In response to alleged plagiarism in Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taoyuan City Councilor Ling Tao’s (凌濤) master’s thesis, the academic ethics committee of National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (NYCU) said that Ling had completed the procedure of adding annotations and replacing the submitted thesis.
Could a thesis that involves plagiarism get away scot-free by adding sources and replacing a thesis that had already been submitted? No, it should not work like that. Such a statement by the NYCU academic ethics committee is shocking and leads people to doubt the academic standards of the school.
Are NYCU academics attempting a cover-up, or do they not even know what a thesis is? A thesis is a publication of research results, not just a collection of words or articles. It is the outcome of the careful selection of a meaningful topic, research using scientific methods and a thorough presentation of the final conclusions.
Topic selection and research methods should follow rigorous logical procedures, and their conclusions should be innovative or contribute to their academic field. Theses that do not meet these criteria should not be able to pass and a diploma should not be issued. Was this not the standard procedure when the professors on the NYCU academic ethics committee wrote their own theses and dissertations?
Ling’s thesis was heavily plagiarized, and some parts were a full-page copy of someone else’s work with only a few words changed, said NYCU professor Chen Shi-fen (陳時奮), the whistle-blower.
If so, could this thesis really be innovative? A thesis needs to follow specific logical procedures for topic selection and research methods.
How could a thesis that you have worked hard on be highly similar to other people’s published papers? If it is highly similar to other work, how could it be innovative? Once the content of a thesis is so like someone else’s, how could it be okay to just indicate the source and resubmit?
Ling’s thesis is a small matter, but the standards of NYCU’s ethics committee are a big deal. If the academics on the ethics committee allow a thesis with high similarity to another and a large amount of plagiarism to pass the review and award the student a degree, does this mean that this was also the procedure when they wrote their theses and conducted research?
Maybe this is the way all academics at NYCU do research and write papers?
If that is the case, should the NYCU, the Ministry of Education or even the research sponsors not come forward and demand an explanation?
A thesis is not a pile of scrap paper. It has a specific academic status, should be contributive academically or socially, and should not be treated so carelessly.
If the ethics committee at NYCU decides things in such a hasty manner, does NYCU really have nothing to say in response? Could the Ministry of Education turn a blind eye to this? Would academia sit by and watch helplessly as academics decline and integrity falls into disrepute?
Mike Chang is an accountant.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS