An investigation by The Daily Wire has uncovered potential evidence of extensive plagiarism by Darryll Pines, the University of Maryland’s President. This involves substantial excerpts from two academic publications being directly lifted from a tutorial site created years earlier by Joshua Altmann, an Australian student, according to the investigation’s findings.
A significant portion of a research paper, spanning 1,500 words out of 5,000, authored by Pines and Liming Salvino in 2002, shows striking similarities to content from Altmann’s “Surfing the Wavelets” tutorial, initially published in 1996. Altmann, who was a university student in Australia at the time, does not receive any acknowledgment in Pines’s work. The content was then reused almost entirely, including the sections borrowed from Altmann, in a subsequent paper in 2006.
Pines, who has a background in rocket science and is known for his advocacy for diversity, seems to have only altered Altmann’s original work by omitting certain sentences and changing British English spellings to American English. However, he overlooked a few instances, such as “endeavour” and “modelling,” retaining the British spelling.
The deliberate modification of certain words from British to American English implies that Pines did indeed take from Altmann’s text and tried to make it appear as his own. This revelation follows a recent incident where Pines presented what he claimed was “faculty research” in support of a pro-Palestine rally. The “research” was generated by ChatGPT.
Pines’s initial paper, focusing on the health monitoring of structures, was published in the Smart Structures and Materials journal by SPIE in 2002. The subsequent paper, co-authored with Salvino and covering similar ground, appeared in the Journal of Sound and Vibration in 2006. A comparison between Altmann’s tutorial and both of Pines’s papers shows remarkable similarities.
Interestingly, where Altmann used the word “endeavor,” Pines’s version is “endevour,” suggesting an incorrect attempt to Americanize the spelling. The 2006 paper also uses “modelling,” in line with Altmann’s British English, unlike the 2002 paper, which might have been edited into American English.
No citations to Altmann are present in Pines’s papers. Instead, his references exactly match those of Altmann, even down to the page numbers. Pines’s attempt at rephrasing Altmann’s work introduces several errors, indicating a lack of originality in his paraphrasing efforts.
Katie Lawson, representing the University of Maryland, did not dispute the findings but argued that reusing language in technical and historical reviews is common for establishing a foundation for new work. She emphasized that this practice does not undermine the authenticity of the data or the conclusions drawn.
Lawson did not address inquiries regarding the university’s policies on citation and the consequences of not properly acknowledging sources.
