Ranjit Singh Malhi
Published: Jan 28, 2024 12:12 PM
COMMENT | The recent controversy surrounding an article written by two academics Rozita Che Rodi and Hashim Musa from Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) has put the crucial issue of academic quality and integrity in our country under scrutiny.
Rozita and Hashim, both from UPM’s Malay Language Department, had jointly written the article titled “The Jongs and The Galleys: Traditional Ships of The Past Malay Maritime Civilisation” which was published on Nov 19, 2023, in the “International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences” (IJARBSS), Vol 13, Issue 11, 2023.
Like most publications of its kind, it may well have passed unnoticed by the wider public, if not for Serge Jardin, a French writer of history.
In a Facebook post on Jan 20, Jardin alleged that an image used in the article by the UPM academics to represent a model of Malay jongs is actually a hua-p'i-ku or a Foochow pole junk from China. The Foochow pole junk is a cargo-carrying junk with a capacity of 200-400 tonnes, and capable of long sea voyages.
Jardin further alleged that the model in question is not displayed in the Bahari Museum in Jakarta, Indonesia as stated by the authors in their article, but rather, is in the Royal Museums Greenwich, London (ID: AAE0200).
At the same time, Jardin went on to question whether the journal in which the article was published was credible and peer-reviewed.
Jardin’s comments are very serious and disturbing. They go to the heart of academic rigour and integrity which is central to maintaining the quality of academic research and reputation.
In addition, he has shone the spotlight on the increasing prevalence of academic journals of questionable quality, particularly open-access “predatory journals” which prioritise profit over academic integrity.
Predatory journals
Reputable academic journals uphold high editorial standards, and diligently screen articles submitted for publication for factual accuracy of content, including images by in-house editors as well as external peer reviewers.
In contrast, “predatory journals” are those that require authors to pay a fee for publishing their articles, and hence expose themselves to the risk of accepting submissions which could be of inferior quality. About IJARBSS, authors have to pay a publication fee of US$82 per article to get them published in the journal.
Published: Jan 28, 2024 12:12 PM
COMMENT | The recent controversy surrounding an article written by two academics Rozita Che Rodi and Hashim Musa from Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) has put the crucial issue of academic quality and integrity in our country under scrutiny.
Rozita and Hashim, both from UPM’s Malay Language Department, had jointly written the article titled “The Jongs and The Galleys: Traditional Ships of The Past Malay Maritime Civilisation” which was published on Nov 19, 2023, in the “International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences” (IJARBSS), Vol 13, Issue 11, 2023.
Like most publications of its kind, it may well have passed unnoticed by the wider public, if not for Serge Jardin, a French writer of history.
In a Facebook post on Jan 20, Jardin alleged that an image used in the article by the UPM academics to represent a model of Malay jongs is actually a hua-p'i-ku or a Foochow pole junk from China. The Foochow pole junk is a cargo-carrying junk with a capacity of 200-400 tonnes, and capable of long sea voyages.
Jardin further alleged that the model in question is not displayed in the Bahari Museum in Jakarta, Indonesia as stated by the authors in their article, but rather, is in the Royal Museums Greenwich, London (ID: AAE0200).
At the same time, Jardin went on to question whether the journal in which the article was published was credible and peer-reviewed.
Jardin’s comments are very serious and disturbing. They go to the heart of academic rigour and integrity which is central to maintaining the quality of academic research and reputation.
In addition, he has shone the spotlight on the increasing prevalence of academic journals of questionable quality, particularly open-access “predatory journals” which prioritise profit over academic integrity.
Predatory journals
Reputable academic journals uphold high editorial standards, and diligently screen articles submitted for publication for factual accuracy of content, including images by in-house editors as well as external peer reviewers.
In contrast, “predatory journals” are those that require authors to pay a fee for publishing their articles, and hence expose themselves to the risk of accepting submissions which could be of inferior quality. About IJARBSS, authors have to pay a publication fee of US$82 per article to get them published in the journal.
Predatory journals have been criticised for lacking robust peer review, poor quality editorial services, and choosing rapid publication turnaround.
Nonetheless, they have mushroomed in recent years due to the “publish or perish” reality of academic life - academics are under tremendous pressure to produce journal publications to move up the academic ladder.
As can be expected, the article’s publication has drawn flak from several renowned scholars. For example, Syed Farid Alatas, a professor of Sociology at the National University of Singapore, has commented: “It’s high time that something is done about the standards of higher education in Malaysia.
“It is not at all surprising that there are problems with published papers and books, such as those found in the by now infamous UPM paper on Malay maritime history.”
Syed Farid also questioned the credibility of the journal in which it was published: “I can say with much confidence that no publication in the International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences would be taken seriously in any academic institution that has a decent standard.”
Whereas, James Chin of the University of Tasmania’s Asia Institute has questioned the ulterior motive of the UPM academics in claiming the Chinese junk to be Malay in origin. He has suggested that the UPM academics might be biased (influenced by the ideology of ketuanan Melayu or Malay dominance) and “so desperate to rewrite history”.
