Breaking News

Denmark's Lake Knud becomes Tumakuru's 'Bheemasandra Lake'

Teachers are meant to test any makes an attempt by their students to duplicate or plagiarise. But here's a case of a Bangalore Univerisity (BU) professor who allegedly allowed her research pupil to plagiarise a learn about on a lake in Denmark, Lake Knud to be actual, after which reproduced it by just changing the name of the lake to Bheemasandra and the site to Tumakuru district.

And a shoddy task of plagiarism at that.

The Associate Professor C Maya and her research pupil, SP Naveen Kumar, have allegedly culled contents from 3 other research papers that experience already been revealed. The varsity has not taken any action towards the research pupil and his information on this case and officials at the college say that the matter is with the vice-chancellor
of BU.

Caught copying

This issue was delivered to the eye of the Registrar and Registrar of Evaluation on November 28, 2017, by Professors V Sivaram and HR Raveesha, by way of a letter wherein they requested the Registrar to shape a re-colloquium in regards to Naveen Kumar plagiarised research paper.

This letter was submitted throughout the then Chairman of the dept, professor Rajanna. A duplicate of the letter with BM, states, “The colloquium was carried out to SP Naveen Kumar… on November 23, 2017. We wish to inform you that, up to now the fastened colloquium was rapidly cancelled twice due to the reasons known to the chairman of the dept.”

The letter accused the chairman of engaging in the assembly in the absence of three college individuals who were on a learn about excursion, to favour Naveen Kumar and his information C Maya. “This is clear indication of averting college individuals for such a very powerful PhD Colloquium in the division.”

The letter states that this may occasionally bring disrepute to the college.

When BM asked a former Professor from the Department of Botany about the allegedly plagiarised papers, he said, “First of all, we can not to find Anabaena algae in our Indian Lakes. These are present in European lakes. The content material is lifted from the European research papers however as a substitute of citing Lake Knud, the research pupil has changed the name of the lake to Bheemasandra lake in Tumkuru district. The algae found right here was named as Acorus Calamus L. ”
“Not just that the authors in writing their analysis of Anatoxin have said that they have got bought anatoxin from Bheemasandra Lake. In the similar paragraph they pass on to mention - ‘To test for the incidence of toxin in aquatic environments, blooms or scums ruled by Anabaena species were sampled from a number of European freshwater lakes’. When did Bheemsandra Lake develop into a European lake?” questioned the retired professor.

Copycat cases

Professor MS Thimappa, former vice-chancellor of BU says, “These things occur because there is a call for for research papers, and research students are expected to publish a undeniable collection of papers in national and global journals. Research papers are also connected to promotions. Plagiarism is against the law. There are quite a lot of easy methods to curb this – peer staff analysis and self-declaration of using different papers as reference.”

Thimappa remembers a similar incident which got here up when he was the registrar and it was resolved when he sent it to the inquiry committee. “There must always be a committee record which will validate such cases,” added Thimappa.

LIFT KARA DE: The unique paper (right) and the one lifted by BU affiliate professor and the research pupil (some distance right; they didn’t realize ‘European freshwater lakes’)

A former V-C, in whose time period this matter got here up, authorised that there was pressure on him to act on this case. He said, “I didn't advertise the professor. There was immense pressure from each aspect to act on this and by that time I was finishing my time period. The syndicate must take a call to ship this matter to the Chancellor of the college to take a call.”

The former V-C said that V-Cs at the moment are taking written acknowledgements from research students that they are liable for their revealed work.

Action taken

In 2017, the then V-C, HN Ramesh had introduced the case of Maya and Naveen Kumar ahead of a committee. He told BM, “I called both the parties for a dialogue. The registrar of analysis, Shivaraju, was present in conjunction with all of the individuals of the Department of Botany. Professor Maya had authorised that the paper have been plagiarised and I asked them to shape a third birthday celebration expert committee to check the matter.”

In the resolution of the assembly (replica with BM), Prof Maya said that the research pupil has indulged in plagiarism and it was with out her wisdom.

Professor C Shivaraju, registrar of analysis said, “It has been a number of months now. I've sent the report back to the vice-chancellor and the matter is with him.” Professor BK Ravi, registrar of BU said, “We have shaped a committee to study this situation. The manuscript might be withdrawn.”

The Chairman of the Botany Department, Professor Sivaram said, “The matter is now in the fingers of the management officials. They have to do so based on the record.”

Professor Rajanna who was the former chairman of the Botany division said, “The chairman has nothing to with that. I had sent the colloquium report back to the administrators of the college.”

lake 3

V-C explains

The present V-C of BU, Professor Venugopal KR said, “When the issue got here up to me regarding the elevation of Professor Maya, I shaped a three-man committee since many professors had submitted a complaint. The record got here again with a statement saying that the Professor must be given the good thing about the doubt. I placed this in front of the syndicate and the syndicate okayed it. The research pupil might be taken to job now.”

With appreciate to taking measures to forestall plagiarism, Venugopal said, “We now have a plagiarism checking instrument. And all PhD papers will go through this. But there are methods to go around it. The last option now could be to mention that the similar idea cannot be repeated again.’


Levels of plagiarism and penalty

i. Level zero: Similarities up to 10% - Minor Similarities, no penalty.
ii. Level 1: Similarities above 10% to 40% - Such student can be asked to post a revised script inside a stipulated time frame not exceeding 6 months.

iii. Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60% - Such student can be debarred from submitting a revised script for a duration of 1 12 months.
iv. Level 3: Similarities above 60% -Such student registration for that programme can be cancelled.

A penalty in case where the level/credit has already been bought

i. Level 1: Similarities above 10% to 40% can be asked to withdraw manuscript
ii. Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60%. Has to withdraw manuscript, denied right to 1 annual increment, not allowed to be a manager to any new pupil for a duration of two years.
iii. Level 3: Similarities above 60% - has to withdraw manuscript, denied right to two successive annual increments, to not be allowed to be a manager to any new pupil for a duration of three years.

If there is any complaint of plagiarism towards Higher Education Institutions (HEI), a suitable action, consistent with these regulations, can be taken by the
controlling authority of the HEI.

No comments