EDITORIAL Plagiarism: Ke Garne ? Academic fraud must have consequences .................................................................................................................................... few days ago, as we were rushing to press with an issue that has been plagued by unforeseeable delays, we found that one of our articles contained plagiarized material. “Tut-tut,” you say. “A purloined phrase... an undocumented source? Where’s the harm? EverybodyA does it!” Purloined phrase? Not quite. One of the sources cited for apparently minor points was in fact looted: page after page was lifted verbatim, along with the major conclusions, which were simply grafted onto the article that we were about to publish. And where’s the harm? Well, forgive our petulance, but we wasted hours and hours of our time on a 36-page manuscript, reviewing, revising, and eventually exposing it. The cover, contents, and layout of this entire issue had to be redone. All of which is trivial compared to the fiasco narrowly averted. Had we actually published the article, we would have directly injured the original author (and his publisher), whose intellectual property and professional stock-in-trade were stolen; we would have brought disrepute on ourselves and our journal; and we would have been exposed to legal and financial repercussions, including the danger of diminished support from those on whom the ultimate success of the journal depends. An even greater loss is now incurred by us all It wasn’t your typical fish story. This through the thwarted dissemination of important information and ideas. The article in question applied wasn’t a fisherman exaggerating the size findings pertinent to one group of endangered fish, whose genetic diversity and is threatened by captive of the one that got away — it was a case of breeding and realease, and proposed that the same might be true of a group of Himalayan fish. Such massive plagiarism. Fortunately, HJS applications of published scholarly research editors caught it before the story went to represent the best-case scenario for our journal, our readers, and our society; yet we are no choice but to print, but we paid a price in time, money, withdraw the article. Everybody does it? Academic dishonesty is and goodwill. Now we have to think certainly rampant, and probably nowhere more than in Nepal, where political, commercial, and legal seriously about what we can do to protect corruption have a solid schooling in our educational system. All the more reason to take a stand and do ourselves from intellectual dishonesty. We something about it. First of all, we will review and clarify our invite your suggestions and your guidelines for contributors, in order to minimize the likelihood of inadvertent plagiarism. Second, we collaboration. are considering a policy of public exposure of all those who use or attempt to use the Himalayan Journal of Sciences to perpetrate intellecual fraud. Third, we are taking steps to organize a symposium of publishers, academics, and legal experts in order to develop strategies for dealing with a problem that undermines our institutions and threatens our future, as well as other forms of scientific misconduct. We invite your input and collaboration. HIMALAYAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCES VOL 3 ISSUE 5 JAN-JUNE 2005 7 COMMENTARY Nepalese malacology trails behind “Catch up!” Prem B Budha ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... n terms of biological diversity, the Mollusks of the world are, in general, more thoroughly documented than Himalayan region is one of the other invertebrates. This is the case for the Himalayas as well – except in world’s richest ecosystems (Pei Nepal. A scant 139 species have been reported from Nepal, but the new and Sharma 1998) and has been identified as a “biodiversity sightings reported every year and the high percentage of endemism (94.6 for hotspot.” Although Nepal terrestrial and 47.8 for aquatic mollusks) both suggest that a focused and Iconstitutes only about 0.09% of the accelerated study of these creatures is warranted. However, inauspicious world’s land area, it harbors a remarkable externalities indicate that, for the foreseeable future, progress is unlikely to number of faunal species: 4.5% of all exceed the proverbial snail’s pace. mammals, 9.5% of birds, 1.2% of amphibians, 2.03% of reptiles and 6.8% of butterflies and moths. China, which is bioclimatic zones (from tropical to nival) researchers. According to published 65 times greater in area than Nepal, is generated by the extreme altitudinal resources, Pupilla eurina was the first home to only 12.5% of the world’s gradient (60 to 8848 masl in a country mollusk reported