PLAGIARISM: DOES INDIA NEED A REGULATORY BODY OR ETHICAL EDUCATION TO CURB ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT? Plagiarism is an academic misconduct and one of the three high crimes of research fraud. Where institutions fail to act against perpetrators of misconduct, science itself is the loser and the scientific integrity of the whole institution is in question and a cloud will remain over the research community globally. Since Plagiarism is considered a serious offence, it could lead to, as the case may be, “expelling a student from a University, terminating a Professor’s teaching contract, or suing someone for monetary compensation”. Scientists in my opinion, cannot afford this luxury; for by training and by expectations, they are expected to faithfully express what they observe, results of what they analyse or what they believe to be their own findings or concepts. In other words of Jackson, “these men and women are seen as the paragons of Virtue in the intellectual community. They are priesthood, arrayed in white apparel, tinkering with test tubes and peering through microscopes in a sophiscated “holy of holies”. Academic dishonesty and its consequences have become increasingly complex. Highly accessible electronic media, profound consequences for misconduct and reporting and lack of standard practice intensify the issues. Just like with other forms of theft, the legal penalties for the crime vary depending on the severity. Going into a store and stealing a pack of gum is a lesser offence compared with stealing a car. Plagiarism is not only a crime per se but in academia and industry it is a serious ethical offense, and cases of plagiarism can constitute copyright infringement. Self-plagiarism involves dishonesty and intellectual theft. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (2009) defines plagiarism as the act of “taking the work or idea of someone else and pass it off as one’s own”. According to Patrick M. Scanlon: Self-plagiarism is a term with some specialized currency. Most prominently, it is used in discussions of research and publishing integrity in biomedicine, where heavy publish-or-perish demands have led to a rash of duplicate and salami-slicing publication, the reporting of a single studys results in least publishable units within multiple articles (Blancett, Flanagin, & Young, 1995; Jefferson, 1998; Kassirer & Angell, 1995; Lowe, 2003; McCarthy, 1993; Schein & Paladugu, 2001; Wheeler, 1989). Roig (2002) offers a useful classification system including four types of self-plagiarism: duplicate publication of an article in more than one journal; partitioning of one study into multiple publications, often called salami-slicing; text recycling; and copyright infringement. i. Plagiarism is the wrongful appropriation and purloining and publication of another authors language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as ones own original work. The idea remains problematic with unclear definitions and unclear rules. The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement. Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. It is subject to sanctions like expulsion. ii. The first step to preventing plagiarism is to educate people about what plagiarism is, why it is wrong and how to properly cite sources? The second step to prevent plagiarism is to utilize detection software that can accurately weed out instances of duplicate content prior to distribution. This effectively prevents any damage from being done because the plagiarized content never gets beyond a Institution’s walls. iii. Perhaps a two-fold approach would be best: moving towards a more universal system of plagiarism penalties within Institutions, while also doubling up the effort by preventing plagiarism before it happens through education and technology. iv. At most jobs, plagiarism is highly frowned upon, particularly within journalism, freelance writing, academic and legal careers. Journalists such as Jayson Blair and Gerald Posner have lost their jobs due to plagiarism. College/ University Professors who plagiarize are usually forced to resign, and lawyers who plagiarize are disciplined by their respective Bar Associations / Bar Council’s of their own countries. v. The personal punishments for plagiarizing can be much worse than the academic, workplace or legal punishment. It takes years to establish a reputation, and a single instance of plagiarism can tarnish a good name. Even if the plagiarist is not expelled, sued, jailed or fired, he may permanently lose the respect of his colleagues and friends. Plagiarism also punishes the plagiarist personally by denying them of learning opportunities. Students, employees and writers gain critical thinking, language, reading and research skills through writing. However, plagiarizing denies them the chance to develop such skills. Lack of these skills may prevent the plagiarist from achieving personal and professional growth. vi. If plagiarism is just an allegations against any person or Institution, and found to be false or made forging someone else signature may affect his reputation. Reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the good opinion of others and it is a personal right and an enquiry to reputation is a personal injury. Thus, scandal and defamation are injurious to reputation. Reputation has been defined in dictionary as to have a good name; the credit, honor, or character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem and character by reports. Personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Therefore, it has been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 recognises the right to have opinions and the right of freedom of expression under Article 19 is subject to the right of reputation of others. Reputation is not only a salt of life but the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. (Vide: Smt. Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. The Committee of Inquiry & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 714; Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v.Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 109; Nilgiris Bar Association v. TK Mahalingam & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 398; Dr. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2573; Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, AIR 2012 SC 586; and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 2 SCC 398). vii. In articles in Current Science by P.Balaram (2005), and K.K.Rao (2008), “Plagiarism, a scourge” stated that the perceived punishments when plagiarism is discovered are ‘disgrace, humiliation, ostracism and penalties’. Posner states, that ‘the stigma of plagiarism seems never to fade completely, not because it is an especially heinous crime/offence, not because it is embarrassingly second rate; its practitioners are pathetic, almost ridiculous’. Thus the extent of plagiarism has to indexed on some scale and it must be subjected to ‘an appropriately graded scale of punishment’, taking into account harm or injury that plagiarism inflict on the victim(s) and also the incentive to repeat the offence, if the plagiarist is allowed to go ‘Scot- free’. Despite the fact that there is social pressure to publish at any cost. One must see that, in this process Scientists do not get away easily, as originality is prized commodity in this profession. viii. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this article is a letter dated 25.03.2013 received by the Vice-chancellor, University of Delhi, purported to have been written by Society for Values and Ethics in Education (SVEE) - a non-profit organization working for maintaining Values and Ethics in education in the country, enclosing a report given by expert body / institution of repute specializing in Information Technology and Cyber crimes; informing about the copyright violations by one Prof. Gurmeet Singh and his co-authors at the University of Delhi and also asking for an impartial enquiry by the University against Prof. Gurmeet Singh, Prof. of Chemistry and Former Proctor of the University of Delhi. A large numbers of documents were annexed in support of the allegations in the complaint. As a practice, the Vice-chancellor is duty bound to forward the said complaint to the Dean, Faculty of Science and Head, Department of Chemistry, for detailed enquiry to be conducted to ascertain the facts. It is reported that the accused, Prof. Gurmeet Singh claimed that the said complaint is fake and there is no material in the facts for enquiry and pleading innocence. It is expected from the University administration that the aggrieved, Prof. Gurmeet Singh be given an opportunity to defend himself and the University is duty bound to ascertain the facts at its own levels as well. If necessary, the complainant NGO be impleaded as a respondent in the enquiry and all documents demanded by the either parties be provided for fair and just enquiry. The complaint is duly supported by a number of documents showing that the aggrieved Prof. Gurmeet Singh has abused his position and did not bother for any fear of crosschecking the published articles in questions, wherein, 85% and 75% plagiarism has been reported. As per the Indian Copyright Law, 1957, amended to date Prof. Singh is prime facie guilty of copyright violations and self-plagiarism. Even if someone had hatched a conspiracy against him, and obtained the reports of plagiarism and copyright violations on his published research papers and filed a complaint in fictitious name or otherwise, the University is duty bound to ascertain the facts through a duly constituted enquiry committee of experts by the competent body and provide full opportunity to Prof. Gurmeet Singh and others for a fair and just enquiry and actions thereafter. Therefore, there could be no malice or malafides as the complainant NGO is concerned, if the facts are not in dispute. Attempts should be made by the University to hold the enquiry relating to the genuineness of the allegations in the complaint purported to have been signed by the President of the NGO. ix. If the aforesaid facts clearly reveal that the material annexed with the said complaint is correct and there is a truth in the said allegations, and a case is made out of academic