Category: plagiarism

  • A Shocking Case of Academic Misconduct at Universite Libre de Bruxelles (Emmanuel Legeard)

    A Shocking Case of Academic Misconduct at Universite Libre de Bruxelles (Emmanuel Legeard)

    A Flagrant and Repeated Breach of Academic Ethics (Université Libre de Bruxelles and European Journal of Applied Physiology)

    For
    several years now, Jacques Duchâteau and his team at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) have sought to misappropriate the 3/7 Method, a
    strength-training protocol I independently developed more than 20 years
    ago. Jean-Pierre Egger revealed the method — while respecting its
    intellectual property — during seminars and university lectures in 2012.
    Regardless of this elementary fact, ULB’s claims are contradicted by
    ample evidence proving my authorship, such as correspondence with Egger
    dating back to 2008, his documented public presentation at the
    University of Lausanne in 2012 within the ISSUL Master’s program, and
    Duchâteau’s recorded presentations at the French National Institute of
    Sport (INSEP).

    THE 3/7 METHOD, ALSO KNOWN AS THE LEGEARD PROTOCOL (Presented by Jean-Pierre Egger at the University of Lausanne in 2012)

    (You can download the full .pdf here: (PDF) Emmanuel Legeard Le 3–7 Master en sciences du sport, Université de Lausanne)

    Initially,
    Jacques Duchâteau organized conferences about me — curiously, without
    my involvement or consent — where the 3/7 Method was even referred to as
    “Legeard’s Method”. Gradually, Duchâteau resorted to insinuating that
    the method might not solely be my creation, a claim he knew was false.
    My method has never been modified by anyone. At the time, I dismissed
    these rumors as baseless. However, it became clear that this was a
    calculated strategy to dilute my rights and claim ownership of my work.

    2014: DUCHÂTEAU PRESENTS THE “LEGEARD’S METHOD” AT INSEP

    Subsequently, Duchâteau’s team — including Séverine Stragier, Stéphane Baudry, and Alain Carpentier — published a 12-page article in the European Journal of Applied Physiology about my method. Shockingly, my name, Emmanuel Legeard, WAS ENTIRELY OMITTED
    ! This publication, titled “Efficacy of a new strength training design:
    the 3/7 method”, audaciously describes the method as “new”, a blatant
    misrepresentation given its development over two decades ago and its
    public introduction in 2012 by Egger.

    European
    Journal of Applied Physiology’s predatory publishing — Predatory publishing, also write-only publishing or deceptive publishing, is an
    exploitative academic publishing business model, where the journal or
    publisher prioritizes self-interest at the expense of scholarship. It is
    characterized by misleading information, deviates from the standard
    peer-review process, and is highly opaque.

    The
    misrepresentation has not gone unnoticed. T.C. Luoma, a renowned
    American sports journalist and editor of T-Nation — a site with over
    three million monthly visitors — highlighted the issue, stating:

    “That’s
    why reading about the 3/7 method aroused my interest. It’s a set-rep
    scheme developed by French strength coach Emmanuel Legeard in the early
    2000s.”

    (Source: T-Nation Forums)

    2023: THE DUCHÂTEAU TEAM’S UNABASHED IDEA THEFT

    Last year, Grigoraș Diaconescu, an international rugby player, shared his outrage after discovering a post by Gaël Deboeck, identified as the head of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation at ULB. Deboeck congratulated Alexis Gillet,
    a doctoral student, for using the 3/7 Method to “prove” what I
    demonstrated 20 years ago. Unsurprisingly, the publication made no
    mention of the method’s original creator. It is now evident that ULB
    intends to mislead the public into believing that their laboratory
    developed the 3/7 Method. These unethical actions demand accountability.

    2023: THE DUCHÂTEAU TEAM’S UNABASHED IDEA THEFT


    CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

    If
    the Université Libre de Bruxelles believes I will quietly accept the
    theft of my work, they are mistaken. This scandal, indicative of
    dishonesty incompatible with academic integrity, must result in
    sanctions. Public funding cannot continue to
    support crooked research where my work is falsely attributed to
    impostors like Jacques Duchâteau, Séverine Stragier
    , Stéphane Baudry, Alain Carpentier, Gael Deboeck or Alexis Gillet. I
    have been lenient for years, but my patience as the rightful creator
    has reached its limit. I have begun publicly correcting this falsehood
    online, as seen in similar cases — such as one involving the University
    of Zurich — which have led to severe consequences for academic dishonesty.

    Dr Emmanuel Legeard, Ph.D. — Creator, among quite a few others, of the 3/7 Method, also known as the “Legeard Method”.

    This article originally appeared on Medium.

    Source link

  • desperately in need of redefinition in the age of generative AI. – Sijen

    desperately in need of redefinition in the age of generative AI. – Sijen

    The vernacular definition of plagiarism is often “passing off someone else’s work as your own” or more fully, in the University of Oxford maternal guidance, “Presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement.” This later definition works better in the current climate in which generative AI assistants are being rolled out across many word-processing tools. When a student can start a prompt and have the system, rather than another individual, write paragraphs, there is an urgent need to redefine academic integrity.

    If they are not your own thoughts committed to text, where did they come from? Any thoughts that are not your own need to be attributed. Generative AI applications are already being used in the way that previous generations have made use of Wikipedia, as a source of initial ‘research’, clarification, definitions, and for the more diligent perhaps for sources. In the early days of Wikipedia I saw digitally illiterate students copy and paste wholesale blocks of text from the website straight into their submissions, often with removing hyperlinks! The character of wikipedia as a source has evolved. We need to engage in an open conversation with students, and between ourselves, about the nature of the purpose of any writing task assigned to a student. We need to quickly move students beyond the unreferenced Chatbots into structured and referenced generative AI tools and deploy what we have learnt about Wikipedia. Students need to differentiate between their own thoughts and triangulate everything else before citing and referencing it.

    Image: Midjourney 12/06/23


    Source link