GMU as expected has taken the minimum slap at Wegman's wrist. Dan Vergano has the story
In a statement to GMU faculty, provost Peter Stearns said that one investigation committee unanimously found that "no misconduct was involved" in the 2006 Congressional report. "Extensive paraphrasing of another work did occur, in a background section, but the work was repeatedly referenced and the committee found that the paraphrasing did not constitute misconduct," he said, in the statement.
A second university committee found unanimously, "that plagiarism occurred in contextual sections of the (CSDA) article, as a result of poor judgment for which Professor Wegman, as team leader, must bear responsibility." Wegman will receive an "official letter of reprimand", Stearns said, as sanction for the plagiarism.GMU had to acknowledge the plagiarism in the paper by the journal having withdrawn it. Of course, Prof. Wegman was not the one who plagiarized, he was merely responsible for it. Will GMU sanction whoever did? Don't hold your breath bunnies. Other issues not to hold your breath on are the multiple other acts of plagiarism from the Wegman group. Obviously GMU is not interested in following up unless ORI forces them to.
There was, of course reaction
"Yes, plagiarism does matter," says scientific misconduct expert Nicholas Steneck of the University of Michigan, a former Office of Research Integrity official, by e-mail. Plagiarism is one of the "Big Three" of science misconduct offenses, alongside falsifying and fabricating data that trigger punishment from federal research agencies."If the project is federally funded, the results of the investigation must be forwarded to the appropriate agency," Steneck says.The Rabetts will see if ORI accepts the GMU report. GMU is not releasing it. Further surprise.