만약 삼성이 iRiver와 경쟁하는 대신 그 premium을 기꺼이 지불한 후 힘을 합쳐서 세계 시장을 공략했으면 어땠을까? 완전 가정이지만, 삼성이 iPod과 같이 혁신적인 제품을 내놓았다면 어땠을까? 그렇지 않더라도, iPod과 충분히 경쟁할 만한 제품을 내놓았다면 어땠을까?

약간의 조사를 해 봤다. 아이리버가 왜 결국 패했는지를 잘 정리한 블로그에서 다음과 같은 댓글을 보았다.

1. 루키페르 2008/01/09 14:38아 이리버 한창 잘나갈때 삼성전자에서 애플에 메모리를 대량의 가격할인을 통해 팔았죠. 그때 이미 레인콤을 노린 전략이라는 소리가 많았습니다. 결국 가격경쟁력이 높아진 아이팟이 국내시장을 잠식하고 레인콤이 휘청거리게 되면서 삼성 역시 자사 MP3P의 시장점유율을 높입니다. 직접 공격하면 욕먹을것 같으니 뒤통수 친거죠.
2. 전상규 2008/01/09 14:42삼성에서 메모리를 헐갑에 애플한테 공급하면서 아이리버가 가격에서 경쟁이 안됐죠.
   전형적인 국내 중소업체 죽이기 전략이었습니다.
   공고하게 다져진 국내 1위 업체의 아성을 애플을 통해서 우회적으로 흔든후 그 틈새시장을 삼성에서도 어느정도 차지했습니다.

사실을 확인할 수 없기 때문에 위 말을 믿을 수는 없지만, 적어도 내가 이 사건에 대해 갖게 되는 생각은 중소기업이 혁신적인 제품을 내놓았을 때 대기업이 리소스를 투입해서 기술을 복제하고 돈으로 밀어붙여서 중소기업을 죽이는 대신, 그 가치를 인정하고 돈을 지불한 후 힘을 합쳐서 세계 시장에서 승부를 보는 것이 더 맞는 이야기가 아닌가 하는 것이다.

구글의 Youtube 인수 사건은 삼성이 아이리버에 대해 대응한 것과 완전히 대조된다. 유투브가 인기를 얻어가던 시절 구글 역시 Google Video라는 서비를 하고 있었다. Youtube, Google Video 모두 써봤는데 둘 다 인터페이스, 기능, 성능 면에서는 별 차이가 없다. 어떤 면에서는 Google Video가 더 우수한 점도 있다. 그러나 구글은 2006년에 Youtube를 $1.65 billion (약 2조원)이라는 어마어마어마한 가격에 인수했다. Youtube를 구글이 똑같이 만들고, 마케팅하고, 회원 수를 늘렸다면 얼마의 돈이 들었을까? 아무리 많이 들어도 2조원이 들 수는 없다. 많이 잡아도 1000억이면 충분히 하고도 남지 않을까? 그랬으면 Youtube는 사라지고 지금 사람들이 Google Video를 쓰고 있을 지도 모를 일이다.

하지만, 구글은 그렇게 하지 않았다. 유투브가 만든 기술을 사서 죽여버리는 대신, 그 가치에 대해 충분한 돈을 지불한 후 Youtube 엔지니어들과 힘을 합치고 Google의 서비스에 Youtube를 통합해서 엄청난 부가가치를 창출하고 있다. 물론 2조원이라는 거액의 돈을 회수하는데 까지 시간이 걸리고, 그렇게 되면 이 인수합병이 과연 옳았는가 하는 비판도 있을 수 있지만, 적어도 지금까지 봐서는 나는 성공적이라고 평가한다.

한편, “한국의 구글” NHN이 했던 두 가지 인수 사건은 눈살을 찌뿌리게 만든다. 하나는 검색 엔진 ‘첫눈’이고, 또 하나는 미투데이이다. 첫눈은 350억 원이라는 제법 비싼 값에, 그리고 미투데이는 20억원이라는 완전 헐값에 인수되었는데, 첫눈 인수는 가격이 문제가 아니라, 인수를 한 후에 어떻게 했느냐는 게 문제다. 내가 알기로는 첫눈은 네이버가 인수한 후 그냥 없애 버렸다 (경쟁자 없애기). 미투데이는 네이버가 아주 잘 쓰고 있다. 그런데 이건 가격이 문제다. 겨우 20억이라니… Wall Street Journal에 따르면, Twitter의 현재 가치가 $1 billion, 즉 1.2조원이다. 1조원 대 20억… 정말 큰 차이가 아닐 수 없다.

왜 이렇게 다를까? 왜 미국에서는 한국에 비해 acquisition에 대해 훨씬 적극적일까? 이유는 수없이 많겠지만, 나는 다음과 같은 이유가 크다고 생각한다.

