Sternberg-er And Fries

By Neuroskeptic | May 7, 2018 5:03 am

A new scandal hit the world of psychology last week when it emerged that Robert J. Sternberg, an eminent experimental psychologist and former President of the American Psychological Association (APA), has been engaging in text recycling aka self-plagiarism.

sternberg_text_reuse

It has emerged that Sternberg re-used large chunks of previously published text in several publications without any acknowledgement that this done. This discovery came after Sternberg was already under scrutiny for a very high rate of self-citation.

In my view, this is a sad case. Sad because I can see no logical reason for Sternberg to do these things. It is not like he was a young researcher desperate to build a career – on the contrary, he was already very succesful.

Sternberg’s early research focussed on intelligence, IQ and rational thought. As early as 1988 – thirty years ago – he had published major, highly cited research on these topics. In the 1990s, his interests branched out into love, creativity, wisdom, education, and his work in these fields was also very succesful. He was named APA President in 2003 – marking the point at which he could truly be said to have risen to the top of his profession.

And yet the earliest example of Sternberg’s self-plagiarism (so far) is from 2002, if I’ve understood this post correctly. The self-citation also seems to be a recent phenomenon. It doesn’t make sense. Sternberg is like a millionaire who steals milk from the grocery.

I’ve pointed out before that self-plagiarism and excessive self-citation are not victimless crimes. They devalue the scientific efforts of other researchers by artificially inflating the metrics of the offenders. Yet in this case, I don’t think there were too many victims. By 2002 Sternberg had few peers, and at the lofty heights he occupied, publishing a few extra papers would have hardly mattered.

Still, it does matter to psychology as a whole. Eminent people are supposed to set an example for the rest of us, and Sternberg’s practices, in recent years, have not set a good one. If I had to diagnose what happened, I’d say he just stopped caring and started ‘phoning it in’. Like a once-pioneering band, I like his early work, but Sternberg sold out, man.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: ethics, science, select, Top Posts
ADVERTISEMENT
  • forsdyke

    While knowing nothing about the details of this particular case, I think you should have begun by distinguishing “double-publishing” that is indistinguishable from extensive “text recycling,” and reworking small sections of text from one’s past works into a long review. Having found le mot juste, the sentence juste, or even the paragraph juste – that have been carefully crafted for clarity and style – there are probably many who would be reluctant to extensively modify further in order to satisfy blood-hungry sleuths with anti-plagiarism software. Some sense of proportion is needed.

    • jrkrideau

      I agree, if one has found le mot juste, the sentence juste, or even the paragraph juste one wants/should use it but it is not difficult to say something like “As I have argued before (MadScientist 1902) blah blah,” or “this argument is taken from MadScientist, Frankenstein & Caligula (2010) …”.

      It inflates the citation rate but, I’d say legitimately.
      Without the citations or at least a mention that “this draws on previous work …” it is effectively unfair competition with junior researchers who do not have this reserve of materials to draw upon.

    • jrkrideau

      Some sense of proportion is needed.

      From what I saw on Nick’s blog, the analysis stretches the proportion out of shape.

      There are instances where one needs even just a little common sense. I did hear of a case in a European business school were a student was accused of plagiarism in his master’s thesis.

      He, apparently following normal standares, had several appendices detailing analyses and showing computer code. It appeared that the plagiarism charge was coming mainly or exclusively from the code appendix. It is difficult to paraphrase R commands and functions.

  • Leonid Schneider

    Never have heroes!

  • Nick

    My blog post doesn’t say anything about whether the duplicate publishing started before 2002. I was only informed of the issue 48 hours before I put up my blog post. I don’t currently have an example from before 2002 that is quite as flagrant as the ones I posted, but whether that’s because there isn’t one, or because nobody has found it yet, I couldn’t say.

    • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/ Neuroskeptic

      Ah, I see. I have edited the post to make this clear.

      • Nick

        Great. Now I have to edit my comment. And then you have to edit yours, and then I have to edit this one. :)

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Neuroskeptic

No brain. No gain.

About Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic is a British neuroscientist who takes a skeptical look at his own field, and beyond. His blog offers a look at the latest developments in neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology through a critical lens.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

@Neuro_Skeptic on Twitter

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+