[Cosmo-torun] Re: AA/2004/2055

Boud Roukema boud w astro.uni.torun.pl
Pon, 4 Paź 2004, 15:00:26 CEST

hi again,

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Andrzej Marecki wrote:

> > My hope is (was?) to show to A&A exactly what is in the content of the
> > article: it comes directly from Gorski et al 1999a/b, it is independent of
> > whatever may or may not be in the code.
> Well, I personally *believe* you were ONLY inspired by Gorski et al 1999a/b,
> and has NOT used their code. However, since you *had HAD* the code before
> you submitted the paper to A&A, the HEALPix group - as we all know - claim

Well, the code had been present at CA-UMK, anyway - maybe there's
still a copy somewhere. And usage of extracts for research/teaching is
what's called "fair use" in USA copyright and "fair dealing" copyright
in some other countries - see e.g. the wikipedia.

> that you were _not_ smart enough to invent the algebra (almost) from scratch
> but you _were_ smart enough to derive the algebraic equations from the code
> and so you stole their intellectual property.
> > Ouch :(. i'd prefer *not* to look at the HEALPix code.
> Fine! So now you have to be smart again and show that... it is not possible
> to derive the algebra - as it stands in your article - from the HEALPix
> code. Either because the HEALPix code is too obscure or badly documented or
> your algebra is different or... I don't know.

The whole point of the article is that it's self-contained. There is no
statement which comes "from nowhere".

The algebra is about *why* certain expressions should be used - there
is no particular need for these discussions and derivations in the
code, since the code only needs to *use* the algebraic expressions,
not prove to the user that they are correct. The work in the paper is to
*show* which expressions should be used (or one choice of expressions to
be used, anyway) and why.

> Anyway, if you want to win this argument you have to show a proof - or
> better to say - an alibi that their claims (that you have "undone" their
> code back to the algebra) are void.
> It may be hard to find a clever way to show such an alibi but you have no
> other way, I'm afraid. This is because when someone is accused she/he
> has committed a plagiarism, this is the alleged plagiarist duty to bring the
> evidence that no plagiarism took place.

On the contrary: "innocent until proven guilty."

Anyway, thoughts on my new proposed text are welcome: surely the fact
that Gorski et al published in reponse to our paper, and that they
published with a different style of algebra, is sufficient proof?


Więcej informacji o liście Cosmo-torun