from Nepal; Benson mammals, 6.3% of the birds, 9.1% of the that is on average only 193 km wide). identified it as Pupa eurina in 1864 (Gude amphibians and 18.8% of the reptiles. Without complete information on this 1914). In 1909, more than four decades Similarly, India is 16 times greater than important zoogeographic region, the after the first report, Preston (1908) Nepal, but can claim only 8.6% of the world database of malacofauna remains identified Limnaea (Gulnaria) simulans mammals in the world, 13.3% of the birds, woefully incomplete. from a Nepalese specimen in the 4.3% of the amphibians and 7.2% of the Taxonomic expertise is an collection of the Indian Museum, Calcutta. reptiles (Pei 1996). indispensable foundation for estimation Subba Rao (1989) details 285 species of Unlike many other invertebrates, of global biodiversity and formulation of freshwater mollusks collected in India, mollusks throughout most of the world conservation policy (Golding and Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Sri-Lanka are taxonomically a relatively well-known Timberlake 2002). The Seventh and other adjoining countries. In Rao’s group. There are databases for Eastern International Malacological Congress in handbook, the malacofauna of Nepal is Himalayan mollusks (covering Assam, 1980 recommended that governments, represented by only two species – Darjeeling, Arunachal, Meghalaya, and universities, museums and conservation Bellamya nepalensis and Lymnaea Burma) and also for Western Himalaya agencies be urged to promote research andersoniana. Recently, Dey and Mitra species (including those of Jammu, on the taxonomy of mollusks (IUCN (2000) reviewed 689 species of freshwater Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and 1983). Article 7 of the Convention on and land mollusks found in the Gahrwal). No such database exists for Biological Diversity (CBD), which Nepal Himalayas; again, Nepal’s mollusks are mollusks of the Nepal Himalaya. ratified in 1993, stipulates the importance almost entirely absent, with only two Inadequate data and information of identification and monitoring of species mentioned – L. andersoniana and management is considered a significant species and assemblages. Decision II/8 Pupilla eurina. Scientists from other threat to Nepal’s biodiversity of the second meeting of the Conference regions have carried out taxonomic conservation (MFSC 2002). Sporadic of the Parties to the CBD identified the research on mollusks during short reports on the phylum from Nepal lack of taxonomists as a significant expeditions to Nepal. They have identified Himalaya are scattered in articles and impediment to the implementation of the many new taxa and their work indicates dissertations throughout the world and Convention at the national level. More that Nepal is a promising area for further not readily accessible to researchers; they recently, a workshop of the South Asian biodiversity and taxonomic research. In have yet to be included in Nepal’s Loop of BioNet-International (SACNET) the literature survey, I found 139 species biodiversity databases. Nonetheless, the was held in Bangladesh (2003 June 15-20) of mollusks (83 terrestrial and 56 existing databases reveal that the in conjunction with the third regional freshwater) reported so far from Nepal, Himalayan region as a whole is rich in session of the Global Biodiversity Forum and new finds have been recorded every endemic mollusks: 94.6% of the terrestrial (GBF) for South Asia; again, the year. The discovery of two new genera of species and 47.8% of the freshwater participants emphasized the taxonomic terrestrial mollusks: Ranibania species found in the eastern and central impediment to implementation of the (Schileyko and Kuznetsov 1996) and Himalayas are found only in the regions CBD for the whole region. Sadly, even two Nepaliena (Schileyko and Frank 1994), (Dey and Mitra 2000). Much taxonomic decades after the first wake-up call, and eight new terrestrial species: work remains to be done, particularly in taxonomic expertise on mollusk is Hemiphaedusa martensiana (Nordsieck Nepal, where we may expect to discover shockingly poor in Nepal. 1973), H. kathmandica (Nordsieck 1973), numerous endemic species of both Taxonomic work in Nepal has Laevozevrinus nepalensis (Schileyko and terrestrial and freshwater mollusks, as proceeded at the proverbial mollusk’s Frank 1994), L. mustangensis (Kuznetsov well as new species, in the many pace due to lack of advanced tools, and Schileyko 1997), Himalodiscus unexplored and isolated microhabitats trained staff, research infrastructure, aculeatus (Kuznetsov 1996), Pupinidius within the severely compressed logistic support and incentives for tukuchensis