Is it OK to plagiarize ideas and results published in Anti TRIZ-journal ?

Y. B. Karasik,
Thoughts Guiding Systems Corp.,
Ottawa, Canada.
e-mail:karasik@sympatico.ca

In 2006 the author of this article published a paper in Anti TRIZ journal titled "What is a mono-system, a bi-system, and a poly-system ?", where he broke away with Altshuller's definition of these systems as consisting of a single object, two objects, and many objects respectively and defined mono-, bi- and poly-systems as systems with one primary function, two primary functions and several primary functions respectively.

It was a significant deviation from Altshuller's tacit vague definition that mono-system is a single object, bi-system is a pair of objects, and poly-system consists of many copies of the same object. Till then all other authors were just spelling out this definition, making it explicit.

Four years have not yet elapsed as this month TRIZ-journal surprisingly published an article by Kai Yang and Hongwei Zhang titled "Two patterns of evolution for technological systems", where they combined both definitions:

There are a few problems with this definition:

What is more disturbing, however, is that Kai Yang and Hongwei Zhang borrowed yet another result from Anti TRIZ-journal without citing it. Namely, they borrowed the conclusion that for transition to a super system (or a high-level system, as they call it) a system does not have to exhaust all venues of its evolution, that such transition may happen at any stage of a system's evolution. This result was published in Anti TRIZ journal back in Spetember of 2006 in the article titled "On logical fallacy of Altshuller law of transition to super system". But now Kai Yang and Hongwei Zhao tout it as their own. Here is what they write in conclusion of their article "Two patterns of evolution for technological systems":

It appears that some people think that it is OK to read Anti TRIZ-journal, borrow its ideas and results, do not cite the source, and present them as their own.