Press "Enter" to skip to content

Russian ministry of education proposed unique way to fight plagiarism in scientific research

Despite there is no such legal definition as plagiarism in current Russian law, but in order to deprive someone’s scientific decree the fact of copyright infringement should be determined and proved in court under proposed rules. Only if the court decides that someone, who received academic decree, has infringed copyright by way of publishing of his scientific research, the scientific decree can be deprived.

If researcher and/or aspirant working on his or her scientific research makes any improper quoting or just duplicates someone’s work or research with his or her own words without any endeavour to strain own brain, then such writer can be punished by way of depriving his scientific decree only if the relevant court decision states a fact of copyright infringement.

Before to ask a relevant commission to deprive someone’s scientific decree the person must prove in court that scientific work infringes someone’s copyright. So such person, who can ask to deprive scientific decree by cause of plagiarism, can be only the author, whose copyright has been infringed.

“Only the copyright court can be the authority who can qualify such violation”, – states official statement of ministry. Circle of subjects, who can ask to deprive scientific research, will be not narrowed, ensures ministry.

But not all people and stakeholders are so happy with such amendments in rules. For example network community “Dissernet”, whose participants detect plagiarism in scientific researches and works, believes new amendments mean “victory of plagiarists”. “Only person whose copyright has been infringed can file a copyright infringement suit, but “victims” of plagiarists don’t go to court.” Former minister of education Igor Fedukin believes originality of scientific research is not a subject matter of copyright. Others believe that “victims” of plagiarism in scientific research, who makes money writing such dissertations, never will go to court as well as people who bought dissertation.

After publication of draft amendments and wave of dissatisfaction current minister of education has initiated internal inspection and fired officer who included provision, prescribing to deprive scientific decree only under court decision, in draft amendments. This officer has not advised with anyone from ministerial officers and caused great confusion with this provision. As said minister of education this person is fired because “people don’t work in such way”. According to minister this person not so long worked in ministry and “doesn’t understand certain things”.

But will be changed this draft of amendments?