1. 표절(plagiarism)을 엄단하고 다른 사람이 가진 지적 재산을 인정하는 문화

한국에서 교육받고, 한국에서 회사 생활하다가 미국 학교에 와서 제일 크게 다르게 느꼈던 부분 중 하나이다. 미국 학교 및 기관에서 표절에 대해 가진 기준은 한국의 그 어떤 곳에서 느꼈던 것보다도 엄격하다. plagiarism이 발각되면 퇴학이고, 학위를 받은 경우에는 학위 취소가 될 수도 있다. Business School에서는 case를 굉장히 많이 쓴다. 이게 근데 상당히 비싸다. 케이스 하나당 7불 가까이 하는데, 어떤 케이스는 겨우 5장에 불과한 경우도 있다. 5장짜리 종이… 이에 한국돈으로 만원 가까이를 지불하는 거다. 사실 나는 좀 아까운 생각이 들었다. 그냥 복사해서 쓰면 안되나 하는 생각도 들었다. 하지만 그 누구도 그렇게 복사해서 쓰는 사람은 없었다. 그렇기 때문에 복사한 케이스를 가지고 있다가 친구한테 들켰다가는 “ethical하지 않은 사람”으로 낙인되는 거다. 한마디로 범죄인이다. 미국에서는 어렸을 때부터 표절에 대해 워낙 철저하게 교육하기 때문에 정상적인 교육을 받은 사람이라면 대가를 치루고 사서 쓰는 것을 너무나도 당연하게 생각한다. 이는 소프트웨어에 대해서도 마찬가지이다.
이 이야기를 왜 하는가 하면, 아마 그렇게 교육받은 사람들이기 때문에 다른 회사에서 개발한 기술을 복제해서 쓰려고 하기 보다는 대가를 치르고 사용하는 것이 아닐까 싶다. 아깝다는 생각을 하는 것이 아니라 너무 당연하다고 생각하는 것이다.

2. 비싼 인건비
미국 엔지니어들 비싸다. 실력 있는 엔지니어는 10만불 (1억 2천만원) 정도는 최소한 요구한다. 고급기술을 가진 엔지니어는 훨씬 더 비싸다. 그리고 연봉이 다가 아니다. 의료보험이 비싸고 세금이 비싸기 때문에 고급 엔지니어를 고용하면 일년에 20만불 (2억 4천만원) 정도는 소비된다고 봐야 한다. 10명의 고급 엔지니어가 1년동안 일해야 한다면 200만불의 비용이 든다. 그렇게 계산하면 10명의 엔지니어가 3년을 노력해서 만든 제품은 최소한 600만불을 줘야 한다는 계산이 나온다. 그래서 밑바닥부터 새로 만드는 것보다 회사를 사서 거기서부터 시작하는 것이 말이 된다고 생각할 수 있는 거다.

3. 발전된 금융 시스템 – Venture capital, private equity, and investment banks
이건 어떻게 생각하면 간접적인 영향인데, 미국의 금융 시스템이 발전되어 있어서 기업 인수 합병이 활발하게 일어난다고 볼 수도 있다. 기술력 있는 회사에 투자한 venture capital들은 회사가 어느 정도 성장하면 그 회사를 인수할 회사를 연락하기 시작한다. 증시에 상장되는 것으로도 투자 자금을 회수할 수 있지만 그건 너무 오래 걸리는 일이다. 10년씩이나 기다리고 있을만큼 참을성 있는 venture capital들은 많지 않다. 빨리 회수해야 또 새로운 회사에 투자할 수 있다. Private equity들도 마찬가지이다. 이들의 주요 목적은 leverage를 통해 (즉, 은행 융자를 이용해서) 회사를 사서, 구조와 모양을 좋게 만든 다음에 되팔아서 이익을 남기는 것이다. 되팔기 위해서는 누군가가 회사를 사야 하는데, 주로 현금을 많이 가진 대기업들이 그 주체가 된다. 마지막으로, 미국에서 엄청나게 발달되어 있는 투자 은행들의 역할도 있다. 이들에게는 상장 (IPO)과 기업 매각이 아주 좋은 수익원이다. 기업 매각이 자꾸 일어나야 좋다. 그래서 투자은행가 (investment banker)의 큰 일 중의 하나가 기업 매각 및 매입을 부추기는 것이다. 한쪽에 가서는 매각할 때가 되었다고, 좋은 가격을 받을 수 있다고 하고 다른 쪽에 가서는 정말 좋은 가격에 나왔으니 다른 기업에서 선수치기 전에 매입해야 한다고 얘기한다. 양쪽에서 필요를 느껴 Acquisition 결정이 내려지면 그 사이에서 investment bank들은 상당한 수수료를 벌 수 있다.

So, I have this one student. She’s from China. If you met her, you’d probably assign her to the category of stereotypical Asian girl: smart, quiet, giggly, etc. As a Chinese student, her English isn’t great, but it’s probably among the best compare to my other international students. Last week, she handed in an essay the other day with absolutely no grammatical mistakes.

Huh.

One quick Google search later brought up a page of free essays.

Ahh.

So, I go to the dean: down the stairs, through the computer lab, through the library, down the hall, knock knock knock. I show him the paper and the website, and we both agree: PLAGIARISM, the one unforgivable sin of academia. Penalty for first time offense: talk with the dean, write a strongly-worded letter to yourself about the evil that is taking another’s work and presenting it as your own, detention, “0” on the assignment (though I was told by the dean to let her redo the paper and submit it for a 55/F).

