In society

Dissernet and justice

December 18, 2013 Andrey Rostovtsev

Once it was supposed to begin. Sooner or later, but according to the logic of things, this could not happen. The authors of scientific papers, convicted in vast incorrect borrowings, went into a counterattack. And the beginning of this new phenomenon in our society was laid by the judicial community.

The retired judge Yuri Bespalov and the judge of the Moscow City Court Dmitry Gordyuk sued the New Gazeta and The New Times magazine, which published the material about amazing coincidences discovered by the Dissernet community in the texts of the dissertations of Gordyuk and his scientific director Bespalov. That is, the judges themselves turned to their colleagues in the district courts of the city of Moscow (Basmann and Presnensky) with claims for “protection of honor, dignity and other intangible goods” and the requirement to compensate them for moral damage in the amount of a slightly more than one and a half million rubles. It should be noted that such amounts have recently been paid to the families of people who died in plane crashes, but not for an article in a newspaper about dissertation work. Along the way, I note, since this amount was not justified by the plaintiffs, which surprises me with the modesty of the written lawsuits. Why not ask for ten or, say, one hundred million? There is another strange circumstance: the amount of the claim for The New Times, appointed by the plaintiffs, is almost three times higher than to Novaya Gazeta. Based on what logic were all these sizes of “offended” dignity and honor were determined?

The decisions of both courts were not long in coming, and they, like the process of consideration of the case, were so similar to each other that the conspiracy version of the judicial conspiracy involuntarily suggests itself. Indeed, the plaintiffs themselves did not want to appear in the court, their representatives were not visible there. In fact, the judges who were “unbiased” who considered the case were a side to the victim. Neither witnesses nor experts were required to make a sentence. The Presnensky court did not even need the dissertations themselves, which the judge refused to attach to the case. The speeches of the lawyers of Novaya Gazeta and The New Times magazine, their eloquence and irrefutable arguments also did not play any role in the process. The verdict was alone: ​​the claims to satisfy in full.

Now imagine a scene from the courtroom: in front of the judge are two identical multi -page texts - the head of the dissertations of Gordyuk and his scientific leader Bespalov. At the same time, the authors of the texts in their statement of claim insist that the statement “having studied it (D.V. Gordyuk), candidate dissertation, the lawyers of the“ disserter ”found serious borrowing from the work of his scientific leader, the retired judge Yuri Bespalov” falsely and offends their self -esteem. In such a strange situation, cognitive dissonance seems inevitable. But it depends on which side to see.

Let's change the position and temporarily forget about all sorts of “disserters”, plagiarisms and other science. It is impossible not to notice that the trial of a freely thought press coincided in time with the liquidation of the State Information and Analytical Agency "RIA Novosti". To eliminate their property, the owner does not need any courts, of course, how the courts are not needed to eliminate their own Academy of Sciences. But with the remnants of the free press, as well as with the remnants of an entrepreneurship independent of the state, while maintaining a decent appearance, it is not easy to cope without a trial. If so, then immediately becomes clear one and a half millions of “compensation” of the damage caused. The disproportion in the claims is also understandable. Just shortly before these events, the editor -in -chief of the magazine Yevgeny Albats announced that, starting from the New Year, the magazine will exist only at the expense of his subscribers. In this position, millionth fines are the most reliable, experienced tool to drown an objectionable press. Suddenly it becomes clear why the court did not require an examination, no witnesses, or even the dissertations themselves, with which this story began.

One piquant detail remains. In this case, the judicial system invisibly invaded the sphere of interests of academic science. After all, if you look at this matter from the side, then the scientific community itself should deal with plagiarism in scientific works. I am talking about a real, living scientific community, from which today they select the right to judge even in those rare cases when it comes to exclusively the sphere of its professional interests. Actually, this community exists? Gentlemen, professional scientists, chemical physicists, economists, you will continue to observe how the state destroys the remnants of common sense behind your back?

While the scientific community has paused, the Dissernet community recommends the next disclaimer to the entire sensible writing writing, which is also appropriate here. “ Dissernet community” draws the attention of readers that his experts and reporters do not use in the texts of their examinations, conclusions, reports, reports and comments words such as “theft,“ forgery ”,“ fraud ”,“ fraud ”and derivatives from them, including“ thief ”,“ scammer ”,“ plagiator ”, etc., since these concepts are mentioned in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code These acts form a criminal offense .

We ask readers to treat this circumstance with understanding and, in turn, to maintain vigilance when choosing the words used in the descriptions of the work of Dissernet. " In my opinion, the word "understanding" here is key.

Photo by ITAR-TASS/ Sergey Schleyuk