A Team of Distinguished Lecturers Caught Plagiarizing


(An article on a team of distinguished lecturers caught plagiarizing)

You can be sure that your work is of significance when it is plagiarized, they say. So, with the year 2020 approaching its end, I found still another act of plagiarism towards my paper (Antoni 2003).

It was committed by a team of distinguished lecturers of Master, Doctor, and Professor’s degree holders, who will be addressed from this point on as Y et. al.; Y et. al. (2020) stole parts from the said paper on translating previously plagiarized by some others.

This makes me think that the said paper must really be so desirable that the lecturers felt they had to plagiarize it to suit their own context of article.

Now, from various sources, Antoni (2018) summarizes that plagiarism can take the following 6 kinds and forms:

1. taking sentences verbatim.

2. taking parts of an article verbatim.

3. taking a whole article verbatim.

4. taking sentences changing, modifying, omitting, or re-arranging key words or phrases, or clauses while maintaining the original meaning.

5. taking parts of an article changing, modifying, omitting, or re-arranging key words, phrases, clauses, sentences, or paragraphs while maintaining a large section of the parts.

6. taking a whole article changing, modifying, omitting, or re-arranging key words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, or parts while retaining a large portion of the article.

Dwelling on the above, the following section discusses the parts taken from the said paper (Antoni 2003) as plagiarized by Y et. al. (2020) to fit their own article writing purpose and categorizes the kinds and forms of plagiarism committed by them.

The black-colored ideas are the ideas that Y et. al. took verbatim; the ‘original’ orange-colored are those that Y et. al. changed, modified, omitted, or re-arranged into the ‘plagiarized’ orange-colored or the ‘plagiarized’ none () in the case of omission.

Table 1 A

PlagiarizedOriginal
In this era, translating from Indonesian into English is not an easy task as Indonesia is used more loosely than English is to express ideas even though more sophisticated tools for translation have been widely used. It indicates that the use of Indonesian often violates the rules outlined by Ejaan Yang Disempurnakan and Standard Language. This even occurs in its written form in which the language should be formal following all the rules.From my experience (both in teaching and translating), it is obvious that Indonesian is used loosely by its users both in oral and written form. This means that the use of the language in practice deviates from what is prescribed by the Tatabahasa Indonesia Baku. This violation also occurs in written form, where the language used must actually be formal. 

The original section above in the original paper was under a content heading; Y et. al. made it the beginning part of their introduction.

Table 1 B

PlagiarizedOriginal
In this era, translating from Indonesian into English is not an easy task as IndonesiaFrom my experience (both in teaching and translating), it is obvious that Indonesian
more
than English is to express ideas even though more sophisticated tools for translation have been widely usedby its users both in oral and written form
It indicatesThis means
Indonesianthe language in practice
often violatesdeviates from
the rules outlined by Ejaan Yang Disempurnakan and Standard Languagewhat is prescribed by the Tatabahasa Indonesia Baku
This evenThis violation also
its written formwritten form,
in whichwhere
used
shouldmust actually
following all the rules

Not really taking the section verbatim—though it is apparent that they did steal it and plagiarized even more here that follow, Y et. al. changed, modified, omitted, or re-arranged any chosen word, key word, phrase, clause, sentence, or part they deemed necessary as can be seen in Table 1 B above. As such, this kind of plagiarism falls into categories 4 and 5.