OK, fine. Done deal, yeah?

I was grading another stack of papers for another class. That same student is in this class as well. I get that creepy-crawly suspicious feeling in the pit of my stomach, so I pull out her paper. Perfect grammar, no spelling errors, an excellent essay.

Huh. A quick Google search later and I have, once again, found a website offering free essays on a variety of topics. Including the one I was holding in my hand.

Ahh.

So, again, I go to the dean, paper and website in hand: down the stairs, through the computer lab, through the library, down the hall, dean’s office. He hasn’t even had the chance to met with her about the first time! He assures me that he will put the fear of God into her and that the penalty will be increased accordingly and righteously.

Done deal, yeah?

So then she hands in her do-over paper. I don’t read it immediately; I’ve got other things to do. Later in the day, I read it. It’s decent enough; but why aren’t there any grammar or spelling errors?

No. No, she wouldn’t. Would she?

Google search. Yes, she would.

Once again, down the stairs, through the computer lab, through the library, down the hall, to the dean’s office. It’s almost funny at this point. Turns out, he still hasn’t had a chance to talk with her; that’s not unusual, however, as it’s only been like four days since this whole process started.

The next day, I send her down to his office during class. She misses a wonderful lecture and comes back looking as if she has been given a healthy dose of wisdom.

Done deal, yeah?

Today, she had to give a speech in a third class she’s in with me. I notice she’s reading from prepared remarks. Not a big deal; students get points deducted for not using an outline, but that’s OK. She hands it in.

Later in the day, I am looking over the outlines, making sure the students did what I told them to do: five sources, three main points, proper introduction and conclusion, etc. I come to her speech. It has no grammar mistakes, no spelling errors; it is a well-thought and well-argued speech.

At this point, I’m surprised I just didn’t start crying. Or laughing. Or both.

Google search. Yep. I stared at the screen for a good ten minutes before I could move again. That’s four acts of plagiarism in three assignments, for those of you keeping track at home.

So, down to the dean’s office again. He too is stunned almost into speechlessness.

So, what’s next for my student? Unless she can perform a small miracle, she’ll probably be expelled. We might try to help her enroll in a new school, but we’ll more than likely just pack her up and send her back to China.

I cheated once, in middle school. We were stuffed into a tiny classroom taking a test on prepositions. I hadn’t studied. The girl’s desk was two feet away. I could just barely make out two answers. I wrote them down. If I remember correctly, they might have been the only two answers on my quiz. But, because I have a keen moral sense, or because I’m Irish-Catholic, I felt guilty. This girl, it’s like she doesn’t care.

I’ve talked with teachers from other countries. They tell me that plagiarism is certainly against the rules in their schools, but it is not treated as a mortal sin like it would be in the States. In other countries, they might get a slap on the wrist. I assume this is why the school wanted to be lenient with my student at first.

So, how was your day?

When it comes to writing a full-featured, well-researched essay, it’s a lot easier said than done. Let’s face it, we’ve all been there, where the first five-hundred words are almost impossible, and the last five-hundred is just as bad. One of the best ways to overcome writers block is with the help of creative and high quality essays which you can find on PostMyEssay.com

When it comes to finding original, high quality essays, you need to be careful where you find them. Today, there are a load of websites which are not quite what they seem. PostMyEssay is an example of one of the few sites that strive towards honesty, openness and above all, high quality essays, which are unlike anything else available as generally speaking when it comes to searching for free essays on the Internet, 95% of them are of a quality that even you wouldn’t accept.

When you’re looking for high quality essays, you certainly won’t find anything that’s worthwhile for free. As a general rule, you get what you pay for and at PostMyEssay.com we try to understand that not everyone is made of money, which is why we act as an essay reseller, helping you to buy real essays for rock bottom prices. The essays on our site however are of the HIGHEST quality, and have been used by other students to get a leg up in college or university.

The good news is, that every essay that goes through our system is checked thoroughly by our team of academic professionals, The essay goes through three stages of checks, with the first one being plagiarism, the second being content, and the third being style. If everything meets our exacting quality standards, then we will list the essay for sale on our free online essays marketplace.

Our site has recently been re-launched and each day, more and more term papers and essays are being posted online. If you don’t see anything that meets your needs online at PostMyEssay.com, then please feel free to contact us, as we may very well be able to source a high quality custom essay that meets your needs.

Above all, with PostMyEssay.com, the essays you see all adhere to multiple citation and writing standards as we only publish the highest quality content. However, when browsing through our online essay archives, it’s important to check the previews and descriptions to make sure that the essay you buy is the one that meets your needs, because sadly, we can’t offer refunds based on incorrect purchases. If you’re not sure what you need, then please contact us, as we’re more than happy to help.

Visit us now at www.postmyessay.com.

