Was This Article Copied? Or Simply Improper Attribution
The articles section includes this newer article dated August 3, 2006 by p_sudeesh (profile at http://www.dev-archive.com/member.php/161877/ ): "How Speech Recognition Works", see http://www.dev-archive.com/cpp/g-m/multimedia/audio/article.php/c12363__1/
The article seems nearly identical, word-for-word, to other articles on the Internet, some of which have copyright dates of 2001. For example:
"Speech Recognition" at http://project.uet.itgo.com/speech.htm which is copyrighted 2001 and is part of a so-called Speech Application Programming Interface http://project.uet.itgo.com/sapi.htm
"How Speech Recognition Works" at http://multicom9.uwaterloo.ca/~deng/tutorials/HOWSR.HTM which is part of the University of Waterloo's Speech and Information Processing (SIP) Lab at http://multicom9.uwaterloo.ca/~deng/
Maybe p_sudesh (the dev-archive author) can come forward and state that he is the original author of the article, or at least give proper attribution to his sources.
Mike
[1033 byte] By [
MikeAThon] at [2007-11-20 0:51:46]
# 1 Re: Was This Article Copied? Or Simply Improper Attribution
It's almost word to word match, I think it's definitly copied from those university tutorials.
I think dev-archive article reviewer should run a check on this.
# 2 Re: Was This Article Copied? Or Simply Improper Attribution
For me, the tip-off that it might be very old, was on the second page, which states that one form of speech recognition would require "a 486/33 to run real-time", and stated almost apologetically that another form would require "a Pentium 60". Haven't seen machines like that in quite a while.
Mike
# 3 Re: Was This Article Copied? Or Simply Improper Attribution
I've asked Susan to follow up with the author. If the author wrote the original article, then it is okay. If not, then we will get the article removed from our site.
Thanks for the catch.
Brad!
# 4 Re: Was This Article Copied? Or Simply Improper Attribution
I think dev-archive article reviewer should run a check on this.
If indeed this article is a plagiarization then is one of many others that didn't pass over reviewers which usually do more than simply google search for word-by-word matching.
// just two cents from an article reviewer.
PS. You can post a comment to that article, as well, asking the author about this issue.