Table 2 A

PlagiarizedOriginal
In further, Panggabean [1] experienced (both in teaching and translating), it is obvious that Indonesian is used loosely by its users both in oral and written form. This means that the use of the language in practice deviates from what is prescribed by the Indonesian Grammar. In written form, the language used must be formal. This deviation applies in word choice, word collocation, sentence patterns, and discourse patterns. Even if the use follows the rules, there are still other problems, one of which is ambiguity as asserted. As for discourse patterns, there are many cases in which Indonesian users trying to express themselves in written form follow what is described by Kaplan in Brown [2] as circular pattern, meaning that that Indonesian users do not get straight to the point of what they are trying to say, but instead building too much on what is around the topic before really hitting it. Although Kaplan’s theory has ever since been much debated and criticized, there was and still is a ring of truth to Kaplan’s claims [2]. This is especially so for one who has often dealt with Indonesian users writingFrom my experience (both in teaching and translating), it is obvious that Indonesian is used loosely by its users both in oral and written form. This means that the use of the language in practice deviates from what is prescribed by the Tatabahasa Indonesia Baku. This violation also occurs in written form, where the language used must actually be formal. This deviation applies in word choice, word collocation, sentence patterns, and discoursal patterns. Even if the use follows the rules, there are still other problems, one of which is ambiguity as asserted by Gunarwan (2001). A good example given by him is when they say “anak perempuan presiden yang kaya itu.” When English-translated, it can be either “the rich daughter of the president” or “the daughter of the rich president.” Another example he gives is Indonesian “tembus cahaya.” English-translated, it can be either “translucent” or “transparent.”

As for discoursal patterns, there are many cases in which Indonesian users trying to express themselves in written form follow what is described by Kaplan (1966) in Brown (2001: 337) as ‘circular pattern’, meaning that that Indonesian users do not get straight to the point of what they are trying to say, but instead build too much on what is around  the topic before really hitting it.

Although Kaplan’s theory has ever since been much debated and criticized, “there was and still is a ring of truth to Kaplan’s claims” (Brown 2001: 338). This is especially so for one who has oftentimes dealt with Indonesian users’ writing.

The original section above in the original paper was under a content heading; Y et. al. made it the last part of their introduction.

Table 2 B

PlagiarizedOriginal
In further, Panggabean [1] experienced From my experience
Indonesian GrammarTatabahasa Indonesia Baku
In written form,This violation also occurs in written form, where
used
actually
discoursediscoursal
by Gunarwan (2001). A good example given by him is when they say “anak perempuan presiden yang kaya itu.” When English-translated, it can be either “the rich daughter of the president” or “the daughter of the rich president.” Another example he gives is Indonesian “tembus cahaya.” English-translated, it can be either “translucent” or “transparent.”  
discoursediscoursal

Taking the section almost verbatim, Y et. al. just a little changed, modified, omitted, or re-arranged any chosen word, key word, phrase, clause, sentence, or part they deemed necessary as can be seen in Table 2 B above. As such, this kind of plagiarism falls into categories 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Table 3 A

PlagiarizedOriginal
The problems encountered by Panggabean in 2014 was in translating reports or documents resemble those I found in Advanced 4 students’ essays [6]. One hypothesis that can be raised out of this is that students translate even when they speak and write. This means that they write in Indonesian first what they want to say in English. Then they translate it. This of course produces problems in their translation as their Indonesian is itself still bad. An example is ?Between family, legal, paramedics, or society and the victims can make cooperation for each?, which is literal translation from ?Di antara keluarga, hukum, paramedis, atau masyarakat dan korban dapat membuat kerjasama satu sama lain?. One can easily see how badly the sentence is constructed in Indonesian in the first place, this resulting in the translation being also wrong with Bahtera Foundations (2003) report on non-formal education being sampled, the problems we encounter can be classified into problems at the sentential level, and those at discoursal level [7]. Discussed one by one, they are as follows:

3.1 Problems at the Sentential Level

At this level, problems are usually concerned with loose sentence construction, meaning that it does not follow the rules prescribed by Indonesian language Grammar with regards to use of predicate, conjunctions, etc.

e.g.:

Negara yang telah meratifikasi KHA, maka Negara tersebut terikat, baik secara Yuridis maupun politis (p. 1). (unclear predicate, inappropriate use of conjunction)

Dampak lain masa depan anak tidak menentu serta menjadi ?Unskill Worker? sehingga mereka akan menjadi beban negara di masa mendatang (p. 2). (run-on sentence, ineffective sentence)