misconduct: Violation of Copyright, or Plagiarism or Self-Plagiarism. In that event the charges should be framed by the competent authority and not by the Vice-chancellor. It is a settled law that if allegations against any person are found to be false or made for any reason, it will affect his reputation, however, if the matter being of grave nature, it requires an investigation and fault cannot be found with the complainant NGO. Even the Criminal Law can be put in motion after investigation and the charge sheet finalized by the competent authority, though it is subject to scrutiny by the Court of Law. The inherent powers of the Vice-chancellor’s should not be exercised to harass the aggrieved Prof. Gurmeet Singh without due investigation and approval by the competent authority as it is not permissible to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of subside ground for proceedings against the accuse and the Vice-chancellor can look into the materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter of enquiry and due application of the mind by the Executive Council and it will save Prof. Singh to undergo the mental agony . x. The Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar v Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC 330, while dealing with the issue held as follows: xi. “Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section A 482Â of the Code of Criminal Procedure: (ii) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? (iii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iv) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (v) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? i. However, quashing the charge-sheet even before cognizance is taken by a criminal Court amounts to killing a still born child. Till the criminal Court takes cognizance of the offence there is no criminal proceedings pending. The issue of malafides loses its significance if there is a substance in the allegation made in complaint moved with malice.” ii. Thus, in view of the above, it becomes evident that in case there is some substance in the allegations and material exists to substantiate the complicity of the applicant, the case is to be examined in its full conspectus and the proceedings should not be quashed only on the ground that the same had been initiated with malafides to wreak vengeance or to achieve an ulterior goal. iii. It is a settled legal proposition that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained. However, as a matter of caution, the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused. More so, the court must conclude that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation. iv. In a recent Judgment Umesh Kumar vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 6 September, 2013, Hon’ble Supreme Court based on the above facts and contentions concluded as under: v. “Be that as it may, facts of the case warranted some enquiry in respect of the allegations of acquiring huge properties by Shri V. Dinesh Reddy respondent no.2. The State took the courage to flout the order of the Central Government and did not look into the contents of the complaint and misdirected the enquiry against Umesh Kumar, appellant. In such a fact-situation, this court would not fail in its duty to direct the enquiry in those allegations. vi. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of directing the CBI to investigate the matter against Shri V. Dinesh Reddy respondent no. 2 on the allegations of acquiring the disproportionate assets. However, this should not be considered as expressing any opinion upon the merits of the case. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh is directed to make the copies of the said sale deeds available to the CBI for investigation”. vii. In the above backdrop of legal situations, it is clear that even if the complain is made by any individual or NGO bonafide or not and if the material annexed with the complaint is of grave nature, it certainly requires investigations by the competent bodies and that should follow the consequences as per law. viii. Every university has prize-winning researchers, or Professors who routinely get their faces on the late-night news. “Celebrity academics” are typically figures everywhere in the country but sometimes they also face charge of plagiarism, to cite a few: 2. A University of Colorado investigating committee found Ethnic Studies Professor and activist Ward Churchill guilty of multiple counts of plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. After the Chancellor recommended Churchills dismissal to the Board of Regents, Churchill was fired on 24 July 2007. 3. Physicist and Vice Chancellor of Kumaon University, India, Prof. B.S. Rajput was forced to resign in 2003 after he and a student were found guilty of plagiarism of a paper (which formed part of the students thesis). 4. In 2007 researchers of Anna University Chennai in Madras published a paper in the Journal of Materials Science an exact copy of an article from the University of Linköping published in PNAS 5. In April 2008, James Twitchell, a Professor of literature at the University of Florida, admitted having plagiarized and falsified the works of multiple authors. 6. In March 2010, Manuel V. Pangilinan, a prominent Filipino businessman and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ateneo de Manila University, was found to have given a commencement speech that contained numerous lines lifted from speeches of other prominent public figures. Pangilinan offered to resign from his post at the university, which was rejected by the Board of Trustees, a move which garnered controversy. 7. In March 2010, Prof. Wang Hui of Department of Chinese Language and Literature, Tsinghua University, was charged by Wang Binbin, a Professor of literature from Nanjing University, of plagiarism found in his doctoral dissertation on Lu Xun. Wang Binbin also sampled one chapter in Wang Huis four-volume magnum opus The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought, and accused Wang Hui of abuse of the sources 8. Suman Sahai, an Indian biochemist, was found to have plagiarized from Frode Fonnum in her 1986 habilitation thesis submitted to the University of Heidelberg. 9. Russian President Vladimir Putin has been accused of plagiarism by fellows at the Brookings Institution who allege that Large chunks of Putins economics dissertation on planning in the natural resources sector were lifted from a management text published by two University of Pittsburgh academics nearly 20 years earlier. i. On 27 June 1997, at the Saint Petersburg Mining Institute Putin defended his Candidate of Science dissertation in economics titled The Strategic Planning of Regional Resources Under the Formation of Market Relations. According to Clifford G Gaddy, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution, a Washington DC think tank, sixteen of the twenty pages that open a key section of Putins 218-page thesis were copied either word for word or with minute alterations from a management study, Strategic Planning and Policy, written by US professors William King and David Cleland and translated into Russian by a KGB-related institute in the early 1990s. Six diagrams and tables were also copied. Gaddy said theres no question in my mind that this would be plagiarism, but nevertheless does not believe that the plagiarism was really intentional in the sense that if you had wanted to hide where the text came from you wouldnt even list this work in the bibliography. ii. The dissertation committee disagreed with Gaddys claims. Chairman of the committee Natalia Pashkevich, accused Gaddy of not reading the dissertation very well. There are references to the article mentioned. Everything is done correctly... It is only a plus for Vladimir Putin that he used not only Russian authors, but foreign ones as well. Anatoly Suslov, provost of economics at the Mining Institute, who was present at Putin dissertation defense, recalled: The opponent was someone from Moscow. The defense went calmly. There were many questions, of course, since it was a candidates dissertation, but there was no question of plagiarism. No one uncovered anything of the kind. Vladimir Putin defended himself, and he prepared his own work. All those conversations about dissertations being bought are untrue. Ours isnt the kind of institute where you can do that. In his dissertation, and in a later article published in 1999, Putin advocated the idea of so-called National champions, a concept that would later become central to his political thinking. iii. Rector of the institute, Vladimir Litvinenko, who oversaw Putins work, later received 5% of the stock of chemical company Phosagro. His share is now worth about $260,000,000. 10. On June 18, 2012, Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta has been accused by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of plagiarizing his 2003 PhD thesis, written in 2004 on the International Criminal Court. The German newspaper compares Ponta to former Hungarian President Pál Schmitt and former German Defense minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, who resigned following charges of plagiarism. Also Nature magazine writes that Ponta is accused of copying large sections of previous publications without properly quoting the source. Nature claimed that more than half of Pontas doctorate at the University of Bucharest consists of duplicated text from various works published by Dumitru Diaconu, Vasile Creţu and Ion Diaconu The magazine quoted Marius Andruh, president of the Romanian council for the recognition of university diplomas, as saying: The evidence of plagiarism is overwhelming. 11. Though Oakland University imposes serious consequences on students who commit plagiarism, but the Board of Trustees appointed two faculty members to senior positions in 2012 who were found to have resubmitted the same research in two leading academic journals -- an offense considered self-plagiarism, which has severe consequences in the academic community. 12. A cut-and-paste job by a PhD student has embroiled co-author Prof. C. N. R. Rao, Chairman; Science Advisory Committee to India’s Prime Minister — has been in controversy. The paper, by Rao and materials scientist Saluru Baba Krupanidhi at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, along with two of their students — Basant Chitara and L. S. Panchakarla — explored the use of reduced graphene oxide and graphene nanoribbons as infrared photo detectors and was published online by Advanced Materials in July last year1. But three sentences in the introduction and a description of an equation had been copied verbatim from a paper published in Applied Physics Letters in April 2010, with the source referenced. Chitara says he was responsible for the error, and has “sincerely apologized”. He says he had intended to modify the sentences later but forgot. 13. Few years ago, Dr. Raghunath Mashelkar, FRS, Former Director General CSIR and a leading science-policy expert, shocked Indian academia when he admitted that a book he co-authored in 2004 about intellectual property contained plagiarized text. i. I was working on so many things at the time that I took the help of researchers to add new information to what I had written, he told Science magazine. Unfortunately, they copied verbatim from somebody elses writings. I know it is a sin. But I was so pressed for time that this skipped my attention. ii. Mashelkar later resigned as head of a government committee looking into Indian patent law after accusations surfaced that a section of a committee report he wrote was also plagiarized. 14. Society for Scientific Values (SSV), India activities have been focused on cases of plagiarism and on fostering ethical values to students , academic faculty and research scientists, primarily because of convenience due to limited manpower and financial resources. Nevertheless, it was agreed that SSV should also engage itself with other related and important issues such as S&T management ethics and regulatory ethics provided credible information is made available to the Society for follow up. In last few years, SSV reported many such cases including that of Delhi University, their observations as under: i. (i).On the basis of further information available with SSV, “after in depth analysis of Prof. Shashi Babbars case, it is once again concluded that there is only a mild recycling of the contents from one of his papers to another. The later published in a Conference Proceedings, according to Dr. Babbar, Botany Department, was neither communicated nor presented by him. The SSV decided that same be posted on its website”. ii. (ii)The alleged scientific misconduct and plagiarisation of the papers of his predecessor by Prof Dyanand Dongaonkar, Secretary General , Association of Indian Universities has been investigated and verified. Prof Dongaonkar and all members of the Executive Council of AIU have been requested to give their comments. However, despite two reminders, SSV has not heard anything. The EC decided to post this case on the website. (ii) Mr Rait , a PhD student of the Electronics Department of the South Delhi Campus of Delhi University, being guided by Profs Bhatnagar, P C Mathur and Sengupta has published the same research paper twice with different titles in two different international journals, The President reported that SSV has brought this serious case of plagiarism twice to the attention of Prof Deepak Pental, VC of DU, Prof Dinesh Singh, the Director of South Delhi Campus of DU, Prof Verma , the Head of the Electronics Department and the supervisors of the student. None of these academics has responded, inquired into, or take any action on this very clear case of plagiarism by a Ph D student who was on the verge of getting his Ph.D. from the University. The EC decided that this case be posted on SSV website. i. (iv).EC decided that the cases of (a) complaints of biased editors by Profs Karmeshu of JNU, and Sitaramam , (b) plagiarisation by Profs Krishnan and Selladurai which have been verified be posted on the SSV website. ii. (v). Dr. Khanuja, Director CIMAP (CSIR): Besides being a coauthor of most publications and patents originating from CIMAP of which he is the Director, some of the publications of Dr. Khanuja are plagiarized. SSV has confirmed the charges. Dr Khanuja was expected to retire voluntarily, as was also confirmed by the Minister, S&T. Regrettably, the CSIR has given him extension for two years despite our pointing out his misconduct. SSV will continue to put moral pressure on CSIR to remove the Director. iii. (vi). Prof. Ranjit Singh, Director, NSIT and colleagues have plagiarized several papers, which has been verified to be true by SSV. Prof Singh has not responded to the charges. The Chairman, BOG of NSIT has agreed to conduct an enquiry into the case. iv. (vii). Prof Kumar, Director, NERIST has plagiarized some papers which has been verified by SSV. Prof Kumar has not responded to the charges. The Chairman, BOG has been approached and a judicial enquiry has been ordered by the authorities. v. (viii). Dr U.C. Banerjee, NIPER, Chandigarh has plagiarized numerous publications. After verification, the Chairman, BoG of NIPER was informed since we did not hear any response from Banerjee. The Chairman (Dr R.A. Mashelkar) set up an enquiry committee on our complaint. The committee has given a report. But, the Chairman has not yet decided the future course of action. vi. (ix). The matter regarding plagiarism, of Prof. Deepak Pental, the then Vice-chancellor, Delhi University, was reported to SSV as well as President of India by one Prof. P. Pardasardy. Prof. Pental, being a Vice-chancellor, himself, suppressed the matter as a result, Prof. Pardasardy has filed a civil suit in District court at Tis Hazari, proceedings of which are going on. vii. (x). The matter regarding plagiarism by Prof. S.K. Tandon, Pro-Vice-chancellor, University of Delhi, by one of his colleagues at Lucknow University. However, being the PVC, his case has also been kept under carpet and he has been rewarded by a chair professorship of Minister for Science and Lifetime Immolator professorship by the University of Delhi. viii. (xi). As per the report of Indian J Med Res (131), March 2010, “it is well known that plagiarism begins very early in science. The mandatory PowerPoint presentations by young researchers appropriating others’ content without acknowledging the source are almost always ‘accepted’ by the peers. The emboldened perpetrator graduates to lifting chunks of material and recycle to create term papers, reports or even a Ph.D. thesis. There are reports of plagiarized dissertations awarded Ph.Ds. in some Indian Universities, thanks to a cozy nexus between the Guide, University and examiners. It is much worse in medical colleges with most so called theses/dissertations submitted for MD/MS/DM/MCh degrees are but a rehash of published material culled out from several sources. With examiners generally uninterested in going beyond the title page, the conduct, recording and reporting of research in most medical colleges (including some well known ones) is abysmal.” ix. In March, 2008, Prof. C. N. R. Rao, who heads the National Science Advisory Committee, told Nature that he will discuss the proposal at his next meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Rao was reacting to the news that Sri Venkateswara University in southern India is to reopen a massive fraud case involving chemistry Professor, Pattium Chiranjeevi. Last month, Chiranjeevi was found guilty of plagiarizing or falsifying more than 70 research papers published in a variety of Western scientific journals between 2004 and 2007. Some of the journals have started retracting the articles. x. Several scientists have urged to establish an institutional body to detect, investigate and penalise proven scientific misconduct, mainly plagiarism. Under a national policy on academic ethics, the office should ensure authentic scientific output from the rapidly expanding scientific community. This office should be part of a national policy on academic ethics which the scientific group wants to see in place to cater for the countrys rapidly expanding scientific community and output. Upright academics criticises the lack of institutional transparency and scientific institutes / Universities unwillingness to investigate scientific misconduct, make their findings public, and take action. xi. Padmanabhan Balaram, Director of IISc and Editor of Current Science, published by the Indian Academy of Sciences, said that fabrication and falsification of data in India is rare and more sophisticated. xii. Sunil Mukhi, theoretical physicist at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, said: Ethics depend on the quality of leadership of science institutions. Acceptance of misconduct like plagiarism is very high, with institutions considering the perpetrator as part of family. There have been many more cases academic frauds and plagiarism in the country but the collusion, political influence and financial considerations did not allow taking these cases to logical end and punishing the perpetrators. In such a situation, India has to consider creating a national body to investigate plagiarism and misconduct in science after a string of high-profile frauds. In addition, India has to teach ethical values in Science and Education at school as well as University level. It will teach the young minds about the ethics and values in science and education and that will be deterrent in future for such academic frauds or plagiarism. India is committed to emerge as a global leader in Science and Technology. For achieving this goal, India must earn international credibility of the integrity of science being reported, which, currently is very much poor. We are just way behind despite over three decades of international embarrassment of consistent inaction and, much worse, often allegations of shielding the guilty. India needs a National Plan of Action immediately, based on inputs from various sources to combat plagiarism, urgent and serious consideration which should act as a deterrent. Though, it will never be possible to eliminate unethical practices in the conduct, recording and reporting of science anywhere in the world; but some deterrent strategies in all Institutions / Universities, at best can minimize such incidences of academic frauds and plagiarism, before it is too late.
Posted on: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:03:58 +0000