That which plagiarizes, may not always have more. Or, in other words, the friction may rub a lot, out of even the source papers. The "gains" can be negative, as such. We discuss these, and a lot more, through the case-study: copycat82, at this site.
This page is about the reference info, mostly, if you would like to locate it.
I do not mention/publish copycat82, with its full reference-info, at this site. Those names are available, though, through e-mail, to those who are qualified.
StrategyUpdate(2008): a tail, off to cities exposes copycat82.
Currently, the term qualified means, either a person involved with computers/software/systems, professionally, or semi-professionally, and/or a person who feels the responsibility to be active in revoking such falsely-granted (undeserving and/or plagiarizing) Ph.D. titles - especially if the person (you) hold(s) an academical/board position that is relevant to evaluating such cases. Verifying what I present, at this site, about copycat82/83, with the text of copycat82, and/or with copycat83 (the associated, published paper), may support your positive work.
Other readers may do the search themselves - until, if, I find ways to test the relevance and/or competence of those who ask the names/references.
That may take a little time. But, when/if you locate copycat82, co-witnessing what I describe is the only natural result. And you may keep asking yourself "How could such a text, have been granted a PhD? Is that magic?"
After reading my articles, about copycat82, you must be convinced that such a text, does not deserve to be granted a Ph.D. title. This is the important point. And I do think, these pages are very accurate. You verify this, when you locate, and read the text of copycat82/83.
The main simplifying truth is that copycat82 is not an original one. As a result, even without ever reading copycat82 itself, you can know all the useable knowledge in it, and more, by only reading the original sources, that were published before copycat82. This is what I provide, when I present that prior art.
copycat83 corresponds basically to the chapter three of copycat82 (the make-up applied). That is, the re-publishing a translation of (mostly, if not totally, the similar looking features of), macro E-nets (NN73,Da80), and/or VD78 papers, but without citing them as such. That is, it also plagiarizes, and has a variety of errors. At the seams, the nature is clearer as trivial-examples-promoted-as-novelty-and-then-leading-to-massive-unhandled-gotchas.
copycat83 may be a middle ground, for those who would not like to check the case with the length of copycat82, or would not care to order a copy of it. That may motivate those academicians, and board members who would like to verify my claims to some important extent, before ordering a reprint of copycat82, through UMI.
The copycat82 person, and his advisor (an IEEE fellow) have published copycat83 (the paper associated with copycat82, the "Ph.D." text). Up until 1994-1995 season when I did my studies about this case, more than a decade after the PhD was granted, copycat83 was still the only SCI (Science Citation Index) listed paper with the name of the PhD grantee.
Recently, in 2004, I found only a second paper (published in 1997), presumably by the Ph.D. student that was the co-author. I have not read that paper, yet. I guess, from what I had gathered and discussed already, that, either that "co-"author, the real author, wrote it all by herself, and copycat82-person was listed because he was the project-"advisor." Or, otherwise, that paper may/must be all the same, similar to what he had published upto/including 1994-1995, and the trade-magazine/bulletin attacks (i.e: aggressive-junk) he published later. Let me comment about it, after investigating that paper, too, though. For the purposes of this site, I neglect it. (Without a valid Ph.D. for the person himself, he was not supposed to stand as a Ph.D. "advisor" for anyone, any way, I think.) We concentrate at 1994-95. That is a sufficiently long period of time, after 1982.
copycat83 has been published in the november 1983 issue of a journal, the year after copycat82's publication. The footnote reads: "Manuscript received November 6 1981; revised March 21, 1983. This work was supported by the U.S. Army Research Office under Contract DAA-C29-80-K-0092." I hope the U.S. army people read this site, too.
The explicit reference for copycat83, as with copycat82, is not published, at this site. But, if you are someone relevant, the name of the paper is also available through e-mail.
StrategyUpdate(2008): Review: copycat83 (Yau & Çaglayan) exposes copycat83.