Rejoinder, our reply
Dhaka University teachers Eshani Chakraborty and Zobaida Nasreen, on March 25, sent a rejoinder to our report "Plagiarism found in the work of two DU teachers", published a day before.
Following is the rejoinder as it is:
The report titled "Plagiarism found in the work of two DU teachers" published in your paper on 24/03/21 has come to our notice and we are utterly shocked. We feel the reporter has presented a narrative of 'selective facts' that gives a partial view of the whole story with discernable bias against the researchers concerned. An unbiased reporting with full story would have done the justice and served right for a reputed newspaper like The Daily Star. It is to be mentioned here that in a letter dated 23/11/2020 the council of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (ASB) cancelled the grant asking the researchers to return the given grant money (BDT 1,75,000). Following this we realized that it was a draft report prepared at the initial stage of the research submitted mistakenly. Therefore, we did apologize for the mistake, returned the grant money, withdrew the report and proposed to submit the original report that was meant to be submitted. Against this backdrop few points need to be considered here:
First and foremost, this was an unpublished report and withdrawn. Second, with the cancellation of the project and returning of the grant money following ASB council's decision, the formal contract between the researchers and the ASB ended right there rendering any further discussion on the issue invalid, let alone publishing it in the newspaper. The document in question is withdrawn and it ceased to exist for all practical purposes. Now, we wonder how could an unpublished and unaccepted report be termed as plagiarized as was reported here? Let us give one small example in this respect that many submitted articles in academic journals regularly gets turned down for many diverse reasons including that of plagiarism. Would the issues of those unaccepted articles also be discussed in the newspapers? In fact, the issue of plagiarism does not apply in any count in case of any unpublished and unaccepted work like this. Internal plagiarism check is done on research works only to identify them so that those can be rectified. The concerned authority in such a case holds right either to suggest/ask the researchers to correct their errors or to cancel it. No way this can be publicized as a plagiarized work. We, therefore, strongly oppose the title and the use of the word throughout the article.
We do not feel like to present any further clarification on the details of the incident as presented in the news report. Rather we would like to urge The Daily Star and for that matter all other media to delve deep into the matter to find out why all on a sudden an internally resolved issue four months earlier is making news now? The politics behind it then will be exposed.
Finally, through this rejoinder we earnestly request The Daily Star and all media workers not to fall into the trap of motivated story and sensationalize an issue that may in effect victimize innocent people. As always, our immense faith on progressive media forces is unshaken and we believe that at the end of the day justice will prevail.
OUR REPLY
Firstly, the claim made by the researchers that it was a draft report is not borne out by the facts. The paper in question was submitted to Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (ASB) along with two reviewers' comments as the final report of the research for which they were under contract. The paper has "final report" (Churanto Pratibedan) written on its cover page. Even their application to ASB, dated February 19, 2020, for disbursement of the remaining grant money reads, "…we have completed the research work and are now presenting the final report."
Nowhere in our report did we mention the paper was published. Our report categorically stated that the two authors submitted their final report to ASB and the research and seminar committee of the organisation found it "heavily plagiarised" and filled with "innumerable errors". Following this, the organisation cancelled the research grant and asked them to return the money paid in advance.
The researchers also argued that it was "an internally resolved issue four months earlier". But the matter was not resolved four months ago as the ASB council, the supreme authority of the organisation, on February 25 this year took a decision to place the matter on the agenda of its monthly general meeting for the next course of action. The meeting is yet to be held.
Lastly, the rejoinder reads "…we realised that it was a draft report prepared at the initial stage of the research submitted mistakenly." We cannot but wonder how such responsible researchers could "mistakenly" submit a paper full of errors and "realise the mistake" after nine months only when the authorities "cancelled the grant asking the researchers to return the given grant money (BDT 1,75,000)".
In preparing our report, we talked to the researchers concerned and gave their versions elaborately.
We stand by our report.