3.2 Problems at the Discoursal Level

At this level, problems are associated with the way sentences are loosely connected in the text, this producing no apparent coherence and cohesion. There is little attempt on the part of the writer to make use of transitional markers and other cohesive devices to connect ideas together. It may also happen that some ideas stand irrelevantly among other ideas in the text.

e.g.:

Indonesia telah meratifikasi KHA melalui Keppres No. 36/1990. Negara yang telah meratifikasi KHA, maka Negara tersebut terikat, baik secara Yuridis maupun politis (p. 1). (missing transitional marker, ideas loosely connected)

Anak yang putus sekolah adalah anak-anak yang kehilangan hak pendidikannya dan tidak memiliki kesempatan untuk mengembangkan dirinya secara maksimal. Kondisi seperti ini adalah kondisi yang sangat menyedihkan. Dampak lain masa depan anak tidak menentu serta menjadi ?Unskill Worker? sehingga mereka akan menjadi beban negara di masa datang (p. 2).
The problems I encounter in translating reports or documents resemble those I found in Advanced 4 students’ essays (Antoni and Radiana 2001). One hypothesis that can be raised out of this is that students translate even when they speak and write. This means that they write in Indonesian first what they want to say in English. Then they translate it. This of course produces problems in their translation as their Indonesian is itself still bad. An example is “Between family, legal, paramedics, or society and the victims can make cooperation for each other” (attachment p. 2), which is literal translation from “Di antara keluarga, hukum, paramedis, atau masyarakat dan korban dapat membuat kerjasama satu sama lain.”  One can easily see how badly the sentence is constructed in Indonesian in the first place, this resulting in the translation being also wrong. This practice of writing on the part of Indonesian users—that is, writing in Indonesian first and then translating it—is also confirmed by Alwasilah (1993: 60) when investigating Indonesian students and their academic life in the US academic setting.

With Bahtera Foundation’s (2003) report on non-formal education being sampled, the problems I encounter can be classified into problems at the sentential level, and those at discoursal level. Discussed one by one, they are as follows:

1. Problems at the sentential level

At this level, problems are usually concerned with loose sentence construction, meaning that it does not follow the rules prescribed by Tatabahasa Indonesia Baku with regards to use of predicate, conjunctions, etc.

e.g.

– Negara yang telah meratifikasi KHA, maka Negara tersebut terikat, baik secara Yuridis maupun politis (p. 1). (unclear predicate, inappropriate use of conjunction)

– Dampak lain masa depan anak tidak menentu serta menjadi“Unskill Worker”sehingga mereka akan menjadi beban negara di masa mendatang (p. 2). (run-on sentence, ineffective sentence)

– Hal itu mengakibatkan kurangnya fasilitas sekolah yang memadai, rendahnya kualitas guru, sehingga pelatihan teknis administrasi dan profesionalisme di bidang pendidikan kurang terjamin (p. 3). (run-on sentence, ineffective sentence, no logic)

– Perhatian yang kurang dari orangtua dan ketidakharmonisan komunikasi yang terjadi dalam keluarga telah mengakibatkan anak merasa dikucilkan dalam interaksi sosial keluarga, sebagai akibat anak menjadi terlempar ke jalan (p. 7). (run-on sentence, ineffective sentence)

– membuat batas usia minimum atas tanggung jawab pelaku kejahatan (p. 8). (no logic)

– Child to child approachadalah sebuah model pendekatan antar anak yang berbeda usia(cross-age peer tutoring)pola ini adalah alternative pengajaran yang mengandalkan peserta didik yang lebih tua mengajar peserta didik yang lebih muda, dan banyak memberi kesempatan pada peserta didik untuk berlatih (p. 9). (run-on sentence, ineffective sentence)

2. Problems at the discoursal level

At this level, problems are associated with the way sentences are loosely connected in the text, this producing no apparent coherence and cohesion. There is little attempt on the part of the writer to make use of transitional markers and other cohesive devices to connect ideas together. It may also happen that some ideas stand irrelevantly among other ideas in the text.

e.g.

