April 21, 2008

Staggering Amount of Plagiarism & Still Growing

Dear Guests:

On Tuesday morning I will be posting a third example of massive plagiarism in Jim Johnson’s series, Destroying Free Grace Theology. This third example does not rival the amount of material Johnson plagiarized from Hawthorne or Cerda, but the name of the author he stole from is far more impressive.

I would like to have said the third example is the final, but this afternoon one researcher uncovered three new examples of blatant plagiarism in Johnson’s series.

There is no way an honest man can excuse these staggering amounts of plagiarism as innocent mistakes. This is not from a man, “that does not write well.” This level of plagiarism cannot be dismissed as mere, “errors” or “raw thoughts.” Vast amounts of other men’s writing was literally copied, some of it manipulated, and then pasted into his series to make it appear as if it is his own work. With one minor and obscure exception Mr. Johnson did not, in any way, credit or reference the author’s he plagiarized.

Any peer or editor who would only suggest his, “paper needs some refinement” is either unashamedly political or woefully incompetent to evaluate and/or understand the level of willful plagiarism committed by Johnson in these papers. Any responsible editor would rebuke him, and advise the immediate removal of this fraudulent paper from the public arena.

Mr. Johnson has suggested, “…making corrections for possible journal publishing.” If he attempts to, or this paper is actually published in any journal, I will immediately contact the publisher and forward all of the documentation surrounding his plagiarism. I don’t think any honest, reputable publisher would want to have Johnson’s plagiarized paper, in any revised form, on their hands. It would frustrate and disgrace them, and they’d have huge PR problem to contend with once it became public. If I were a publisher I would want to be forewarned about this plagiarist.

As for Mr. Johnson’s reaction, he remains defiant. Why Mr. Johnson did this, only he knows. How he thought he could get away with it is unfathomable. His combativeness, blame-shifting and scoffing reaction is disconcerting, but I hope and pray he will eventually respond rightly by confessing and repent of this plagiarism. IMO, he owes this at least to RMBC whose reputation he has done irreparable harm.

I hope and pray Mr. Johnson will one day soon respond rightly by confessing and repent of this plagiarism.


LM

10 comments:

  1. Lou,

    You mentioned: "Vast amounts of other men’s writing was literally copied, some of it manipulated, and then pasted into his series to make it appear as if it is his own work."

    You make an excellent point. In writing my blog post about Mr. Johnson's plagiarism on the GES website, I realized how hard it was to convey the enormity of material that was plagiarized. I think some people just look at the plagiarized material that was edited and think of the plagiarism in terms of a few sentences. But one must keep in mind that much of what Johnson plagiarized wasn't edited at all! He simply pasted someone else's writings directly into his article and made it appear like he wrote it!

    Lou, could you give us an idea of how many pages of total material you've found so far that Johnson has plagiarized?

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jon:

    In the next example I show how much in word count and percent of the other author's material Johnson plagiarized. Then I show what percentage of Johnson's installment is made up of the plagiarized material. You'll have to wait until Tuesday.

    In the first two examples I have to go back and figure it out. I believe the two exceed 20 pages.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  3. Honestly, I wasn't planning on saying much more on this Jim Johnson issue unless something else popped up. Well, it did.

    When I originally read parts of Johnson's articles, they seemed to lack flow. It seemed like he would write, get up and do something else, and come back to write something else with little connection. Now I know why. Johnson plagiarized from multitudes of sources and would literally create paragraphs upon paragraphs by copying and pasting sentences from different sources he found on the internet.

    Rachel mentioned Jim Johnson teaches Internet Research at Rocky Mountain Bible College. Now we can see how Mr. Johnson used his internet research skills. He literally would search for a term on Google and then copy sentences out of other people's articles to create his paragraphs. I hope this is not the sort of "tip" he is giving to his students at Rocky Mountain Bible College.

    -- Greg

    ReplyDelete
  4. The amount and examples of Mr. Johnson’s plagiarism is still growing. There are so many examples (major and minor) one must wonder if any of his articles’ content is original to him.

    It is one thing to have committed such blatant, willful plagiarism, but to deny, blame-shift and suggest these were mistakes all at the same time is pathetic.