Al Gore Photoshops Hurricanes Into New Book’s Cover
The King of cap and trade simply airbrushes them in to his new book to create a more scary earth

Read Full Article Here

Rush Limbaugh Mentions Prison Planet Article About Al Gore

Al Gore plagiarizes clip from Hollywood movie

Plagiarists usually defend themselves by insisting that the correspondence between their own work and the complainant’s are coincidental. That is, they draw from the same well but not from each other’s bucket.

Lawyer Anthony Julius, in The Guardian – December 1996, and exactly reproducing a metaphor from Maugham on Copyright (1828).

Source: Cassell Dictionary of Regrettable Quotations, complied by David Milsted, First Edition 1999.

Unashamedly plagiarising yesterday’s totally novel idea of coming up with a list of the year’s best things weeks before the end of the year that you’re writing a list of things to represent the best things of that year for, Rough Trade just sent me an e-mail entitled ‘Albums of the Year 2009’.

This seems like an unnecessarily passive-aggressive act if you ask me, particularly from a record label that I’ve always had a relationship of, if not mutual respect, then unspoken tolerance. I put up a post yesterday listing what I think are my own favourite albums of 2009. In this post I was at pains to make clear the subjective nature of my list: the title referred to ‘favourite things’, with the ‘favourite things’ being implicitly things that were the ‘favourites’ of the author (i.e. me).

In short, it was clear that this was opinion, in no way based on the objective scientific calculations of intense laboratory experimentation. It was a lazy idea, just a bit of fun to maybe start a conversation, albeit not a very interesting one where your mind quickly flits to thoughts of defenestration or ways to fake a stroke. But Rough Trade responded almost immediately without so much as an acknowledgement of my original post. No, “oh, that’s interesting” or “hmm, yes, but you’ve forgotten to include the Animal Collective album”. No “well, here’s what we think”. Just a long list of “50 Albums of the Year”, arrogantly dismissing my list by refusing to acknowledge its existence, and then having the audacity to present their own list as some kind of divinely selected musical canon (like RT are a kind of indie Moses). It’s like casually mentioning to an acquaintance that you quite like Newsnight, them staring at you with a look of disdain for a few seconds, then turning round and shouting the names of National Television Award winners into your face.

 To add insult to injury, they’ve even included a list of links so I can buy the albums on their list from them. Presumably, they think I could do with a bit of brushing up, like I’m not hip to what’s cool or something. Anyone would think that my inclusion of an album from 1974 and 2 reissues suggested I’d run out of ideas.

 I mean, I haven’t actually listened to a lot of what’s on their list, or even heard of it to be honest. At least now I don’t need to: I can just assume it will all be over-hyped nonsense…

 Rough Trade’s Ten Favourite Albums, 2009:

 The XX – XX

The Low Anthem – Oh My God, Charlie Darwin

The Horrors (yes, the fucking Horrors!) – Primary Colours

Fever Ray – Fever Ray

The Pain of Being Pure at Heart – The Pains of Being Pure at Heart

Grizzly Bear – Veckatimest

The Leisure Society – The Sleeper and the Product of the Ego Drain

Fuck Buttons – Tarot Sport

Forest Fire – Survival

The Very Best – Warm Heart of Africa

The only overlap between our lists comes at number 21 with Wild Beasts, thus intensifying speculation that they’re set to scoop  this year’s Vampire Weekend Award for Rousing Acceptance Rapidly Followed by Indifference and, Eventually, Hostility

There is nothing more deflating than coming up with a fantastic idea - such as White Out, The Lint Brush, The Wheel, or The Rubix Cube – only to come to the realization that someone has already beaten you to the punch.  You begin the process charged, thinking to yourself, “This is gonna be aaawwweesoooome!!!”.  Next thing you know, you’re back to square one.

Such is the case with today’s post.  I had it all mapped out.  I was going to come up with a list of the various types of Facebook “friends” that I possess (yes they’re possessions), and categorize them into a brilliantly humorous piece that would not only get you slapping your knees silly, it would provoke thought of the type of Facebooker you may be.  Anyway, I did my research.  I logged onto my homepage to see what my peeps were discussing in hopes of gaining some material.  Then I did a Google search to ensure that a similar post hasn’t already been written.  Much to my dismay, a VERY SIMILAR idea to mine was posted back in August on CNN.com.  So, rather than be accused of plagiarism, I’ve provided the link below. 

Read it bearing in mind that this could’ve been beautiful.  This could’ve been ours.  Instead, I’m forced to thank the no good SOBs at CNN.com for stealing my thunder, and stealing my idea – even before it was actually my idea.  You should be ashamed!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/20/annoying.facebook.updaters/index.html

Comments on Plagiarism and costs. College Student Journal, 43(3), 718-722.
Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Submitted by Professor Lewis Alston

While reading this article, a legitimate question became the title of this supposition.  I call this a supposition instead of a submission.  As of this moment, I cannot understand why the American Educational System does not spend more time on the subject of plagiarism in grades one through twelve.

I suppose that “The System” felt they had control of it in that venue.  I did not become aware of the “P-word” until the 8^th and 9^th grade.  The System was trying so hard to get us to read that they did not spend enough time teaching us the appropriate use of the material.  The secondary school is at a loss here.

