LAST week in these columns I introduced the latest issue of ‘Takhleeqi adab’, the Urdu research journal of the National University of Modern Languages (NUML), Islamabad, and mentioned that the general good impression of the periodical was marred a little because of a lapse or two. After reading the piece, noted Iqbal-scholar Muhammad Hamza Farooqi rang me up and pointed out that yet another article included in the journal betrayed leniency on the part of the editors and the peer reviewers. In fact, he claimed that the writer of an article had plagiarised one of his books.

Farooqi informed me that he was writing a letter to the editor of the journal and, in the meantime, he briefed me about the contents of the letter. According to his claim, the article titled ‘Beroon-i-Hind Iqbal ke asfaar: khutoot ki roshni mein’ included in the eighth issue (2011) of the journal is neither based on the primary sources (which, in this case, are Iqbal’s letters) nor is it the result of author’s own research. It is, he alleges, plagiarised from his book ‘Safar nama-i-Iqbal’.

Farooqi’s book has run into three editions; the first one was published in 1973, the second and revised in 1989 and the third in 1997. The book, based on research and complete with references, is considered an authentic account of Iqbal’s journeys and has been referred to as a source by many researchers in their works. Going through the paper, one realises that the author has indeed relied on secondary sources and many an information has been digested from Farooqi’s book but no acknowledgement has been made.

I would say that an editor alone is not responsible for such lapses because he or she cannot know by heart all the research carried out in every branch of the subject. Also, relying on one person’s opinion may have its own pitfalls. That is exactly what a panel of peer reviewers is for. Such panels are in vogue for quite some time now and the scholars on these panels, also known as referees, are referred to for evaluating research papers before publication. One can only hope that these experts would get stricter and exercise their power to reject a paper totally, which they rarely do, if ever.

At the same time, I must say that a perception increasingly shared by more and more research scholars is that certain preconditions set by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) for promoting research activities and enhancing research standards at Pakistani universities sometimes can prove counterproductive, though we cannot deny the good intensions of HEC. The precondition, for instance, for the promotion of university teachers to the next higher grade says that a candidate must publish a specific number of research articles in the HEC-approved research journals that cover the same field or discipline. Similarly, a student working on his or her MPhil (MS) or PhD dissertation must get published a research paper, co-authored by the research supervisor, in an HEC-approved journal. Students having submitted their dissertation and having successfully defended the viva voce are not awarded degrees until they fulfill this prerequisite.

The result is, of course, a proliferation of research articles in every discipline but whether it translates into an increase in the quantity or quality of ‘real research’ is anybody’s guess since our society believes, generally, in a culture of ‘sifarish’ (or recommendation) — a euphemism for undue favour — with a callous disregard for merit. The research scholars, university teachers and reviewers are no exception as they are very much part and parcel of this society. I am not blaming everyone and indeed there are gleaming examples of upholding the justice and merit. But it is very difficult to behave like an angel when the society at large is awash in the waves of corruption and punishes severely anybody who tries to behave differently. Secondly, suppose I am the editor of a research journal and a friend or colleague sends me a paper for publication in my journal saying that it is written by one of his brilliant students whose PhD degree is withheld just because the research paper has not yet been published and he/she needs the degree immediately. Now keeping in mind that one of my students may also face the same barrier in near future, what would I do? Assume I am on the panel of reviewers. What choice do I have as a peer reviewer when one of my friends — or ‘a friend of a friend’— at another university wants just one more paper published to fulfill the required number, remembering that ‘a friend of a friend of mine’ may soon have to cross over the same fence? The answer is fairly simple, as the adage goes: you scratch my back, I will scratch yours. Yes, of course, there are conscientious reviewers and editors, too, but they are usually under constant pressure and may have to face the repercussions if they do not ‘cooperate’ with the scholar community.

I do not mean that all research journals are involved in malpractices, neither do I mean that all the papers published in the journals are fake, based on ‘mutual cooperation’ or are substandard. But I know of one research scholar who was, a few years ago, the head of the department and the editor of the research journal published by a government-run university. That gentleman would ask for the ‘favourable’ reviews from some of the peer reviewers for certain research papers and threw into the waste paper basket any reviews that rejected his ‘favourite’ research papers or suggested some improvements. We can understand well who the authors of those so-called papers would have been. But the real cruel practical joke this scholar played was that he wrote a harsh editorial in his research journal crying foul and accusing reviewers and scholars of malpractices and connivance, which, according to him, resulted in a fall of research standards. The ‘pious’ editor blamed the culture of ‘sifarish’ and the ‘favourable reviews obtained on request’. Ask some insiders about such practices in their moments of truth and you will come across many more such stories.

Was it any better in the past when such restrictions were not in place and anybody with or without having a track record of research was promoted to the position of full professor and/or head of a department at a university on the basis of seniority alone? Or is it better now when the same person is exalted to the same position with some plagiarised papers published in an HEC-approved journal edited by a friend and reviewed by another friend with the recommendation from a ‘well-wisher’? —drraufparekh@yahoo.com