    We have appealed to him from the Scriptures and in all sincerity to admit what he has done and repent which would bring closure to this. All attempts, public and private have been met with combativeness, hostility and vitriol. Furthermore, the secrecy behind the alleged reviewers and now un-named editors makes even those claims highly suspect. No one will publicly speak for him and his papers; why is that?

    Because he is unrepentant and appears to be moving ahead with getting these fraudulent articles revised for publication we may need to advise not just the various publishers (electronic and print) that you plagiarized their copyrighted material, but the author’s (those still living) as well.

    Mr. Johnson has suggested, “…making corrections for possible journal publishing.” If he attempts to, or this paper is actually published in any journal, I will immediately contact the publisher and forward all of the documentation surrounding his plagiarism. I don’t think any honest, reputable publisher would want to have his paper in any revised form on their hands. It would frustrate and disgrace them, and they’d have huge PR problem to contend with once it became public. If I were a publisher I would want to be forewarned about this plagiarist.

    It will be at least a week’s worth of new articles to fully disclose the massive plagiarism that makes up his series is concluded.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lou,

    I just checked the GES website to verify - in a single blog comment to me last year Johnson plagiarized three whole pages of material (single spaced)! This was in one comment mind you. In light of this, I shudder to consider how much Johnson plagiarized in his current five part series.

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jon:

    And these secret editors Johnson refers to suggest his paper only needs, "some refinement."

    Bad enough he plagiarized volumes of material, but he and some alledged editors are trying to cover up what he did.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jonathan,

    The interaction from Jim with you on that GES thread is appalling, especially in hindsight considering what has been revealed about his plagiarism and attitudes.

    In Jim's comment on 11/27/07 at 12:30pm he complains that you have quoted him at places other than his own blog and asks that you not do that anymore! And before that he asked that you notify him before you quote him at other blogs! What kind of a request is that? People quote other people all the time, and no one (other than Johnson) complains. I don't see Wilkin or Hodges asking for prior notification before we quote them. How ridiculous.

    In that same comment, Jim also asked Jon, "which scholar peer reviewed your paper?" Yet Jim is unwilling to give even ONE name of ANY of the scholars who have supposedly reviewed his articles.

    And of course, that comment holds his lengthy blatant plagiarism of Mario Cerda's Appendix 6 at Bible.org.

    Then, in a twist of irony, in a comment on 11/20/07 at 11:33pm, Jim says to Jonathan, "Just noticed the diagram of John 20:30-31 you posted on your website, it looks straight out of Bibleworks. Is this your work or the work of the Randy Leedy?"

    That diagram can be found here (note that Jon clearly indicates his source). Jon appropriately answered, "yes, the Greek sentence diagram on my blog is that of Randy Leedy. You will see that I have included a reference to him there." Apparently Jim thinks he can spot plagiarism in others (when the source was clearly marked), but can't manage to identify it when it's his own. Again, very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rachel:

    You wrote, "And before that he asked that you notify him before you quote him at other blogs! What kind of a request is that?"

    Hindsight being 20/20: That request comes from a man who has something to hide and is fearful of it being discovered.

    You wrote, "Jim also asked Jon, "which scholar peer reviewed your paper?" Yet Jim is unwilling to give even ONE name of ANY of the scholars who have supposedly reviewed his articles."

    That is just one of the ridiculous side-shows stemming from Johnson's plagiarism fiasco. Did you notice he now claims to have two men who will edit his paper, again un-named.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rachel,

    Among other things, Mr. Johnson is by far the most inconsistent person I have ever read. As Lou pointed out, one way to explain this is to understand that Johnson may be plagiarizing from three different sources!

    Recently Liam reminded me of a conversation he and I had last year. I was over at Liam's place and we were talking about my debate with Johnson on the GES blog and even the very comment in which Johnson mass-plagiarized Cerda. I had said to Liam: "Yeah Liam, Johnson has really flexed his scholarly muscles!" Well . . . now we know the truth.

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jon:

    Officially there are no less than four sources that Johnson plagiarized. That may not be the final count, but after 30+ pages of stolen material it hardly matters any more.


    LM

    ReplyDelete