Memorandum 98
Submission from Professor MS El-Sayed
SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE TO IUSS REGARDING
PLAGIARISM AT LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY
INTRODUCTION
I would like to submit written evidence on "plagiarism"
at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU). I have been fighting
for years to expose the truth about plagiarism at the University
but to no avail. I have recently written to the Rt. Hon Mr John
Denham MP, Secretary of State for DIUS and Professor Paul Ramsden,
Chief Executive for HEA regarding this issue. I have also formally
written to HEFCE (evidence enclosed:[346]
electronic correspondence with Professor David Eastwood) and QAA
(evidence enclosed[347]
letter from Mr Peter Williams to the Chairman of Select Committee
on IUSS) asking for the issue to be thoroughly investigated.
It was made clear to HEFCE and QAA that I am unwilling
to disclose the substantive, compelling and indisputable evidence
of plagiarism at the University without protection against future
litigation (please see Mr Peter Williams letter to the House of
Common on 30 October 2008).[348]
The position of these organisations is that they cannot investigate
my revelations without disclosing my identity to the University,
nor can they offer me protection against future litigation.
I understand the only available pathway to divulge
the truth to the public about plagiarism at the University is
through the "Parliament Protection Privilege". To this
end, enclosed please find a very small sample of the plagiarised
students' course work reports[349]
as evidence.
1. Background information
I am Professor of Applied Physiology and worked
at the University till I was summarily dismissed on 3 January
2007. I have contributed significantly to the British Education
over the last 30 years in the teaching and research domains (please
see enclosed statements by colleagues).[350]
This encompassed academic and administrative commitments including
the supervision of several Ph.D. and MSc students to successful
completion. I have published more than 200 refereed articles,
scientific correspondence items, and meeting abstracts. My capability
as a teacher and researcher furnish the grounds for my personal
written evidence to IUSS on plagiarism at the University.
2. Competing interest declaration
I declare that I do not have any competing financial
interest or otherwise. I aim to expose the truth to the public
and clear my name by disclosing the truth about plagiarism at
the University. I only enclose very few samples of plagiarised
(as defined by LJMU Academic Misconduct 2004-05, document enclosed)[351]
course work reports by the students. Additional substantial evidence
will be submitted on request to prove beyond any reasonable doubts
that plagiarism has taken place, widespread and chronic academic
impropriety at the University.
3. Plagiarism: the case
As it was advised by [committee staff], I sent
to the Committee a very few course work of the students'
plagirised reports. I would be happy to send substantially more
plagiarised reports if this is required at this stage. These reports
clearly and unambiguously exhibit the following:
— The verbatim copying of another's work
within reports without clear identification and acknowledgements.
This is defined as plagiarism according to the University's definition.
— That some or all of the students appear
to have copied review articles and text books carelessly. Unidentified
and unacknowledged quotations from another work are the main feature
of the students' course work reports. This is plagiarism according
to the University's definition.
— That some or all the references at the
back of the report are not referred to within the text. This is
plagiarism according to the University's definition.
3.1 The majority of students are tempted
to lift sections of words from published papers or from textbooks.
This is a very serious problem in the University. The students
were clearly informed at the beginning of each academic semester
and prior to the submission of the course work that this lifting
is known as plagiarism and it is a very serious academic offence
(please sees evidence attached).[352]
Students were also informed when they were handed back their course
work reports to reinforce the point.
3.2 The first lecture of each new semester
was allocated for an overview of the module syllabuses and the
subject of the course work assignment. An over head projector
was used to advise the students how to write their assignments
and avoid plagiarism in line with the University's Modular Framework
Assessment Regulations. A single printed sheet of A4 under the
title "Assignment general and specific comments" was
handed to the students at the commencement of the semester. This
sheet contained a number of comments defining plagiarism and stating
why it was unacceptable (please sees evidence attached).[353]
Students were advised to develop their own ideas and arguments
and learn how to express themselves. They were informed about
the seriousness of plagiarism and how to avoid it. The enclosed
"Assignment general and specific comments" sheet[354]
was clearly explained to the students and at the commencement
of each new semester, during the semester, and prior to the submission
of the course work.
3.3 Students were also referred to the University's
Modular Framework Assessment Regulations (Section D Appendix C)
regarding academic impropriety and that their course work should
conform to those regulations. Students were advised to show that
they have learnt about and can use other people work. They were
taught how to quote and reference to show where they got the material
from. Students were clearly informed that, in their assignment,
when discussing other people ideas, they should acknowledge where
the ideas came from with supporting references.
