Content uploaded by Dinesh Kadam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dinesh Kadam on Nov 06, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Dishonesty in research and publication, be
intentional or not, goes much beyond an act
of delinquency. The consequences can be dire
and far‑reaching. Regardless of economic and academic
progression, plagiarism remains to be aglobal concern.
The publishing houses, editors and authors are bound
by the publication ethics, yet effective retributive tools
remain scattered and unable to curtail the epidemic.
To comprehend ‘what constitutes plagiarism’ is a major
obfuscation among young researchers, resulting in
unintentional plagiarism. Recently, the Government of
India notified new regulations“Promotion of Academic
Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational
Institutions”which were adopted by the University Grant
Commission (UGC).[1] The document published in The
Gazette of India on July 31, 2018, defines plagiarism
and the means to deal with it. According to the new
regulations, plagiarism is “the practice of taking someone
else’s work or idea and passing them as one’s own.”
The regulation further explains “(i) all quoted work
reproduced with all necessary permissions and/or
attribution, (ii) all references, bibliography, table of
content, preface and acknowledgements, (iii) all generic
terms, laws, standard symbols and standard equations”
are not considered plagiarism. Submitted manuscripts
are routinely screened for the similarity index employing
the software such as iThenticate®, Turnitin® and so
on. This screening identifies similar texts from already
published material and summates the total percentage.
The present regulation relies on this percentage to
quantify the plagiarism and to decide on the quantum
of penalty.
However, there are drawbacks in this scrutiny; not all
percentage of similarity is necessarily plagiarism.[2]
The report needs to be interpreted carefully. The text
describing similar methodology or common clinical
terms is likely to be similar. Further, manual intervention
is needed by the assessor to exclude quotations and
bibliography. Thus, to arbitrate on the “acceptable
percentage of similarity” for a manuscript needs critical
analysis. Under the new guidelines up to 10% similarity is
acceptable and terms it as minor or Level 0. The drawback
is, this minor similarity could be a significant plagiarism
if taken from a single source. The guidelines further
quantify the degree of plagiarism as Level 1: Similarities
above 10% to 40%, Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60%,
Level 3: Similarities above 60%.
Based upon the level, students or researchers submitting
their script face penalty. The penalty ranges from
re‑submitting revised script for Level‑1, debarring for
one year for Level‑2 and to cancellation of students’
registration from the enrolled program in Level‑3 offense.
For the faculty, plagiarism beyond 10% similarities
mandates withdrawal of manuscript. At 40‑60% level they
are debarred from supervising a master’s program for
two years and lose an increment for one year. If it exceeds
60%, loss of increment for two years and not allowed as
supervisor for 3 years is the penalty.
What do these guidelines mean to the publishing
houses and the journal? Plagiarism in any form or
any percentage is unacceptable and non‑negotiable.
A plagiarized manuscript which cannot be rectified
faces inevitable rejection. Further, if already published,
retraction is obligatory. The appropriate action that
needs to be initiated against the authors are yet to
be addressed satisfactorily. Debarring the author does
not restrain from future submission and it is practically
impossible to screen a submission as co‑author.
Several journals demand authors’ scientific profile and
have made mandatory to share ORCID or Researchgate
IDs. ORCID provides a unique 16‑digitID, which is a
digital profile and affiliation of the researcher. Thus,
with some checks in place, authors are prevented from
creating duplicate profiles. With the new regulations,
the publisher can notify the author’s affiliated
institution and bring them under the purview of the
law of the land and regulations. The mechanism to
Academic integrity and plagiarism: The new regulations in
India
Editorial
© 2018 Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 109
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijps.org on Monday, November 5, 2018, IP: 122.167.39.208]
Editorial
address any such complaint is elaborated and falls
under the purview of Institutional Academic Integrity
Panel (IAIP).
Though the regulation is a welcome step it has
limitations and drawbacks. It appears to address
only the “copy‑paste” act by relying heavily on the
similarity index, ignoring various forms of dishonesty
which include self‑plagiarism, wrong citation, data
manipulation, photo plagiarism and so on. An innovative
idea or publication when reproduced by paraphrasing
without citing the source can escape similarity check
and authenticates the publication. Percentage below
10% need not be ignored. Further, plagiarism in any
form or level should be discouraged in absolute terms.
Grading them is not a good idea and gives a sense of
impunity to the perpetrators.
Plagiarism is considered immoral act and not perceived
as a crime. Though there is no separate Plagiarism Act in
India, it is governed by the section 57,63 and 63 (a) of the
Copyright Act. Copyright violation is using the authors’
work without permission, whereas in plagiarism, it is used
without attribution. Under these sections, plagiarism can
attract imprisonment from 6months to 3 years.[3]
Tens of thousands of research work are submitted
every year to HEI from postgraduates as a thesis or
dissertation. Creating awareness and education on
scripting a good manuscript are imperative. Institutions
and authors should have an easy access to good
screening software for manuscripts. The responsibility
of submitting an unblemished manuscript rests with
the authors, researchers and guides. Senior authors
cannot absolve themselves from the responsibilities. The
final manuscript must be checked by senior author and
figure out any change in language style which is possibly
not author’sown. It is essential that all co‑authors
must contribute and go through the manuscript, and
thus rectify all possible issues. Any complacence from
authors over a negligent manuscript may have serious
consequences on reputation, academic integrity and
career, which is entirely avoidable.
Dinesh Kadam
Editor IJPS, Professor and Head, Department of Plastic and
Reconstructive Surgery, A J Institute of Medical Sciences
and A J Hospital and Research Centre, Mangalore,
Karnataka, India
E-mail: drkadam@yahoo.co.in
REFERENCES
1. The Gazette of India: Extraordinary [PART III—SEC. 4];
31 July, 2018. Available from: http://www.egazette.nic.
in/WriteReadData/2018/187871.pdf. [Last accessed on
2018 Aug 23].
2. CrossCheck Plagiarism Screening: Understanding the Similarity
Score; 11 Aug, 2011. Available from: http://www.ithenticate.
com/plagiarism-detection-blog/bid/63534/CrossCheck-
Plagiarism-Screening-Understanding-the-Similarity-Score#.
W80IoGgzbIU. [Last accessed on 2018 Aug 24].
3. Pandey A. Laws Relating to Plagiarism in India; 11 June, 2017.
Available from: https://www.blog.ipleaders.in/plagiarism-law-
india/. [Last accessed on 2018 Aug 24].
How to cite this article: Kadam D. Academic integrity and plagiarism:
The new regulations in India. Indian J Plast Surg 2018;51:109-10.
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website:
www.ijps.org
DOI:
10.4103/ijps.IJPS_208_18
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License,
which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially,
as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under
the identical terms.
Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery Volume 51 Issue 2 May‑August 2018 110
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijps.org on Monday, November 5, 2018, IP: 122.167.39.208]
