© 2025 Charles Sun. All rights reserved.
Subjects of Analysis
· Source
Article:
Sun, C. (2016, May 19). No IoT without IPv6. ComputerWorld. https://www.computerworld.com/article/1664898/no-iot-without-ipv6-2.html
·
Subject Article:
IPv6 and Internet of Things: Prospects for Latin America. (2017, July 17). IEEE
IoT Newsletter. https://iot.ieee.org/articles-publications/newsletter/july-2017/ipv6-and-internet-of-things-prospects-for-latin-america.html
Executive Summary
This forensic analysis identifies multiple, verifiable instances of plagiarism within a July 2017 IEEE IoT Newsletter article. The investigation reveals that the piece systematically appropriates specific phrasing, unique statistical data, core argumentative structures, and central conceptual frameworks from Mr. Sun’s earlier work with no attribution. The types of plagiarism identified range from verbatim copying and patchwriting to the severe misappropriation of a unique intellectual concept and the intentional obfuscation of sources to disguise stolen research. These practices constitute a severe and multi-layered breach of academic and journalistic integrity, misrepresenting the originality of the work and failing to credit the original author for his research, synthesis, and innovative ideas.
The following section documents each identified instance of plagiarism with direct citations from both source texts for verification. Instances are ordered by their appearance in the subject IEEE article.
Instance 1: The Central Thesis and Title
Source (ComputerWorld, 2016):
Title: “No IoT without IPv6”
Paragraph 1: "Does your company foresee making
big bucks from the Internet of Things? It won’t be happening without
widespread adoption of IPv6 first."
Paragraph 3: "Without the extensive global
adoption and successful deployment of IPv6... the IoT won’t be
possible."
IEEE Article (2017):
First Paragraph:
"Internet of Things (IoT) clearly needs
more IP addresses than IPv4 can provide. As a result, there is no IoT
without IPv6."
Analysis: The IEEE article's central thesis and its most memorable phrase are taken directly from the ComputerWorld article's title and opening argument. Its use as the foundational premise demonstrates a pattern of copying from the source material.
Type of Plagiarism: Verbatim (for the phrase) and Ideational (for the core concept).
Severity: High. It forms the primary argument of the article.
Instance 2: Misappropriation of the "50 Billion Devices" Projection
Source (ComputerWorld, 2016):
Reason #1, Paragraph 2:
"Cisco is thinking even bigger; it has
projected that there will be more than 50 billion devices connected to the
Internet by 2020."
IEEE Article (2017):
First Paragraph:
"Information Technologies (IT) experts
predict that there will be over 50 billion ‘connected devices’ by 2020."
Analysis: The IEEE article lifts the specific 50 billion figure that Charles Sun explicitly attributes to Cisco. It replaces the clear attribution ("Cisco") with the vague and unsourced "IT experts," obfuscating the origin of the data and plagiarizing the author's act of selecting and presenting this specific statistic.
Type of Plagiarism: Misappropriation of Research / Source Obscurement.
Severity: Medium. It copies a specific, sourced data point while removing its citation.
Instance 3: Verbatim Use of the "4.3 Billion Addresses" Fact
Source (ComputerWorld, 2016):
Reason #1, Paragraph 3:
"IPv4 has only 4.3
billion possible IP addresses."
IEEE Article (2017):"the current Internet Protocol version 4
(IPv4) offers just under, 4.3 billion unique IP addresses."
Analysis: This is a near-verbatim copy of a factual statement. The exact phrasing "4.3 billion" is a direct lift from the ComputerWorld article, demonstrating a lack of original composition.
Type of Plagiarism: Verbatim.
Severity: Low-Medium. It is a direct copy of a well-known factual phrase.
Instance 4: Description of IPv6 Address Space
Source (ComputerWorld, 2016):
Reason #1, Paragraph 6:
"It [IPv6] has a total of 340
undecillion (that is 340 trillion trillion trillion) addresses."
IEEE Article (2017):
Second Paragraph:
"The new Internet Protocol version 6
(IPv6) extends the IPv4 address space from 32 bits to 128 bits (340
undecillion or 340 trillion trillion trillion), which should be sufficient
for the next decades."
Analysis: This is a near-verbatim copy of a highly specific and descriptive phrase. The parenthetical explanation "340 trillion trillion trillion" is a distinctive phrasing choice by the original author, copied exactly.
Type of Plagiarism: Verbatim.
Severity: Medium. It is a direct copy of unique descriptive text.
Instance 5: Argument on Leadership and Vision
Source (ComputerWorld, 2016):
Heading for Reason #5:
"Adopting IPv6 is a matter of
leadership, vision and competitive edge."
Paragraph 5: "What really matters is whether a
company’s leadership has the vision to ensure that it retains
a competitive edge..."
IEEE Article (2017):
Third Paragraph:
"IPv6 is about
vision, leadership, innovation and competitive edge."
Analysis: The IEEE article condenses the ComputerWorld article's fifth reason into a single, plagiarized sentence. It copies the three key nouns—"vision," "leadership," and "competitive edge"—and adds "innovation," while maintaining the identical core message and phrasing.
Type of Plagiarism: Verbatim and Patchwriting.
Severity: High. It directly lifts the language of the original author's conclusion.
Instance 6: Misappropriation and Source Manipulation of IoT Market Valuation
Source (ComputerWorld, 2016):
Final Paragraph:
"One estimate, from Business
Insider, is that the IoT represents at least a $6 trillion opportunity."
