What did I do ?
I asked Math Reviews and Zentralblatt to reconsider their reviews of the book in the light of this information.
- Zentralblatt initially said, they would investigate the case and if they determine, that it is a plagiarism case,
they promised to either get another review or to add some editorial comment. The catch is, however, that
they will only then call it a „plagiarism“, if the plagiator admits, he plagiarized. Interesting policy!
- Mathematical Reviews is not willing to take any steps aside from informing the publisher about the
allegations. In my eyes, this is too little, so that I will immediately stop my reviewing work for MR.
I asked my publisher (Heldermann) to forbid World Scientific further sale of this book.
- He sent a letter, but he is very skeptical, since his small publishing house could never
enter a legal dispute with World Scientific.
- No reaction so far from World Scientific, but watch this space ....
I asked Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Klaus Denecke, Potsdam, to stop selling that book.
- He does not consider this a „plagiarism“, but holds that his (and my) way of presentation is
simply „natürlich vorgegeben“ (given by nature).
I contacted Prof. Dr. Weber-Wulff, an expert in plagiarism cases. She gave me some good advice,
but also used it in her blog. The press has taken it up, so the case may soon be in the open.
New, Friday, May 14:
The weekly „Die ZEIT“ reports about the case in its online edition.
I am not so happy with the title Abrechnung im Netz (engl.: „Showdown on the Web“). My sole
intention is that the plagiarized book be withdrawn and my copyright defended. Otherwise, I will not
be able to finish and publish, as planned, the updated and modernized English translation of my
book. I would infringe on the copyright stolen from me !!
In the article, Denecke is quoted as saying „"Falls an der einen oder anderen Stelle doch ein Zitat
mehr erforderlich gewesen sein sollte … “ (engl.: „If at one or the other place a further reference
should have been in order …“). This makes it appear as if he did cite my article. In fact, the only
reference to my article I can find in his book is in „Lemma 7.5.2. ([44])“, where reference [44]
stands for our book. That lemma, however, is a trivial observation, where in contrast, the following
Theorem 7.5.3., (my „Satz 4.4.4“) carries no reference, but a proof, as if it is Denecke‘s and Wismath‘s.
In other words, at a minor place, a reference is placed to my text, which allows the authors to claim,
they referenced it.
The ZEIT quotes the Ombudsperson, Prof. Beisiegel, of the DFG (the German NSF) who suggests
that „one should not take the path“ I took, i.e., going public. Early in the case, when I called them,
they gave me the choice to either go public or to investigate the case. I do not see, why the DFG
could not do both.
Fact is, that the cases I am aware of, I know solely through the press and through the web, From
there I take, that those cases investigated by „Ombudsmen“ are likely to end in a tender covert criticism,
published on some hidden webpage.
Regarding my publisher, if the article quotes him correctly, I would have hoped for a more determined
defense of the copyright entrusted to him by me, as author.