– Indonesia telah meratifikasi KHA melalui Keppres No. 36/1990. Negara yang telah meratifikasi KHA, maka Negara tersebut terikat, baik secara Yuridis maupun politis (p. 1). (missing transitional marker, ideas loosely connected)

– Anak yang putus sekolah adalah anak-anak yang kehilangan hak pendidikannya dan tidak memiliki kesempatan untuk mengembangkan dirinya secara maksimal. Kondisi seperti ini adalah kondisi yang sangat menyedihkan. Dampak lain masa depan anak tidak menentu serta menjadi“Unskill Worker” sehingga mereka akan menjadi beban negara di masa datang (p. 2). (missing transitional marker, inappropriate use of ‘lain’)

– Munculnya anak yang hidup di jalanan adalah salah satu akses ketidakberdayaan Masyarakat dalam memenuhi kebutuhan dalam keluarga khususnya kebutuhan yang diperlukan oleh anak. Perhatian yang kurang dari orangtua dan ketidakharmonisan komunikasi yang terjadi dalam keluarga telah mengakibatkan anak merasa dikucilkan dalam interaksi sosial keluarga, sebagai akibat anak menjadi terlempar ke jalan (p. 7). (lack of focus, ideas loosely connected)

– Kondisi kehidupan yang sedemikian keras tidak menutup kemungkinan munculnya tindak kekerasan yang ditimbulkan oleh orang-orang dewasa yang notabene sebagai orang yang harusnya melindungi. Perlakuan salah yang dialami anak-anak di jalan dapat berupa kekerasan fisik, mental, eksploitasi ekonomi, kekerasan seksual (pemerkosaan, sodomi dan pornografi). Masalah lain yang Dihadapi anak-anak di jalanan adalah beresiko tinggi terhadap berbagai masalah kesehatan dan korban penyalahgunaan obat-obatan terlarang (p. 7). (ideas loosely connected, missing cohesive device)  

The original section above in the original paper was under a content heading; Y et. al. placed it also under a content heading.

Table 3 B

PlagiarizedOriginal
The problems encountered by Panggabean in 2014 wasThe problems I encounter
with Bahtera Foundations (2003) report on non-formal education being sampledThis practice of writing on the part of Indonesian users—that is, writing in Indonesian first and then translating it—is also confirmed by Alwasilah (1993: 60) when investigating Indonesian students and their academic life in the US academic setting.   With Bahtera Foundation’s (2003) report on non-formal education being sampled
WeI
Indonesian language GrammarTatabahasa Indonesia Baku
Sentential level: Took first 2 examplesSix (6) examples
Discoursal level: Took first 2 examplesFour (4) examples

Taking the section verbatim, Y et. al. just a little bit changed or modified any chosen word, key word, or phrase, mostly omitting sentences or parts they didn’t deem necessary as can be seen in Table 3 B above. As such, this kind of plagiarism falls into categories 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Based on the result of analysis above coupled with the fact that the paper from which the ideas were taken was not mentioned and referenced, it can be concluded that Y et. al. surely did plagiarize the given parts as discussed above. The kinds and forms of plagiarism committed fall into categories 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Y et. al. have been notified. In the absence of their reply within the time frame given, the journal editor who had their article published will be informed of their plagiarism acts and be requested that the published article be retracted from publication.

References (including papers and articles concerned):

Antoni, F. (2003, September). “Translating from Indonesian into English: Problems and Challenges.” Paper presented at Kongres Nasional Penerjemahan 2003, Solo.

Antoni, F. 2018. Teaching students to avoid plagiarism in writing in the ICT and digital world: lessons from catching an African Ph.D-holding senior lecturer plagiarist. Jurnal Ilmiah Bahasa dan Budaya ‘Lingua’, 14 (1), 51-65. Paper version available here.  

Y, S. et. al. 2020. Translation materials development for preservice teachers: a contemporary approach. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 9 (2), 5112-5115. Article available here; the authors as featured on the journal’s cover here; the authors’ university affiliations here.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *