(13) 코널대학출판부는, 고려대 샬론타이 교수의 저서로부터 많은 부분들을 표절했거나 "소련... - Vladimir Tikhonov
Vladimir Tikhonov
3 hrs ·
코널대학출판부는, 고려대 샬론타이 교수의 저서로부터 많은 부분들을 표절했거나 "소련 자료" 등을 임의 조작한 컬럼비아대 암스트롱 전 교수의 저서를 비록 전수 회수했다 해도 표절 피해자의 전자우편에 제대로 답변을 해주지 않는 셈입니다. 그래서 표절 사건 피해자가 스스로 공개한 코널대학출판부에의 그의 편지를 여기에 전재합니다. 참, 갑질이라는 게 한국에만 있는 건 절대 아닙니다. 미국에도 그대로인 모양입니다. 단, 역학 관계가 좀 다르죠. 국내에서는 출판인이 '을'이 되는 경우도 종종 있지만, 미국 대학 교원들의 정년 보장 받는 일이나 승진 등이 대학 출판부에서의 책 출판에 달려 있는 만큼 그 세계에서 대학 출판부가 '갑 중의 갑'일 수도 있습니다. 만약 표절 피해자가 한국이 아닌 미국의 대학에서 취직돼 있었다면 그의 편지에 대한 답변은 더 빨랐을까요? 아마도요. 학계나, 학계와 직결돼 있는 학술출판계가 이러면 정말 안됩니다!
Balazs Szalontai is with Alexander Morrison.
10 hrs
On September 25, I sent the following email to the Co-Directors of Cornell University Press. So far, I have not received any response whatsoever, and therefore I feel compelled to make my message public:
Dear Co-Directors,
thanks a lot for your message! I appreciate the gesture that Cornell University Press made by taking both the 2013 and 2017 edition of "Tyranny of the Weak" out of print. Similarly, I appreciate Cornell University Press' acknowledgement of the research malpractice committed by Professor Charles Armstrong, and I consider the formula "We were led to believe that the text that became the 2017 edition corrected all the issues regarding Armstrong’s failure to cite your work" as a reasonable starting point for the further discussions.
Still, the communication I received from Cornell University Press on September 24th does not provide a full answer to the questions which I raised in my September 13th communication to Mr. Roger M. Haydon, Executive Editor of Cornell University Press. Notably, the text of the aforementioned September 24th message was virtually identical with the email which Cornell University Press sent to Professor Alexander Morrison, who had decided to refrain from preparing manuscript reviews for Cornell University Press until the controversy involving "Tyranny of the Weak" was satisfactorily resolved. You are doubtlessly aware of the difference between the legal status of a person who voluntarily decides to prepare or not to prepare a manuscript review for a publisher (usually for a certain honorarium) and that of a person whose copyright was repeatedly violated by said publisher, and who therefore was compelled to devote many months of his time and a substantial amount of his financial resources to the effort of identifying the fabricated and plagiarized sources in "Tyranny of the Weak." As such, I expect the interim co-Directors to provide me with some additional specific explanation about the following legal aspects of the problem:
(1) The Draft Investigation Report of Columbia University (p. 22, see the attached JPG file) explicitly notes that on 27 June 2017, Professor Armstrong informed Cornell University Press about 14 additional cases of plagiarism and source fabrication, about which he himself acknowledged that they necessitated further corrective measures. Nevertheless, Cornell University Press informed Professor Armstrong that (quote) it was too late to incorporate additional revisions into the pending corrected edition (unquote). That is, Cornell University Press decided to publish a new edition in the full knowledge that it would contain further copyright violations. You are doubtlessly aware of the fact that in case of copyright law violations, it is not a satisfactory and acceptable legal excuse that the publisher's adherence to copyright law (such as the postponement or cancellation of a planned edition) would have incurred some sort of technical inconvenience or it would have resulted in some sort of unexpected delay. While Professor Armstrong's contract with Cornell University Press presumably included an indemnity clause, I am uncertain if said clause could have covered such a case when the decision to proceed with the still-plagiarized second edition was taken on the express initiative of Cornell University Press, rather than on the initiative of Professor Armstrong. The problem is compounded by the fact that my original letter to Mr. Roger M. Haydon, dated November 2016, specifically mentioned that apart from the original 76-item list (on which the 2017 "corrections" were based), 13 additional cases were being still investigated, and thus the 76-item list cannot be regarded as final. As such, Mr. Haydon's decision to exclude me from the correction process was directly responsible for the repetition of copyright violations, unless it can be satisfactorily proven that this decision was made at the express request of Professor Armstrong and that Professor Armstrong accepted sole legal responsibility for the possible consequences. Please enlighten me with regard to these aspects of the case.