He has also stated that he was “completely dumbfounded” because the facts in dispute could have been easily checked. Additionally, James has bluntly labelled the IJARBSS as a “fake academic journal”.
In a similar vein, published Malaysian author Preeta Samarasan has referred to it as a “backyard journal” that “can count as a publication record for Malay(sian) academics ...”
It is also noteworthy to mention the views of Syukry Kamarudin, an independent researcher, who concurs with Jardin that the junk in question is “certainly Chinese” because “the oculus eyes on the bow” are “part of Chinese superstition”, and that the hull and the transom bow are typically found in Chinese vessels.
The Royal Museums Greenwich in London said the photograph of a ship model in its collection is correctly attributed as ‘Foochow junk’, as per its catalogue.
UPM, understandably but not convincingly, has put out a press statement, defending the article written by its two academics. The university has asserted that the article had been subjected to a blind peer review process and blithely argued that “the field of social sciences and humanities studies is open to interpretation from various parties”.
How confident is UPM that the article was indeed reviewed by independent experts in Malay maritime history?
Facts and interpretations
To quote Jardin: “Are we speaking of a peer blind review or are the so-called experts blind? How is it possible for an expert not to see the difference between a Chinese junk and a Malay jong?”
Let us also not forget that the main issue at hand is factual accuracy and not interpretation which are distinctly different. Factual accuracy is factually accurate information.
Facts are indisputable; they can be objectively verified and proven through evidence. For example, the image used in the controversial article is that of a Foochow pole junk and not a Malay jong.
Interpretation, on the other hand, places facts in a context and seeks to explain their significance or to provide a conclusion based on them. We can have the same facts but different interpretations.
What has not been highlighted so far in this worrying issue is that the article published by the two academics in IJARBSS is essentially a translation of a paper (available online), “Teknologi perkapalan Melayu tradisional: Jong dan Ghali meredah tujuh lautan”, which was presented by Hashim in “Persidangan Antarabangsa Manuskrip Melayu” from Oct 15 to 17, 2019.
Interestingly, in the paper presented by Hashim, no source was given for the controversial model of the Malay jong.
It is especially troubling to note that both academics did not disclose the fact to the journal’s readers that the article was not original when publishing it in IJARBSS.
Arguably, both of them may have to explain if they had committed a transgression in academic publishing called self-plagiarism - reusing a substantial part of one’s previous work without citing the original text.
Self-plagiarism misleads readers by presenting previously published work as completely new and original. Furthermore, if an academic paper is reproduced or translated into another language, it has not contributed to new knowledge and is thus not worthy of publication.
Incidentally, IJARBSS claims that it publishes original research articles. If the article was indeed peer-reviewed, as claimed by HRMARS’ Journal Publications director Sunil Noel, one wonders why the reviewers did not discover that it was not an original article.
For the record, the opening sentence in the abstracts for both the published article and the paper presented at the 2019 conference is 100 percent similar, including the usage of punctuation such as commas: “The Malay civilisation in the past, located in the Malay Archipelago, was a maritime civilisation, being strategically situated midway between the trade sea routes of the western and eastern trading nations.”
Let us now focus on the Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (HRMARS) which publishes the IJARBSS. It has been labelled as a “predatory publisher” by Predatory Reports - an organisation comprising volunteer researchers who have been harmed by predatory publishers and desire to help researchers identify legitimate journals and trusted publishers for their research.
One also wonders how a “human resource management” society such as HRMARS considers it within its area of expertise to reportedly publish the following journals spanning various disciplines: International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences; International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences; International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences; International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development; and Multilingual Academic Journal of Education and Social Sciences.
On top of that, I almost jumped out of my chair when I shockingly discovered that Vol 13, Issue 11, November 2023 of the IJARBSS, in which the controversial article was published, had a total of over 200 articles amounting to 8,132 pages.
In contrast, most scholarly and genuine journals have on average only about 10‒12 articles per issue. Additionally, articles in IJARBSS are published rapidly unlike those of reputable journals, on average within a month of submission.
Grammatical errors
I am also not impressed by the editorial standards of IJARBSS. Several articles, including “Political Islam in Islamism and Post Islamism: A Study on Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF)” by two academics from Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (published on Feb 4, 2018) are littered with grammatical errors.
Some examples of atrocious grammatical errors are: “Although, the AKP’ direction is still be a big questioned”; “In this situation, the AKP came to power on Turkey”; and “Therefore, Islam principles and Western values are not in similar and contrary stand.”
Incredibly, there are even fundamental language errors in the titles of published articles. Some examples are: “Development Micro-Credentials Overview Social Security” and “The Issues of Safety and Health Items Provided in Construction Industry Standard (CIS 27: 2019): The Level of Safety Items Importance toward Contractors” (both in IJARBSS, Vol 13, Issue 11, November 2023).
To conclude, I trust that the Higher Education Ministry and the top management of our local universities will do the needful to ensure high-quality journal articles are published by Malaysian academics.
Ultimately, of course, as writers, the onus is on Malaysian academics to uphold the quality of their published works and adhere to the highest standards of academic integrity.
