India ranks 3rd in copycat in publication

A few days back, an interesting news item related to copy cat publications of USA, China and India. India ranks third in order after USA and China. These findings are based up on the retractions of publications in response to exposure of malpractice by the colleagues and or due to change of heart. Every one who is in academics is exposed to copycat research, some time it is duplication, some time it is repetition. Some call it adaptive research for their conditions. Others just do it to confirm what is done elsewhere. If copied from the advanced countries at the fast rate, it can be considered as relevant and original. Often, it takes time for many colleagues to sink in an idea that this has been copied or is similar to some thing that has already appeared as a better publication or in a higher ranking journal. Of course, time lag between two (one original and another copy cat) and its realization varies depending up on the field of research, research personnel, spectrum of research, countries involved. How many forms of copy cat research could be there is anybody's guess. Copy cat research is often repetition of original idea that is accepted in the scientific community to the extent that it is relevant to the local conditions. For instance, you can evaluate Bt cotton or Bt brinjal hybrids produced elsewhere in the country and then modify them to suit your conditions. Similarly medicines developed in the advanced countries are often tested in the less developed countries to know their level of efficacy. Copy cats also extend the applications of original research based up on their background. However, copy cats are not restricted to these studies. They also indulge in unethical and illegal practices like copying entire publication and publishing it in revised form under their names with institutional affiliations where they work. Some are smart enough to lift a part of publications. Another category will credit for the copied part to the original authors, but later reproduce in the next few publications that they publish either as reviews or articles of general or popular interests. Thus, the copied portion eventually is so often peddled as if it belongs to the forgers. These unethical and illegal practices include plagiarism and multiple publications of the same research work in different publications with or without modifications, of course without acknowledgement to the original source. Although second category may not be that serious offence, it still accounts for unethical practice as authors does not acknowledge the copyright holder who is publisher. It is must that copy right holder's permission is sought even if the work is of the same author. These practices are result of dictum "PUBLISH OR PERISH" that prevails in the academics. Often, the number of publications is a criterion for evaluation of performance. We too have our first hand experience with this phenomena. The first experience was when I found that one of our colleagues will repetitively use the data often in tabular form in his reviews. Sometimes, I too resorted to repeating the methodology from my earlier paper to some extent. This was brought to my notice by one of reviewers. Once I had an opportunity to review the project proposal. I did scientrometric analysis of the project investigator. I found that project investigator listed many publications either repeating them by changing authors or by changing title of publications or by changing publication names. This way, project investigator tried to project many publications that he had to his credit. One of my colleagues had two publications which differed only in titles, authorship and first line of each paragraph. We often read in the newspapers the plagiarism cases resorted to by even as high as Vice-Chancellors and Directors. It is either these people are too busy to read the manuscript that their juniors have prepared under pressure or they themselves are party to it. Of course, juniors who prepare ms are often not up to mark due to their inexperience and expertise. Once plagiarism and unethical practice is detected, the first line of defense is that the persons exposing the malpractice are charged with malafide intention. They are also asked as to why this is not mentioned or publicised or reported earlier and why now only ?? What is intention to expose or inform at this juncture. The institutions also come to their rescue. Not directly, by indirectly by telling one and all that past is past and this racking up of issues will bring bad names to the institution and its good work. The difference that we see between the developed countries and us is that action in the developed countries is fast. A few years ago, we had got an email in which Dean in the US university had owned up responsibility for exaggerating her CV at the time of appointment for which she not only apologised but resigned from the position. Such a thing does not and will rarely occur in this country. The highest importance attached can be seen from the fact that many offices have persons designated to maintain high standards of ethics in the work place.