[eminent101]

I looked at the cited examples but none of them look like “plagiarism”. They look like ordinary sentences and if I had to write them myself, I would come up with similar wordings too!

Like for example take the description of “behavior trees”. There are only so many ways you can describe a behavior tree. If 10 papers out there introduce behavior tree by describing it, some of those descriptions are bound to look very similar.

This is like arguing that my paper on prime numbers is plagiarised because the definition of prime numbers in my paper looks very similar to the definition of prime numbers in another paper.

With the amount of literature on these subjects out there, it is natural that some sentences I write would end up looking similar to some sentences in thousands of literature out there.

[brabel]

Do you have any reason to disagree with the final sentence:

"Andreas has claimed that the text that is identical in his Phd to uncited sources is just composed of “common phrases”, this is highly unlikely to be the case since the indentical text is usually more than 9 consecutive words and is only found in one other earlier source from which there are usually multiple 9+ consecutive-word identical phrases in his Phd."

Do you have evidence that it's actually "relatively common" that sentences with many, many more than 9 words are identical?

[eminent101]

If you take something as ordinary as “behavior tree”, 9+ consecutive words don’t surprise me. Many definitions across literature often look very alike.

> behavior trees, the system will often travel down the root of

How else would you write this? To be honest, I’d have written it exactly this way too. I’m sure many other researchers would write it this way too.

I mean this is such a weak example. If there were 9+ consecutive words matching each other in more meatier parts of the paper, then I would be very suspicious.

But the examples cited are about trivial sentences describing ordinary stuff where two people might describe the same thing in exactly the same way because there are only very few ways to describe them.

[Simon_O_Rourke]

It seems like someone has a axe to grind here, maybe they didn't get a professorship and see this guy and think the next best thing is to torpedo his chances.

If the thesis reworks original works and cites it then that's perfectly legitimate I would think.

[slow_typist]

If it happens 50+ times in a single text you would also hit the jackpot with a single lottery ticket but I get your point and it feels like we need a better working definition of plagiarism. Also keep in mind that plagiarism is just a subset of academic fraud and the part that is easily detected.