Our general society frowns upon theft.  Hmmmm.  However, we do not teach students at an early age that taking the author’s words as our own is “stealing.”  Accordingly, a series of questions have come to mind:

§   Are we so glad that the student is reading that we do not teach proper treatment of the information when presented to the public?  (It is not the P-word until the moment of presentation.)
§   Are we putting too much pressure on the student “to perform versus developing a mastery” of the material?
§   Are we imposing sufficient sanctions early in the educational process to deter this behavior as a lifetime practice, in any environment?

Mrs. Keith, in my 9^th grade AP English class, discovered that a number of students had used a literature review to write a report about a Shakespearean play.  All she did was to take off 10 points from their final grade. 

Was that a sufficient penalty to deter that sort of behavior in the future?

The only definition given to us was that we could not “copy” the material into our paper without citing it on the Bibliography Page.  (Oooooh, that was scary!)  That was / is not a deterrent to a student who has a command of the language.  That student possesses a bag full of synonyms to overcome that scholastic hurdle:

“To thine own self be true.”  [Be honest with yourself.]  (Hmmmmm.  Is this plagiarism?)  Certainly, it does not carry the same poetic effect, but it does convey the same message.  [Note: Someone call Polonius from Hamlet, Act 1, scene 3, 78-82 and tell him that I am sorry about ruining his line.]

Are we picky about the students we teach the concepts of plagiarism to in “The System”? 

Those of us who are educators spent a good percentage of our high school career in the upper level courses.  We were not in General Education courses, for the most part.  The subject of plagiarism had to be approached because of our ingenuity.  (Since I have crossed over to the dark side of education, I realize that school policy dictated more of this than the teacher’s desire to eliminate the P-word.  Not every teacher was there to elevate our use of the language.)

Actually, some my student colleagues thought it to be a challenge to see how much of someone else’s material they could use without “Mrs. Keith finding out about it.”

Am I the only one who sees that students have become master copy-and-pasters?  The Internet has become the ONLY source of information for today’s collegiate student.  When I require material from a book – a hard cover book – I am met with holy water, torches, tar and feathers.  I am to be burned at the stake at the next smoke break! 

Then, the barrage begins upon me:

One brave student screams, “A book!  Awww, come on ‘Fessa Alston, why we got to use a booook?”  [He stops to wash out his mouth.  He tastes the brine of the word “book.”]  “’Fessa Alston, I use Wiki, all ‘da time!”  [Heads are nodding affirmatively at me and their mates, throughout the classroom.] 

Then, I receive the verbal abuse of one of their greatest weapons.

“The other Instructors, do not require us to do that!!”  [Oh, this is a dagger to my heart.]  I imagine that they are trying to divide and conquer in here.  That might work at home with parents – but it should not work in here, with us. 

For the concluding moment, let us look at this issue from another angle.  Let us do away with the punitive mindset.  What about positive reinforcement?

§   Do we commend them for being original in their thought process?
§   Lastly, do we reward the lack of plagiarism, verbally or in written form?

If the theft of knowledge is not being addressed more stringently before college, we have to perform that task to protect them in this New World.  We have to reaffirm that stance with current students, periodically.  As college educators, we have to change the mindset of our incoming students.  

I suppose that we have to inform them in their few classes that they are not in the 13^th grade. 
This is college.  Welcome to college!

Thank you Professor Lewis E. Alston for the insight as many of our students and educators will have a reaction to your words—some kind, some not so kind.

Danny Huffman, MA, CEIP, CPCC, CPRW
Owner, Author, Publisher
Career Services International
Education Career Services
dhuffman@careersi.com
www.linkedin.com/in/dannyhuffman
407-206-5883 (direct line)
866-794-3337 ext 110

An interesting tentative from a Consultant to compare publishing in free wikis instead of peer-reviewed channels.

The article starts with te list of well-known issues of the traditional publishing system.

Traditional article publication in top rated peer reviewed biomedical journals suffers from low acceptance rates, high page and public view charges, long delays from submission to publication, variable citation impact, loss of copyright and negligible returns to authors. (…)

The second problem is the delay in publication in traditional journals, due to editorial and referee review, comments and changes. For an article dealing with fast moving incoming data and changes, it means that the article is outdated even before publication? (…)

Many biomedical journals have strict limitation on number of word count, Tables, figures, photos and references based on classification of articles. (…)

Editors of top 5 medical journals with high impact factor, aggressively court top pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to publish results of clinical trials of new drugs, known drugs in new indications and landmark or outcome trials (…) Almost all medical journals print Special Supplement Issues for a new drug or its new uses and indications. (…)

Biomedical journals with high Citation and Impact Factor charge authors over $1000 per page for publishing (…)

Then, the author advocates for Knol as a promising alternative:

“The launch of the Knol project offered an alternative test medium for instant publication” (…)

“Ability to instant knol publication helps establish priority for authors and their ideas” (…)

BUT the author concludes

“For me the knol project remains experimental and needs cleanup and improvements. I will continue to publish articles in traditional biomedical journals covering biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry“

Maggon, Krishan. Publishing in knol vs Biomedical Journals. Online: http://knol.google.com/k/publishing-in-knol-vs-biomedical-journals#Introduction

N.B.: according the platform, in several knols, over 30-50% of the readers are from the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry. In this article, the author gives also a list of sources about plagiarism in Science

Three articles were published by Ruth A. Kasul and Jaideep Motwani in 1995 and 1996 that are extremely similar.