(2) It is a basic precondition of any decision to be made in a dispute over copyright that the publisher which received a complaint about a possible copyright violation seeks to identify the individual or institution who or which holds the copyright of the potentially plagiarized publication. Yet Cornell University Press made its first inquiry at Wilson Center Press about the copyright holder of "Kim Il Sung of the Khrushchev Era" (that is, the undersigned Balazs Szalontai) as late as September 2019, that is, nearly three years after I had formally informed Mr. Roger M. Haydon about the serial copyright violations committed by Professor Armstrong. Please enlighten me why this basic precondition was ignored not only in the initial phase of the dispute but even after the return of the Fairbank Prize in June 2017.
(3) In April 2019, Columbia University completed its process of investigation, and the recommended corrective measures of the Standing Committee were approved by the Provost of the university. These corrective measures specified that Cornell University Press be informed about the findings of the investigation, that is, about the research misconduct committed by Professor Armstrong. Yet Cornell University Press announced the discontinuation of the printing of "Tyranny" as late as September 2019 (that is, more than four months later), and only after Columbia's decision was published in the media. Unless it can be proven that Columbia University did not communicate its findings to Cornell University Press in the spring or summer of 2019 but only in September, this means that Cornell University Press continued to sell a plagiarized book, and refrain to inform readers about its problems, in full awareness of Columbia University's findings.
(4) In the light of the problems enumerated above, it must be clearly specified who was legally responsible for the aforementioned acts of copyright violation and willful negligence, and whether the directors and interim directors of Cornell University Press were fully informed about these problems throughout 2017-2019 or not. Please enlighten me whether it was Professor Armstrong who should be solely held responsible for said problems, or that Cornell University Press as a legal and institutional entity also shares responsibility with Professor Armstrong, or that Cornell University Press as a legal and institutional entity is not responsible for the problems but Mr. Roger M. Haydon, in his capacity of Executive Editor, shares individual responsibility with Professor Armstrong on the grounds that he failed to satisfactorily inform Cornell University Press about said problems.
Cordially,
Dr. Balazs Szalontai
Associate Professor, Korea University (Sejong Campus)
thanks a lot for your message! I appreciate the gesture that Cornell University Press made by taking both the 2013 and 2017 edition of "Tyranny of the Weak" out of print. Similarly, I appreciate Cornell University Press' acknowledgement of the research malpractice committed by Professor Charles Armstrong, and I consider the formula "We were led to believe that the text that became the 2017 edition corrected all the issues regarding Armstrong’s failure to cite your work" as a reasonable starting point for the further discussions.
