Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Micropaleontological Fraud

Bruno Granier just published a new article on a case of micropaleontological fraud the microplaeontological community was confronted with during the last years.

Abstract: Starting in 1996 and for almost a decade, M.M. Imam contributed to twelve papers published in international geological journals. These papers dealt with the micropaleontology and biostratigraphy of Cretaceous to Miocene series from Egypt and Libya. They were abundantly illustrated in order to support the author's findings and interpretations. However most photographic illustrations (189 at least) were fabricated with material lifted from the publications of other authors, commonly from localities or stratigraphic intervals other than those indicated by M.M. Imam.

This case was heavily discussed during the last years (just google for micropaleontological fraud). It was also mentioned previously in the geoblogosphere for example in the El PaleoFreak blog. Take a look at the comments of this post and you'll see what 'heavy weapons' are used especially by the suspect...


Anonymous said...

Please correct "Granier" (for "Garnier")


Anonymous said...

all that Granier said in his article barren of truths as we know that there were great debate between Prof. Imam and This doctor. Imam published also an article exposing the fraudulent behavior of Granier that I will attach it later

Anonymous said...

Severl micropalentological papers have been carried out by Granier Duplication of previously published text or figuresin the scientific literature without adequate citation is plagiarism or, in the case of an author’s own work, selfplagiarism.It breaches the ethical standards that are expected in science and threatens the integrity of scientific journals.Three examples of duplication are noted, one of whichinvolves Palaeontology. Redundant publication lowers thequality of scientific literature, damages the good standing of journals, and reduces the intellectual impact of a study. Multiple papers on a particular theme are only acceptable if each builds significantly upon previous work and contains only as much background information as necessary to put the new
data and observations into perspective.