1. “Performance measurements in worldclass operations: A strategic model” by Ruth A. Kasul and Jaideep Motwani, 1995  (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContent…)
2. “Total quality management in manufacturing: Thematic factor assessment” by Ruth A. Kasul and Jaideep Motwani, 1995  (http://demo1.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContent…)
3. “A proposed model for evaluating a company’s operations profile” by Ruth A. Kasul and Jaideep Motwani, 1996  (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContent…)

Each article defines a set of “critical factors”, and has several paragraphs describing each factor. While the factors are re-arranged and re-named in the papers, the text describing the factors is either verbatim, or very similar (i.e. a factor named “flexibility” will be “lead time” in the next article). The only exception is the “global competitiveness” factor, which only exists in article #1.

In addition to this self-plagiarism, the conclusion of article #1 and article #2 is plagiarized from “Lasting Improvements in Manufacturing Performance” by Kasra Ferdows and Arnoud De Meyer.

The conclusion of article #1:

“While it is certainly true that other sets of critical factors could be developed, or that particular factors could be defined differently, this set appears to capture most of the important aspects of effective WCO as recommended by today’s leading practitioners and researchers. Empirical research over time will ultimately determine the validity of this set of critical factors and performance measurements.

We are suggesting that every layer of capability requires continuous attention; one never leaves the necessity of investing in the basics of strengthening core competences. In fact, the higher and fancier the capability sought, the more enhancement from the primary factor capabilities is required. Therefore, even though different business strategies may call for different capabilities from the manufacturing function, there is still a similarity of approach among those who build lasting and stable capabilities. A manufacturing capability developed in such a cumulative manner is likely to be more fully ingrained in deep organizational abilities leading to more successful global strategies.

Applying this model requires a long-term perspective. The conventional paradigms of production, and the prevailing mindsets, when critically examined, often tend to put cost efficiency at the base and a prerequisite to allowing investments in manufacturing competences. The important thing is to establish milestones to ensure that the company stays on the right track. Our model is rather specific in this respect. If performance in the secondary factors progressively improve, then the company is on the right track towards building lasting world-class and global strategies.”
- “Performance measurements in worldclass operations: A strategic model” by Ruth A. Kasul and Jaideep Motwani, 1995 ( http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentSer… )

The second half of the conclusion or article #2:

“While it is certainly true that other sets of critical factors could be developed or that particular factors could be defined differently, this set appears to capture most of the important aspects of effective TQM as recommended by today’s leading practitioners and researchers. Empirical research over time will ultimately determine the validity of this set of critical factors and performance measurements.

[…]

Moreover, we are suggesting that under these conditions, every layer of capability requires continuous attention; one never leaves the necessity of investing in the basics of production. In fact, the higher and fancier the capability sought, the more enhancement from the primary factor capabilities is required. Therefore, even though different business strategies may call for different capabilities from the manufacturing function, there is still a similarity of approach among those which build lasting and stable capabilities. A manufacturing capability developed in such a cumulative manner is likely to be more fully ingrained in deep organizational abilities and, hence, will be more lasting.

Applying this model requires a long-term perspective. It requires that costs will eventually come down. The conventional paradigms of production, and the prevailing mindsets, when examined critically, often tend to put cost efficiency at the base and a prerequisite to allowing investments in quality, dependability or flexibility. Hence, if a factory is gradually losing its cost efficiency, before needing tight financial control, it needs discipline and attention to enhancing quality, technology, and customer service. The important thing is to establish milestones to ensure that the company stays on the right track. Our model is rather specific in this respect. If performance in the primary factors progressively improves, then the company is on the right track towards building lasting world-class excellence.

Capabilities developed in this way are formidable weapons on a global scale; not quickly or easily matched by competitors. Embarking on this course requires a management commitment to expand the role of manufacturing in the competitive strategy of the company.”
- “Total quality management in manufacturing: Thematic factor assessment” by Ruth A. Kasul and Jaideep Motwani, 1995 (http://demo1.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContent…)

The original text comes from “Lasting Improvements in Manufacturing Performance” by Kasra Ferdows and Arnoud De Meyer.

“A manufacturing capability developed in such a cumulative manor is likely to be more deeply ingrained in deep organizational abilities, hence will be more lasting.

[…]

Therefore, even though different business strategies may call for different capabilities from the manufacturing function, there is still a similarity of approach among those who build lasting and stable capabilities.

[…]

Applying this model requires a long-term perspective. The conventional paradigms of production, and the prevailing mindsets, when critically examined, often tend to put cost efficiency at the base and a prerequisite to allowing investments in quality, dependability or flexibility. Our sand cone model proposes precisely that lasting cost improvements can only be the result of cumulative improvements in the other areas. Hence, if a factory is gradually losing its cost efficiency, before needing tight financial discipline and control, it needs discipline and attention to enhancing quality, dependability, and flexibility of its production system.

