THE UNCONSCIOUS PLAGIARIST. BY G. I. MITCHELL, Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering, University of Pittsburgh. The honor of the technical profession is always high; the technical man guards his statements with jealous care and is generally careful to acknowledge the source of any idea not his own. But what are we to think of the authors of technical books who permit matter to appear in their pages that has been taken from copyright material already in existence? Take the case of the college professor who, let us say, is the head of the mechanical engineering department and is teaching machine design. Not being satisfied with the machine design texts already in existence, perhaps because the order in which the work is arranged does not agree with his opinions of the subject or because the various relations developed do not meet with his approval, he gets together a set of notes, has them mimeographed and hands a set to each of his students. Because these notes have been arranged according to the professors particular notions he finds that they just suit his fancy, he can teach the subject with less friction and with less effort on his part-he does not have to correlate his ideas with those of another. He seen comes to be a firm believer in the fact that he has hit upon an ideal method of teaching his subject and condescends to have his notes published as a textbook that others may have the benefit of his broad intelligence. Very good. He has been actuated by the best motives. But let us see how these wonderful notes have been collected. Did he sit down at his desk and evolve them from his own mind? The chances are very few that he did. No, he consulted every published text that he could get his hands on and picked out the parts that best suited his own ideas, one part from one author and another part from a second and so on. Page after page of his notes was copied verbatim from other men's books, the professor merely running in a few words here and there to avoid a too abrupt change from one authority to another. Since he was simply compiling these notes for his own use he was not careful to give references to the men who were responsible for the subject matter. After the lapse of a few years the professor has forgotten just whom he consulted, has forgotten just how he got these notes together, so that when he makes up his mind to publish his text he simply bundles the pages together and sends them off to his publisher. When the book appears it is submitted to the public as a "new and better" text in machine design. It finds its way into schools, the men from whom the author cribbed various parts read the new text and are somewhat surprised to find page after page of their own material. Letters begin to pour into the office of the publisher, causing the publisher much discomfort. But what can the publisher do? He has printed the text in good faith, depending upon the integrity of the author to prevent unpleasantness of this nature, but the publisher is more or less responsible, and to say the least, is in a bad position. The author himself looses caste and is regarded as a thief by his brothers. The remedy is easy to find. Let every author of a book of this kind search his notes with care and wherever questionable material is found let full credit be given or let him give the old material new treatment so that it will appear in his new book in the author's own words. If the book is worth while it is certainly of the utmost importance that the writer keep his escutcheon clean, with his name placed high in brilliant letters on the roll of his profession. REPORT OF COMMITTEE NO. 11A-PHYSICS. Your Committee on Physics has made but little progress during the past year. Previous annual reports show that the committee has been attempting to establish complete cooperation between the two courses in mechanics (one in general physics) studied in the engineering course. As soon as the Committee on Physics was informed of the discontinuance of the Committee on Mechanics to whom a report has been submitted and with whom work was under way, communication was at once established between the new Committee on Mechanics and Hydraulics and the Committee on Physics. A coöperative effort between these two committees is now in progress and immediate attention is being focused upon the content in the physics course in mechanics. G. W. STEWART, Chairman. REPORT OF COMMITTEE NO. 11B-CHEMISTRY. Your committee begs to report on the progress of its studies regarding courses in chemistry in engineering schools. In December President Nichols of the American Chemical Society, at the suggestion of Mr. Bishop, appointed Professor Talbot, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Professor Parr, of the University of Illinois, and Professor McKee, of Columbia University, a committee to coöperate with your committee in the study of chemical education. Later Professor Talbot was forced to resign on account of ill health and Professor Bird, of the University of Virginia, was appointed in his place. Up to January first most of the members of the committee were engaged in war work for the government, and for some time thereafter they were occupied in straightening out their affairs and reëstablishing their courses following the renewal of university work on a peace basis. Nevertheless, correspondence was had on the subject of the work of the committee. In April Messrs. Withrow, Parr, McKee and Bird met in Buffalo and discussed the work of the committee at considerable length. It was agreed that each of us would give thought and study to three phases of chemical and engineering education, communicate the results of such individual study to the other members, and later meet to collaborate these studies and prepare a report for your consideration. The three phases mapped out are: "The limitations and content of first-year courses in general chemistry," with a view to laying the most thorough foundation possible for the further study of the science by those who plan to become chemical engineers. It was thought that if the content of the first-year course is carefully limited to so much as may be learned with great thoroughness, the results will be better than at present, when much has gradually been added until the beginner finds himself consuming more than he can digest. Second. "A consideration of what further study of chemistry, if any, is desirable for those pursuing other lines of engineering." Third. "Graduate courses in Chemistry." Professor McKee submitted plans for a differentiation of the work of different universities in the advanced study of the several lines of applied chemistry. The idea is that one or more universities shall develop to the highest possible degree research work and its application along such line as is of most important in its state, rather than to attempt to cover too many fields. This plan looks to great schools in each of the several divisions of the field, where a student may learn the last word under the best masters. The individual studies are now being made, but sufficient time has not elapsed for their restudy by other members of the committee and their collaboration. We therefore respectfully suggest that the committee be continued for another year. We hope that more normal times will permit a more careful consideration of the subject than has been possible during the troubled months of the war and the beginnings of reconstruction. R. M. BIRD, J. R. WITHROW, |