IEEE Article (2017):
Sixth Paragraph:
"According to McKinsey, the
IoT market will generate between $6 to 10 trillion a year by 2025"
Analysis: This is a sophisticated and serious form of plagiarism involving source manipulation. The author uses the ComputerWorld article as the source for the $6 trillion valuation but alters the figure range and timeframe. Most egregiously, the author substitutes the original source (Business Insider) with a different one (McKinsey). This is a deliberate obfuscation designed to present the researched information as the product of the author's own independent literature review.
Type of Plagiarism: Misappropriation of Research and Source Fabrication/Obfuscation.
Severity: High. This demonstrates intentionality and a calculated effort to disguise the theft of another author's research, a severe violation of ethics.
Instance 7: The "Experimental vs. Production" Conceptual Framework (MAJOR INSTANCE)
Source (ComputerWorld, 2016):
Reason #4:
"According to Vint Cerf, one
of the fathers of the Internet... IPv4 is only “the experimental
version of the Internet.”... As Cerf stated, IPv6 is the actual
production version of the Internet for the 21st century. Why have we
been using a beta version in our production environment for so long?"
Analysis of Concept: Sun uses a quote from Vint Cerf to create a powerful and unique rhetorical framework: framing IPv4 as an outdated "experimental/beta" system and IPv6 as the true "production" system for the future.
IEEE Article (2017) Use of the Concept:
1. False Front: The article opens
with a different, correctly cited Vint Cerf quote.
2. Conceptual Appropriation
in Conclusions:
"Latin American private sector,
government and academia need to accelerate the IoT and IPv6 adoption... [due
to] unwillingness to change what works."
Analysis: The phrase "
unwillingness to change what works" is a direct conceptual theft. "What works" refers to IPv4, the system Cerf called "experimental." The critique that persistence with it is due to an "unwillingness to change" is the entire point Sun made using Cerf's authority. The IEEE author strips the concept of its powerful framing and supporting evidence and presents the resulting insight as her own.
Type of Plagiarism: Ideational Plagiarism (theft of the core concept) and Paraphrasing without Attribution.
Severity: Critical. This is the most severe form identified. It moves beyond copying text to stealing the intellectual and rhetorical architecture of the original author's argument, fundamentally misrepresenting the IEEE author's own analytical capabilities.
Overall Conclusion
The IEEE article "IPv6 and Internet of Things: Prospects for Latin America" contains multiple, verifiable instances of plagiarism from Charles Sun's "No IoT without IPv6." The plagiarized elements are not incidental; they form the foundational pillars of the IEEE article: its central thesis, its key supporting data, its unique descriptive language, its concluding argument on business leadership, and its core conceptual framework.
The pattern of misconduct ranges from careless copying to Intentional Deception, as evidenced by the substitution of source citations in Instance 6. The practices detailed in this report violate fundamental principles of academic and journalistic integrity, including:
- IEEE Code of Ethics: Specifically Section 7.2 (II) of the IEEE Code of Ethics: "to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data," and the general imperative to reject plagiarism in all its forms.
- Academic Standard: The failure to provide attribution for ideas, concepts, and research constitutes a severe breach of scholarly conduct.
This analysis confirms that the IEEE article fails to meet the minimum expectations of original scholarship and proper attribution. The severity and extent of these instances warrant formal investigation and corrective action by the IEEE Publications Board.
Recommended Actions
The evidence leaves no room for doubt: this is a case of pervasive plagiarism and a direct violation of publication ethics, as well as established academic and professional standards. Such misconduct strikes at the heart of scholarly integrity and cannot be excused or minimized.
The IEEE IoT Newsletter editorial board must take immediate, decisive action:
- Formally retract the plagiarized article from all IEEE platforms and archives.
- Issue a public statement of censure against the author, explicitly acknowledging the ethical breach.
- Affirm IEEE’s commitment to enforcing its own publication standards and protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.
Anything less than full accountability will signal tolerance for intellectual theft and erode trust in IEEE’s editorial process. The credibility of the institution demands that this matter be addressed openly, decisively, and without delay.
Citation Formats for This Article:
APA (7th Edition) CitationCharles Sun. (2025, September 19). Forensic analysis report: Plagiarism in IEEE IoT Newsletter article. IPv6 Czar's Blog.
https://ipv6czar.blogspot.com/2025/09/forensic-analysis-report-plagiarism-in.htmlMLA (9th Edition) CitationSun, Charles. "Forensic Analysis Report: Plagiarism in IEEE IoT Newsletter Article." IPv6 Czar's Blog, 19 Sept. 2025,
https://ipv6czar.blogspot.com/2025/09/forensic-analysis-report-plagiarism-in.htmlChicago (17th Edition) CitationCharles Sun. "Forensic Analysis Report: Plagiarism in IEEE IoT Newsletter Article." IPv6 Czar’s Blog. September 19, 2025.
https://ipv6czar.blogspot.com/2025/09/forensic-analysis-report-plagiarism-in.htmlDisclaimer: The views presented are only personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Government.
#PlagiarismExposed #PublishingEthics #IEEEAccountability #ForensicDocumentation #IntellectualIntegrity #NoIoTWithoutIPv6 #CitationMatters #TechTransparency #DataMisuse #CharlesSunReports
© 2025 Charles Sun. All rights reserved.