[…]

Moreover, we are suggesting that under these conditions, every layer of capability requires continuous attention; one never leaves the necessity of investing in the “basics“ of production. In fact, the higher and fancier the capability sought, the more enhancement from the bottom layer of capability up is required.

[…]

Applying this model requires a long-term approach, tolerance, and patience. It requires believing that costs will eventually come down. The important thing is to establish milestones to ensure that the company stays on the right track. Our model is rather specific in this respect. If performance in the generic capabilities of quality, delivery, flexibility and cost efficiency progressively improve(i.e. none of the earlier ones regress or stay stagnant when a later one improves), then the company is on the right track toward building lasting manufacturing strength.

Capabilities built in this way become formidable competitive weapons; they cannot be easily or quickly matched by competitors. Embarking on this course requires a commitment to expand the role of manufacturing in the competitive strategy of the company.”
- “Lasting Improvements in Manufacturing Performance” in Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 9 No.2 by Kasra Ferdows and Arnoud De Meyer, 1995 ( http://demo1.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContent…)

Article #3 mentions article #2 in its “further reading” section, but doesn’t cite any text.

This blog documents plagiarism in Jaideep Motwani’s writing. This started when I uncovered plagiarism in an article written by Jaideep Motwani, Ram Subramaniana, and Pradeep Gopalakrishna. It was much more likely that a single author submitted plagiarized content which was unwittingly incorporated into the article then that the three authors conspired together to plagiarize. To find the bad actor, several articles from each author were reviewed for plagiarism.

I didn’t find any obvious plagiarism in the articles not written by Jaideep Motwani. Articles not written by Jaideep Motwani that were reviewed included:

• “The market orientation–performance relationship in the context of a developing economy: An empirical analysis” by Ram Subramanian and Pradeep Gopalakrishna, 2001 ( http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0148296399001095 )
• “Technology and Marketing Alliances, 1996 – 2003″ GVSU Working Paper Series. Version January 14, 2005 by Ram Subramanian and Vijay Gondhalekar, 2005 ( http://www.gvsu.edu/cms3/assets/… )
• “Crossing the Cultural Divide: How West Michigan Companies can Confront Cultural Issues in India” in Seidman Business Review by Vipin Gupta and Ram Subramanian, 2005 ( http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=103… )
• “Examining the interrelationships among perceived environmental change, strategic response, managerial characteristics, and organizational performance” by Karen Strandholma, Kamalesh Kumara, and Ram Subramanian, 2002 (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0148296302002850 )
• “Access, resource, and cost impacts on consumer satisfaction with health care: A comparison across alternative health care modes and time” by Venkatapparao Mummalaneni and Pradeep Gopalakrishna, 1998 (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0148296396002020 )

It appears that the bad actor is Jaideep Motwani.

I use bold text in this blog to highlight sections of quotes which are verbatim copies.

Intellectual property, that is to say the private ownership of words and ideas: it doesn’t sound like the kind of relationship with knowledge that a place of higher learning like a university ought to foster, does it? Besides, how do you even steal words, or ideas? They are hardly gone after you have snatched them. How about ‘lying about whose work it is,’ then? Perhaps that’s the crux of the matter. Producing knowledge requires an effort, which is usually defined as ‘work’. If anybody could simply claim the credit for the work of anybody else then the knowledge industry – which is regulated by market relations that monetise this credit in various ways – would cease to function. But surely the social good lies in the knowledge itself, not in its attribution, and besides the example of the anonymous authors of so much oral poetry, traditional music and contemporary street art, it is quite possible to imagine a utopian pinko knowledge industry where ideas circulate freely, thus facilitating and accelerating the production of more knowledge.

Because in truth, how can you locate the point of origin of an idea or a certain sequence of words except in the culture itself? Roland Barthes, circa 1968, in ‘The Death of the Author’:

The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture. […] [T]he writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original.

The following year, Michel Foucault began his essay ‘What is an author?’ by posing a question originally formulated by Samuel Beckett: ‘What does it matter who is speaking?’ to which Barthes had replied in advance:

writing is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin. Writing is that neutral, composite, oblique space where our subject slips away, the negative where all identity is lost, starting with the very identity of the body writing.

Now I don’t want to dumb-down these two essays and their peculiar conversation to a couple of easy-to-digest snippets, nor ignore the specific historical and cultural conditions in which they were produced, at a time when what Foucault dubbed ‘the-man-and-his-work-criticism’ held full sway. But one could legitimately ask: if an understanding of intertextuality and the ideas of the death of the author and the author-function have been around for so long, why haven’t they changed the way the publishing industry operates, or forced a rethinking of what constitutes plagiarism in publishing and academia? Is it simply a case of those critics and those ideas having been cast aside?

