A recent NDPR review, alerted me to the inclusion of TWO CHAPTERS by M.W.F. Stone in The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy [Robert Pasnau (ed.), Christina Van Dyke (assoc. ed.)]. M.W.F. Stone is (unless I am horribly mistaken--for which apologies] the known serial-plagiarist, Martin Stone (see for the story here, here, here, here, and here). Now, I know that such volumes have a very long lead-time. But can somebody explain how folk can still publish Stone's work in good faith? What kind of fact/source-checking was done to ensure the integrity of the scholarship? Don't get me wrong. I have great deal respect for Stone's learning. I can even see an argument that, perhaps, he can be rehabilitated into the scholarly world down the road. But before that happens he owes the community a detailed accounting of all of his plagiarism. For it is quite clear that the staggering amount plagiarism that has been uncovered by others thus far is probably the low-hanging fruit.
UPDATE: I corrected "Cambridge Handbook" to "Cambridge History" and "volume" (after an email by Prof. Van Dyke.)
Recent Comments