Still, the communication I received from Cornell University Press on September 24th does not provide a full answer to the questions which I raised in my September 13th communication to Mr. Roger M. Haydon, Executive Editor of Cornell University Press. Notably, the text of the aforementioned September 24th message was virtually identical with the email which Cornell University Press sent to Professor Alexander Morrison, who had decided to refrain from preparing manuscript reviews for Cornell University Press until the controversy involving "Tyranny of the Weak" was satisfactorily resolved. You are doubtlessly aware of the difference between the legal status of a person who voluntarily decides to prepare or not to prepare a manuscript review for a publisher (usually for a certain honorarium) and that of a person whose copyright was repeatedly violated by said publisher, and who therefore was compelled to devote many months of his time and a substantial amount of his financial resources to the effort of identifying the fabricated and plagiarized sources in "Tyranny of the Weak." As such, I expect the interim co-Directors to provide me with some additional specific explanation about the following legal aspects of the problem:
(1) The Draft Investigation Report of Columbia University (p. 22, see the attached JPG file) explicitly notes that on 27 June 2017, Professor Armstrong informed Cornell University Press about 14 additional cases of plagiarism and source fabrication, about which he himself acknowledged that they necessitated further corrective measures. Nevertheless, Cornell University Press informed Professor Armstrong that (quote) it was too late to incorporate additional revisions into the pending corrected edition (unquote). That is, Cornell University Press decided to publish a new edition in the full knowledge that it would contain further copyright violations. You are doubtlessly aware of the fact that in case of copyright law violations, it is not a satisfactory and acceptable legal excuse that the publisher's adherence to copyright law (such as the postponement or cancellation of a planned edition) would have incurred some sort of technical inconvenience or it would have resulted in some sort of unexpected delay. While Professor Armstrong's contract with Cornell University Press presumably included an indemnity clause, I am uncertain if said clause could have covered such a case when the decision to proceed with the still-plagiarized second edition was taken on the express initiative of Cornell University Press, rather than on the initiative of Professor Armstrong. The problem is compounded by the fact that my original letter to Mr. Roger M. Haydon, dated November 2016, specifically mentioned that apart from the original 76-item list (on which the 2017 "corrections" were based), 13 additional cases were being still investigated, and thus the 76-item list cannot be regarded as final. As such, Mr. Haydon's decision to exclude me from the correction process was directly responsible for the repetition of copyright violations, unless it can be satisfactorily proven that this decision was made at the express request of Professor Armstrong and that Professor Armstrong accepted sole legal responsibility for the possible consequences. Please enlighten me with regard to these aspects of the case.
(2) It is a basic precondition of any decision to be made in a dispute over copyright that the publisher which received a complaint about a possible copyright violation seeks to identify the individual or institution who or which holds the copyright of the potentially plagiarized publication. Yet Cornell University Press made its first inquiry at Wilson Center Press about the copyright holder of "Kim Il Sung of the Khrushchev Era" (that is, the undersigned Balazs Szalontai) as late as September 2019, that is, nearly three years after I had formally informed Mr. Roger M. Haydon about the serial copyright violations committed by Professor Armstrong. Please enlighten me why this basic precondition was ignored not only in the initial phase of the dispute but even after the return of the Fairbank Prize in June 2017.
(3) In April 2019, Columbia University completed its process of investigation, and the recommended corrective measures of the Standing Committee were approved by the Provost of the university. These corrective measures specified that Cornell University Press be informed about the findings of the investigation, that is, about the research misconduct committed by Professor Armstrong. Yet Cornell University Press announced the discontinuation of the printing of "Tyranny" as late as September 2019 (that is, more than four months later), and only after Columbia's decision was published in the media. Unless it can be proven that Columbia University did not communicate its findings to Cornell University Press in the spring or summer of 2019 but only in September, this means that Cornell University Press continued to sell a plagiarized book, and refrain to inform readers about its problems, in full awareness of Columbia University's findings.
(4) In the light of the problems enumerated above, it must be clearly specified who was legally responsible for the aforementioned acts of copyright violation and willful negligence, and whether the directors and interim directors of Cornell University Press were fully informed about these problems throughout 2017-2019 or not. Please enlighten me whether it was Professor Armstrong who should be solely held responsible for said problems, or that Cornell University Press as a legal and institutional entity also shares responsibility with Professor Armstrong, or that Cornell University Press as a legal and institutional entity is not responsible for the problems but Mr. Roger M. Haydon, in his capacity of Executive Editor, shares individual responsibility with Professor Armstrong on the grounds that he failed to satisfactorily inform Cornell University Press about said problems.
Cordially,
Dr. Balazs Szalontai
Associate Professor, Korea University (Sejong Campus)
No comments:
Post a Comment