I would say yes, and no. On the one hand, yes, the publishing industry has changed its ways not an iota, nor did Barthes or Foucault themselves to my knowledge ever renounce their name on the cover or the customary protections and moral rights afforded to a published author. Ditto Ihimaera. Hell, even Bansky has claimed these, albeit ‘against his better judgment’. But I think more profoundly the idea that authorship and its integrity matter has proved equally as resilient. Pierre Menard himself tell us that we can’t quite dispense completely with it – even as he goes about turning it upside down – by showing how differently we would have to read Don Quixote if we knew it to have been written by a 20th century Frenchman as opposed to a 17th century Spaniard.

Of course, you say? Well, yes. But consider how electronic writing and the Internet were meant to change all this, further unsettling traditional ideas concerning just who it is who does the writing and possibly killing the author all over again by circulating near-infinite variations on a near-infinite number of texts without a discernible point of origin, or a shred of attribution. This remains a source of anxiety, but I would argue it really hasn’t happened yet. If anything, people who write on the Web have developed a whole new and highly sophisticated sensitivity towards issues of textual attribution and historicity. I’ve touched in the past by way of example upon the edit history of Wikipedia entries, which shows an attention to intricate philological issues on the part of a writing community that consists largely – and I mean this in the most non-derogatory way possible – of amateurs.

The credible bloggers are also very careful to acknowledge their sources, and the manner in which they do so is interesting, for the hyperlinks provided often point to the pages where each discovery took place. It’s only by means of further hyperjumps, following a Star-Trek-like wormhole of sorts, that one is likely to get to the source proper, the location where that particular text came to be, the ‘mothertext’ if you will. Or not, of course, there’s always the possibility that one or more of the pages might have expired by then, but that for once doesn’t matter: it’s in that pattern of connections, however provisional and unstable, that one can glimpse a new way of mapping the 3-dimensional space where authorship and readership come to coexist.

I want to steal this talk again, and to discuss what the author-function of a blogger, amongst others, might be. I suspect we’ll find it is highly plastic and I’ll go as far as to reserve a word to describe this, allthor, an extremely catchy and MBA-friendly term that perhaps some of you might help me fill – I have but vaguest of ideas at present, save for the fact that I think it would be an interesting question to explore.

But in the meantime, what of Ihimaera’s indiscretions? Would it even matter that he neglected to credit those sources, were it not for the legal framework within which the publishing industry operates, or the possibly antiquated notions of originality and individuality that we choose to entertain in this particular medium? I think that even under those conditions it does, it would. For crediting a source, the site where some particular words came together in the way that they did, means also preserving a trace of the text’s place within the culture that produced it, of its genealogy. But as in a genealogy, the presentation of the copied text is better viewed as the re-presentation of the original, a facsimile perpetuating a forgotten past to an unknowing or unwitting reader anew, perhaps guiding them closer to a history they may well otherwise have lost.

Consider a remote and fanciful future where Menard’s Quixote survived while Cervantes’ didn’t, and furthermore there was no knowledge that the earlier of the two books had even been written. This is the kind of loss – of metadata, of history, of memory – that you would be measuring every day.

In a case of posting something then  having more news come along: Witi Ihimaera are taking steps to rectify and minimize the fall out from the plagiarism fracas. Good on them!

From the New Zealand Herald Ihimaera to buy back all copies of controversial book

Witi Ihimaera is to buy back all remaining stocks of his novel The Trowenna Sea after admitting plagiarism.

At the same time, publisher Penguin says it will take back stock from any book seller wishing to return books.

A new edition of The Trowenna Sea will be published next year, containing a new section with an explanation by Ihimaera and full acknowledgement of the writers whose work he used.

The author says he has taken the steps to preserve the mana and integrity of the novel.

Despite the plagiarism row, Ihimaera was last night presented with a prestigious arts award and a $50,000 prize.

The writer of Whale Rider was embarrassed by revelations that his latest novel contains passages by other authors without attribution.

He apologised for the oversight, which he said amounted to less than 0.4 per cent of what had been

The plagiarism was revealed when a reviewer googled phrases from the book.

Jolisa Gracewood reviewed the book, which went on sale at the beginning of the week, for the New Zealand Listener.

It tells the story of Hohepa Te Umuroa, who was convicted of insurrection and transported as a convict to Tasmania with four other Maori in the 1840s.

In her blog, Jolisa Gracewood said that while reading the novel, she had a feeling something was not right with parts of the text.

“Google was my first port of call – it turns out that Google Books is bad news for authors, in at least one more way than previously suspected …”

However, there was “no joy” in stumbling across 16 examples which the magazine put to Ihimaera.

Gracewood said that as a writing teacher, “I’d occasionally come across a phrase or a paragraph that was somehow out of kilter with the surrounding text. It’s a curiously physical phenomenon: the hairs on the back of your neck go up, and your heart sinks. “Sometimes it’s a false alarm,” she said. “But I never expected to encounter that feeling as a book reviewer, let alone with a new work by a respected writer.”

Listener examples of Trowenna passages put to Ihimaera include paragraphs from author and journalist Peter Godwin, American academic Karen Sinclair and works edited by Charles Dickens.