September 13th, 2024

Serial academic fraudster steals medical, physics and computer science papers

Matthew J. Stephenson faces serious allegations of academic fraud, including plagiarism, impersonation, and identity theft, with evidence of fabricated credentials and deletion of his works from repositories.

Read original articleLink Icon
Serial academic fraudster steals medical, physics and computer science papers

Matthew J. Stephenson has been accused of extensive academic fraud, including impersonation and plagiarism. He has claimed authorship of various scientific papers, often without proper credit to the original authors. Notably, a paper he submitted to MDPI titled "A Differential Datalog Interpreter Software" appears to have been co-authored by others, leading to allegations of claim-jumping. His history includes a self-published essay that closely resembles existing academic work, and he has been linked to multiple instances of misappropriating research from legitimate scientists. Despite presenting himself as a neurosurgeon and computer scientist, evidence suggests that he has fabricated much of his academic background, including false affiliations with prestigious institutions. His actions have led to the deletion of his works from repositories like arXiv due to copyright violations. Furthermore, he has been implicated in identity theft, with an open warrant for his arrest in California. The situation highlights significant issues within academic publishing and the reliance on the integrity of contributors in maintaining research credibility.

- Matthew J. Stephenson is accused of extensive academic fraud, including plagiarism and impersonation.

- He has claimed authorship of papers without proper credit to original authors, leading to allegations of claim-jumping.

- Evidence suggests he has fabricated his academic background and affiliations with prestigious institutions.

- His works have been deleted from repositories due to copyright violations.

- He has an open warrant for arrest in California for identity theft.

Related

The case for criminalizing scientific misconduct · Chris Said

The case for criminalizing scientific misconduct · Chris Said

The article argues for criminalizing scientific misconduct, citing cases like Sylvain Lesné's fake research. It proposes Danish-style committees and federal laws to address misconduct effectively, emphasizing accountability and public trust protection.

Elsevier withdraws plagiarized paper after author calls journal out on LinkedIn

Elsevier withdraws plagiarized paper after author calls journal out on LinkedIn

Elsevier retracted a plagiarized paper titled "Optimizing smart building energy systems" after Sadrizadeh exposed copied data. Editor-in-chief investigated and withdrew the paper due to possible figure manipulation. Lead author did not comment.

When scientific citations go rogue: Uncovering 'sneaked references'

When scientific citations go rogue: Uncovering 'sneaked references'

Researchers discovered "sneaked references," a new academic fraud involving adding extra references to boost citation counts. This manipulation distorts research visibility. Recommendations include rigorous verification and transparency in managing citations.

The Academic Culture of Fraud

The Academic Culture of Fraud

In 2006, Sylvain Lesné's Alzheimer’s research faced retraction due to manipulated images, highlighting academic fraud issues. Similar cases reveal a troubling trend of inadequate accountability in research institutions.

Suspicious phrases in peer reviews point to referees gaming the system

Suspicious phrases in peer reviews point to referees gaming the system

Researcher Maria Ángeles Oviedo-García found 263 suspicious peer reviews in MDPI journals, indicating potential conflicts of interest and template use, prompting an investigation and highlighting systemic issues in academic publishing.

Link Icon 2 comments
By @austinjp - 7 months
Goodness me, this is very difficult to read. This article appears to describe some serious academic fraud (highlighting issues with arxiv.org along the way) but it repeatedly buries the lede under the author's haphazard writing style.

Perhaps a TLDR at the top would be useful. Just the FAQs. The central message is too important to lose amid the stylistic missteps.

I don't want academic-adjacent writing to be anodyne, but I do want it to be clear.