Oleksii V. Samoilenko, Cand. Sc. (Eng.), Assoc. Prof.

National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute"

The Issue of Authorship of Inventions, Scientific Ideas
and Discoveries in the Fight Against the Academic Plagiarism

Existing software and online services for the fight against academic plagiarism able to improve the situation with the identification of coarse, "clumsy" plagiarism. This is such plagiarism, where there are direct text or graphic borrowings. However, the issue of illegitimate borrowing of another scientific ideas remains unresolved. And here is a trap hidden in which a conscientious scientist can get.

The fact is that scientists can get similar results and do identical conclusions, at a certain level of development of science and technology, even working in one direction and independently of each other.

The history of science and technology knows many examples when the same idea appeared in different scientists and inventors, sometimes separated by state borders, language barriers, and even in different parts of the world. Here are a few examples.

It is known that a fully disassemble frame beehive – the basis of modern rational beekeeping – was invented by the Ukrainian beekeeper Petro I. Prokopovich in 1814. The structure of the "vtulkovy (intercalary)" (as he called the inventor) beehive was like a bookcase, into which frames were inserted from the side [2, page 366]. But the half- disassemble "bookish" beehive (it was revealed as a book installed vertically) of Swiss naturalist François Huber was known since 1789 [2, page 189]. And after that the American Priest and amateur beekeeper Lorenzo L. Langstroth in 1851 proposed the structure of a frame beehive, in which frames are inserted into the beehive body from above and keep on the lateral ledges. This structure is still used today as a base (with minor changes). It should be noted that even Soviet historical science recognized that L. Langstroth invented his beehive, although much later, but still independently of P. Prokopovich [2, page 236].

European (and later North American) criminologists was used "Bertillonage" (or "Anthropometry") to identify the criminals prior to the application of fingerprinting. The essence was that the combination of measurements of certain parts of the human body is unique and makes it possible to uniquely identify the criminals. It is generally accepted that a Paris police office worker Alfons Bertillon founded this system since 1879. However, as early as 1860, the chief of the Belgian prison M. J. Stevens based on the teachings of Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician and sociologist Lambert-Adolph-Jacques Quetelet, suggested (though unsuccessfully) to measure the circumference of the head, the height, foot size and some other parts of the body of adult criminals who did not have significant deviations from norm. It was believed that the obtained measurements could not be concealed by any disguise, makeup, etc. [1, page 59].

Continuing the theme of criminology, it should be noted that the idea of using fingerprints of papillary lines for identity identification also occurred to several people, practically simultaneously and independently of each other. It is believed that modern fingerprinting is based on the teachings of the British ICS officer William James Herschel, 2nd Baronet Hershel, who in 1877 put forward a hypothesis about invariably papillary lines over time. However, all the glory went to Edward Richard Henry, the chief of police in Bengal. At the same time, somehow forget the name of Argentine police officer Juan Vucetich, who developed the ten-finger scheme in 1891, and the British natural philosopher Francis Galton, who mathematically substantiated the impossibility of a fully coincidence of fingerprints from different people. Well, the first of the known fingerprint uses for identification of identity belongs to the ancient Chinese, who in the 6…7th centuries AD signed some documents with a palm print (including fingerprint) [1, page 32].

The history of the invention of the laser contains several dozen names of scientists. The first laser, more precisely, a maser (based on ammonia molecules) was created independently of each other by scientists Nikolay G. Basov, Alexander M. Prokhorov, Charles H. Townes, James P. Gordon, Herbert J. Zeiger, Koichi Shimoda and Tien Chuan Wang. Subsequently, the first three scientists were deservedly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1964. However, Albert Einstein presented the concept of stimulated emission, on which the action of a laser is based, in 1916.

The history of the radio also contains almost a hundred names of scientists, inventors, or even simply enthusiasts, each of whom made his original contribution, often independently of others. It is noteworthy that American inventor of Italian origin Guillermo Marconi was awarded the Nobel Prize not for invention, but for commercial using of radio. And the first radiogram of Russian scientist Alexander S. Popov was "Henry Hertz" in tribute to the primacy of the German scientist.

There are many similar examples. Therefore, the conceptual triad "AUTHORSHIP – PRIORITY – THE IDEA ESSENCE" should be considered fundamental for identifying cases of improper borrowing of scientific ideas.

Now we are not talking about an automated verification of the use of other people's scientific ideas, because then immediately there is a problem of artificial intelligence, which is beyond the scope of this study. And how irrefutably can one prove that scientific results are "stolen", and not obtained independently of other scientists? Do not check the same scientists on the "lie detector"?

We must not forget that there is the so-called "Stigler's law on eponymy" in science, in the countries of the former USSR, better known as the "Arnold law" (Vladimir I. Arnold was a Soviet and Russian mathematician). This empirical observation was described by the American scientist Stephen M. Stigler in 1980. The essence of the law is "scientific discoveries are not named after their discoverers." It is noteworthy that the scientist himself considers the pioneer of the law of the American sociologist Robert K. Merton (R. Merton himself used the term "Matthew effect"). That is, the Stigler's law can be applied to himself.

The prerequisite for the appearance of Stigler's law is the fact that often discoveries are named after a scientist who only drew general attention to the previously not popular idea or principle. Most often this person is not a pioneer. Some scientific theories received nominal names much later than their first description. At that the names are fixed, even despite the general agreement that they are historically inaccurate. If several scientists make discoveries simultaneously and even independently of each other, the high authority of one scientist can become a decisive factor in attributing to him one name of the initial general discovery.

It is necessary to take into account such a seemingly paradoxical situation. In modern science there is such a system. Only those scientific results are placed in the public domain, which were supposed to open the use initially. Usually, these are studies carried out at the expense of state orders, university funds or research institutions, grants, etc. But the publication of the results obtained, for example, under a contract with a commercial entity, can often be a moratorium lasting even a few years.

And indeed it seems that scientists are in no hurry to immediately share their results. They work, so to speak, on personal, university, national or even regional success. They belong to a competing scientific schools, live in different, sometimes conflicting countries, with ever successive governments. Therefore, it is not necessary to talk about solidarity and openness in the scientific community. However, this circumstance makes impossible the "worldwide conspiracy of scientists".

Used information from Wikipedia – the free encyclopedia, as well as from other public sources.

References:

1. Thorwald, Jürgen. Das Jahrhundert der Detektive: Weg und Abenteuer der Kriminalistik. – Drömer, 1965 – 566 s.

2. Виробнича енциклопедія бджільництва. – К.: Урожай, 1966, – 499 с.