They should painstakingly fact-check and scrupulously edit their written output, besides refraining from publishing their articles in sub-standard and “predatory journals”.
These are the sole prerequisites by which our academics can garner respect and credibility among their peers and the public.
UPM, understandably but not convincingly, has put out a press statement, defending the article written by its two academics. The university has asserted that the article had been subjected to a blind peer review process and blithely argued that “the field of social sciences and humanities studies is open to interpretation from various parties”.
How confident is UPM that the article was indeed reviewed by independent experts in Malay maritime history?
Facts and interpretations
To quote Jardin: “Are we speaking of a peer blind review or are the so-called experts blind? How is it possible for an expert not to see the difference between a Chinese junk and a Malay jong?”
Let us also not forget that the main issue at hand is factual accuracy and not interpretation which are distinctly different. Factual accuracy is factually accurate information.
Facts are indisputable; they can be objectively verified and proven through evidence. For example, the image used in the controversial article is that of a Foochow pole junk and not a Malay jong.
Interpretation, on the other hand, places facts in a context and seeks to explain their significance or to provide a conclusion based on them. We can have the same facts but different interpretations.
What has not been highlighted so far in this worrying issue is that the article published by the two academics in IJARBSS is essentially a translation of a paper (available online), “Teknologi perkapalan Melayu tradisional: Jong dan Ghali meredah tujuh lautan”, which was presented by Hashim in “Persidangan Antarabangsa Manuskrip Melayu” from Oct 15 to 17, 2019.
Interestingly, in the paper presented by Hashim, no source was given for the controversial model of the Malay jong.
It is especially troubling to note that both academics did not disclose the fact to the journal’s readers that the article was not original when publishing it in IJARBSS.
Arguably, both of them may have to explain if they had committed a transgression in academic publishing called self-plagiarism - reusing a substantial part of one’s previous work without citing the original text.
Self-plagiarism misleads readers by presenting previously published work as completely new and original. Furthermore, if an academic paper is reproduced or translated into another language, it has not contributed to new knowledge and is thus not worthy of publication.
Incidentally, IJARBSS claims that it publishes original research articles. If the article was indeed peer-reviewed, as claimed by HRMARS’ Journal Publications director Sunil Noel, one wonders why the reviewers did not discover that it was not an original article.
For the record, the opening sentence in the abstracts for both the published article and the paper presented at the 2019 conference is 100 percent similar, including the usage of punctuation such as commas: “The Malay civilisation in the past, located in the Malay Archipelago, was a maritime civilisation, being strategically situated midway between the trade sea routes of the western and eastern trading nations.”
Let us now focus on the Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (HRMARS) which publishes the IJARBSS. It has been labelled as a “predatory publisher” by Predatory Reports - an organisation comprising volunteer researchers who have been harmed by predatory publishers and desire to help researchers identify legitimate journals and trusted publishers for their research.
One also wonders how a “human resource management” society such as HRMARS considers it within its area of expertise to reportedly publish the following journals spanning various disciplines: International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences; International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences; International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences; International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development; and Multilingual Academic Journal of Education and Social Sciences.
On top of that, I almost jumped out of my chair when I shockingly discovered that Vol 13, Issue 11, November 2023 of the IJARBSS, in which the controversial article was published, had a total of over 200 articles amounting to 8,132 pages.
In contrast, most scholarly and genuine journals have on average only about 10‒12 articles per issue. Additionally, articles in IJARBSS are published rapidly unlike those of reputable journals, on average within a month of submission.
Grammatical errors
I am also not impressed by the editorial standards of IJARBSS. Several articles, including “Political Islam in Islamism and Post Islamism: A Study on Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF)” by two academics from Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (published on Feb 4, 2018) are littered with grammatical errors.
Some examples of atrocious grammatical errors are: “Although, the AKP’ direction is still be a big questioned”; “In this situation, the AKP came to power on Turkey”; and “Therefore, Islam principles and Western values are not in similar and contrary stand.”
Incredibly, there are even fundamental language errors in the titles of published articles. Some examples are: “Development Micro-Credentials Overview Social Security” and “The Issues of Safety and Health Items Provided in Construction Industry Standard (CIS 27: 2019): The Level of Safety Items Importance toward Contractors” (both in IJARBSS, Vol 13, Issue 11, November 2023).
To conclude, I trust that the Higher Education Ministry and the top management of our local universities will do the needful to ensure high-quality journal articles are published by Malaysian academics.
Ultimately, of course, as writers, the onus is on Malaysian academics to uphold the quality of their published works and adhere to the highest standards of academic integrity.
They should painstakingly fact-check and scrupulously edit their written output, besides refraining from publishing their articles in sub-standard and “predatory journals”.
These are the sole prerequisites by which our academics can garner respect and credibility among their peers and the public.
RANJIT SINGH MALHI is an independent historian who has written 19 books on Malaysian, Asian and world history. He is highly committed to writing an inclusive and truthful history of Malaysia based upon authoritative sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment