Adil Najam
One of the earliest posts we did at ATP (27 June, 2006) was about our societal lack of intellectual morality and highlighted the case of some Punjab University Professors at the Centre for High Energy Physics (CHEP) who had been accused of plagiarism and were under investigation.
I have tried to keep an eye on the story and while some details trickle in the movement has been disturbingly slow and some of the new revelations are even more disturbing.
In September we heard that the cheating professors would be served a charge sheet by the University of the Punjab and the professors given 7 days to respond. In October a single line in a news item suggested this had happened. I was more curious, however, to find out what would happen to the professors as a result of this.
I am still not sure what the answer is, but as of August, at least one of them was given a plushy key job by being elevated to the Advance Studies and Research Board (ASRB) of the University!
What message is the university sending to its students and the world by appointing someone convicted of cheating - i.e., academic theft and deception - to something called the ‘Advance Studies and Research Board’? By the way, the job of this Board is to approve all PhD level theses! According to the news report:
According to PU Registrar Dr Naeem Khan, the accusations of plagiarism had nothing to do with the ASRB. He said: “We have inducted him as an experimental physicist in recognition of services rendered to the varsity as former head of the PhD programme.”
I am still wondering what was their ‘punishment’?
They are still listed - some with smiling photographs - on the University website. Does anyone know? Please tell.
Meanwhile, now there is news from the American Institute of Physics (AIP), which does seem to be doing something about this. According to the Daily Times (14 December, 2006):
The American Institute of Physics (AIP) has withdrawn research papers by six Punjab University (PU) teachers from its records after finding the exact details of the plagiarism they were accused of. The AIP had initially doubted chances of plagiarism by the six teachers from the PU Centre for High Energy Physics (CHEP) - Rashid Ahmed, Fazal-e-Aleem, Maqsood Ahmad, Haris Rashid, MA Saeed and Ayub Faridi) whose articles they had added to their records and their website.
The institute has now confirmed plagiarism by the teachers, individually elaborating the scale of plagiarism in each write-up. According to recent developments published on the AIP website, “Upon analysis of the article Computational Methods: Tool for Electronic Structure Analysis of Solids, the vast majority of the text can been attributed to nearly identical blocks of text in three sources that were not cited in the article and to a fourth source that was cited but to which inadequate attribution was given. The publisher, the American Institute of Physics, is thus issuing a retraction of this article.�
Official AIP documents further explain that PU teachers Rashid Ahmed, Maqsood Ahmed, MA Saeed and Fazal-e-Aleem claimed to be the author of the paper. The institute has said that it was 80 percent plagiarised while the details were basically stolen and combined from four other sources, which the institute has also cited in its documents. “Current Status of Exotic Hadrons�, which MA Saeed, Maqsood Ahmed and Fazal-e-Aleem claimed to have written, was stolen from three different sources and was 90 percent plagiarised, according to the AIP. The institute has cited the original sources of the article in their documents. The third article that the AIP has retracted was named “Paths of Elementary Particles on K-Surfaces� claimed by Muhammad Ayub Faridi, Haris Rashid and Fazal-e-Aleem. The institute has also cited the three original sources of the article from where the details were stolen and combined while concluding that 55 percent of the article was plagiarised.
To see the article retractions now on the AIP website go here, here and here.
Surprisingly, this new news report (14 December) ends by saying:
The Punjab University has also formed an investigation committee to probe the matter. The committee has not completed its investigation so far.
When will the investigation end. And how much proof do they need. I realize that some of the younger scholars listed here might just not have known, but the senior ones - especially the Director of the institute - had to; and if he did not, that is itself deplorable.
The irony of having so recently discussed the life, work and indignity inflicted on Dr. Abdus Salam and now finding most of the faculty of this center for high energy physics revealed as liars and cheats is not lost on us.
I had ended the original post by saying that “Plagiarism is a serious academic problem all over the world, including in the West. It is becoming particularly serious in Pakistan because:”
- the internet makes stealing easier; although, plagiarists beware, it also makes catching plagiarism earlier;
- newer and higher incentives to steal because the Higher Education Commission (HEC) rewards publication (thankfully, the HEC seems to be aware of this and has a ‘zero tolerance policy.’); and
- in at least some cases researchers may never have been taught how to distinguish right from wrong; the difference between research that builds on other’s ideas (by referencing) and plagiarism that steams from others (by taking credit for other’s ideas).
Even as, elsewhere on this blog, we quibble about whether ‘our’ univeristy was placed high enough in the HEC univeristy rankings or not, I am more worried about the overall state (i.e., lack) of intellectual morality in society.
Despite the excuses we make to ourselves as students or as scholars, there is no ambiguity at all about what plagiarism is. It is clear and simple. Taking someone else’s ideas and presenting them as if they were your own is not just wrong, its illegal. The rules of what is and is not plagiarism are straight-forward and known.
More and more, I also worry - like Darwaish who has been thinking about student cheating - that just like too many of us no longer consider rishwat (bribery) to be ‘real corruption’, too many of us also do not consider cheating and plagiarism to be crimes. Well, I have information for you. They are!
HEC cuts off all financial assistance to Punjab University and what does the Punjab Government do, bring the case before the CCI (Council of Common Interest). These teachers(or thieves) really do seem to be well connected.Good luck to Prof.Ata ur Rehman in his noble venture.
This is unbelievable.
If this is true then I will lose whatever faith I had in HEC. Despite all the good words if these plagarists are let go then it means that niether the country nor these institutions have any credibility left!
The Authors Responded!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
L A T E S T U P D A T E
ALasssss !!!!! They finnaly escape and now according to some reliable sources at the Punjab University they found saying that they will do again because they think that is CORRECT and not THEFT !!!! nobody can stop them because they have to do hard work not only in order to write a paper but also follow it through the refreeing procedure. They therefore deserve respect NOT disgrace….everybody should appologise them because they already publish 173 correct and geninue papers…
P A K I S T A N Z I N D A B A D
DAILY DAWN April 03, 2007 Tuesday Contains The Drop Seen of the whole episode !!!!!!!
Syndicate lets guilty PU teachers off the hook: Plagiarism confirmed
By Mansoor Malik
LAHORE, April 2: The Punjab University Syndicate on Monday confirmed plagiarism by five faculty members of the Centre for High Energy Physics (CHEP) but let the plagiarists off the hook by giving them mild punishments.
The higher Education Commission had recommended dismissals in the case.
The syndicate decided to ask CHEP director Prof Dr Fazal-i-Aleem to relinquish the directorship of the centre and issue warning/censure to lecturers Maqsood Ahmad, Rasheed Ahmad, Sohail Afzal Tahir and Alam Saeed, besides withholding their two annual increments.
Prof Aleem�s tenure as CHEP director had already ended in October last and he was allowed to carry on till further orders. He will however continue to serve as Director-General of the School of Physical Sciences, Punjab University.
The syndicate, which met under the chairmanship of vice-chancellor Arshad Mahmood, took the decisions on the basis of the 32-page final inquiry report submitted by the inquiry committee headed by PU faculty of law dean and Law College principal Prof Dr Dil Muhammad Malik. The preliminary report submitted by another inquiry committee led by PU faculty of life sciences dean Prof Dr Shahida Husnain had also confirmed plagiarism.
The syndicate reiterated its commitment that plagiarism would not be tolerated in academic and research writings in the university.
Giving rationale behind the mild punishments, PU registrar Prof Dr Naeem Khan told Dawn that the syndicate had concluded that neither PU Calendar nor any government legislation had any prescribed penalty. �In the absence of proper terms of references and in the absence of any specific legislation on the issue, it was very difficult for the committee to fix the responsibility and suggest penalties, which should satisfy a court of law,� he claimed.
Quoting the syndicate, the registrar said the act of CHEP faculty members was first of its nature in the history of Pakistan. �Therefore, the syndicate decision would serve as a landmark case relating to ethical writing practices and research,� he quoted the meeting as having said.
When asked that Higher Education Commission chairman Prof Dr Attaur Rehman had written a letter to PU vice-chancellor Arshad Mahmood and asked him to dismiss those found guilty in the case, the registrar said the varsity syndicate was not bound to follow the �wish-list of the HEC chairman.�
Prof Khan said the syndicate had found CHEP�s director Prof Dr Fazal-i-Aleem a careless head and supervisor in the plagiarism case in question, though he himself was not involved in plagiarism. �The syndicate also said that all copying of foreign research papers was not found as plagiarism,� Khan said.
According to him, the syndicate took a lenient view in the case of four young lecturers � Maqsood Ahmad, Rasheed Ahmad, Sohail Afzal Tahir and Alam Saeed - after considering their career (having highest impact factor without any complaint of plagiarism against them during 2002 to 2007) and publication of their 173 articles in international journals. It decided to issue them warning/censure besides withholding their two annual increments.
The registrar said since these researchers had no clear-cut distinction between permissible copying and plagiarism and awareness on the issue, the syndicate said the young faculty members should be given the benefit of doubt. �The syndicate decided not to deprive the Punjab University of these talented and budding physicists,� he said.
In order to discourage the cut and paste culture and include this guideline in research methodology, the syndicate issued directions to all deans and heads of departments to include guidelines on plagiarism in PhD courses. The syndicate also asked Prof Dr Dil Muhammad Malik to formulate guidelines for the purpose.
The syndicate said that necessary legislation would be done to effectively check plagiarism and honour copyright and intellectual property rights.
Registrar Prof Khan told Dawn the PU would also create deterrence against such practices through advocacy. He said the university would print pamphlets about the menace of plagiarism and circulate them among M.Phil and PhD students, researchers and faculty members. After the awareness campaign, the registrar said, the university would be in a position to say that all faculty members, researchers and students stood sufficiently warned against committing plagiarism. �The plagiarism is a new menace,� he said.
INQUIRY COMMITTEE FINDINGS: The findings submitted by the inquiry committee to the syndicate say: �The members of inquiry committee are quite clear about the fact that there has been copying by the accused teachers. They, too, have generally not denied copying, but they have denied plagiarism saying that all copying is not plagiarism; plagiarism means impermissible copying. But it is not possible to determine whether the acts of the said teachers are permissible or culpable, in the absence of legal parameters/guidelines. It would only be possible when the issues highlighted earlier are properly settled. Therefore, we leave it to the competent authority to deal with the matter in the light of law and facts of the case�.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The inquiry committee recommended that the issues raised by it should be settled at the appropriate level in accordance with law, an exercise, which will be fairly complex and difficult.
It said the university should develop sound policy guidelines and implement them through Statutes/Regulations/Code of Conduct.
The committee recommended that after the policy issues are settled, the case may be decided, preferably, by an independent entity acceptable to the teachers accused of plagiarism as well as the complainant.
The committee also said that the aggrieved persons (the persons whose research papers were plagiarized) could approach the appropriate court for adjudication.
The syndicate, while discussing a law point whether the inquiry report should go to the Punjab Governor/Chancellor as competent authority, reiterated that since the syndicate was the appointing authority of the faculty members, therefore, it was the competent authority under the Punjab Removal from Service Ordinance 2000-2001 to award penalty, which it found appropriate.
Observing that the plagiarism case had brought a bad name to the Punjab University, the syndicate condemned the faculty members who were involved in plagiarism as well as those who propagated this case at home and abroad.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/04/03/nat7.htm
the email is romeo_rauf@yahoo.com
Dear all,
If any of you has got any documentry proof against so called Dr. Shoaib. Plz let me have a copy of it.