3.4 Students were advised that they must
avoid direct copying from published papers or textbooks as this
practice may suggest that they are incapable of using ideas for
themselves. Students were also informed not to rely heavily on
copying out segments from printed literatures as copying the literatures
obscure whether the students understand the topic of the course
work. Students, when submitted their course work reports, were
required to sign a declaration that all sources consulted have
been appropriately acknowledged (evidence submitted as attached
to some of the plagiarised course work reports already sent to
the Committee).
4. Although plagiarism is a very serious
academic impropriety as clearly stated in the University's Modular
Framework Assessment Regulations (Section D Appendix C), the University
management has not taken this issue seriously.
4.1 The University strategies to identify
plagiarism were inadequate and the procedures available to combat
plagiarism were ineffective. I repeatedly tried to have my concerns
about excessive toleration of plagiarism considered by the University.
However, I was constantly put off by the University Management.
All my complaints were ignored despite a litany of requests for
action and no penalties were sanctioned when plagiarism was suspected
and detected.
4.2 I had numerous grounds of grievances
in relation to plagiarism over the years against colleagues and
Management at the University. Most notably in May and December
2003 I have attempted to have my grievances about excessive toleration
of plagiarism dealt with and investigated under the University's
grievance procedures. This never happened.
4.3 When I suspected and identified plagiarism,
the University should have taken my concerns seriously and a thorough
investigation should have been conducted promptly in line with
the University's regulations. This never happened.
4.4 I was only allowed to down mark the
plagiarised assignment by 10% (see attached evidence entitled
"Disciplinary Case").[355]
I was not allowed to sanction more severe penalty or to fail any
plagiarised course work during the consultation and moderation
processes. Following my suspension, two Managers at the School
alleged that they have remarked the assignments and came to the
conclusion that no plagiarism had taken place (evidence would
be provided on request). The external examiner confirmed the Managers
conclusion (evidence would be provided on request)! I viewed this
as an unacceptable practice. I believe that the managers at the
University in collaboration with the external examiner were trying
to cover up plagiarism.
4.5 I raised my concern about plagiarism
through the University's procedures but it was then converted
into a disciplinary against me with allegations that I had not
followed University procedures, which is not true (see attached
evidence entitled "Disciplinary Case").[356]
There has been not the merest hint of actually dealing with the
issue of plagiarism and I was stopped from providing the evidence
I had gathered (abundant compelling evidence is available on request).
This demonstrates, I believe, disregard for professional standards
to an extent that should be intolerable in a British University.
4.6 Instead of investigating and determining
my concerns of May and December 2003 in respect of plagiarism,
managers at the University chose to suspend me on 10 December
2003. I was suspended for an unimaginable long time while the
most dilatory "investigation" imaginable was conducted.
This is viewed as the worst kind of sharp practice. Then I was
accused of gross professional misconduct. The University managers
made up false allegations against me to justify "Gross Professional
Misconduct". I was eventually dismissed in January 2007 following
an investigation and grievance and disciplinary hearing in October
2006. In April 2007 I appealed to the University's Board of Governors
against the dismissal, but my appeal was not upheld and the final
dismissal decision was conveyed to me in May 2007. The investigation
was flawed in design and substance. The grievance and disciplinary
and the appeal hearings were discriminatory and I was unfairly
dismissed.
5. Through the University College Union
(UCU) Legal Services Department, three claims (one in 2005 and
two in 2007) were lodged with the Employment Tribunal and 20 days
have been allocated for hearing the case commencing 14 January
2008. These complaints were based, among other issues, on protected
disclosures in relation to plagiarism and overseas students' bench
fees and unfair dismissal.
5.1 The Employment Tribunal hearings to
a full trial never took place as I was virtually forced to enter
into a compromise agreement with confidentiality clauses attached.
The compromise agreement was signed on my behalf by the UCU's
Director of the Legal Department as I was in a hysterical state
and heavily sedated with medications and utterly refused to sign
the compromise agreement.
6. My health disintegrated further as can
be established by reference to several medical reports including
one by the University's own occupational health doctor.
6.1 My academic career is now completely
ruined, my health is ruined and the normal social fabric of my
family is in a state of turmoil. The damage to my reputation and
to my name and career is immense.
7. Conclusion and Recommendation:
I do believe that the unfortunate story of plagiarism
at Liverpool John Moores University is in the public interest
and it is therefore my responsibility to bring the above facts
to the IUS Select Committee Attention. The corrupted practices
by the University are a threat to the public interest and to the
reputation of British Education standard nationally and internationally.
I believe that the allegations about plagiarism
presented in this written evidence are very serious and warrants
further considerations and investigation by IUSS Select Committee.
It is hoped that IUSS Select Committee will consider the following
recommendations:
— To investigate plagiarism at Liverpool
John Moores University.
— To introduce and enforce rules to protect
public interest and the reputation of the British Education against
plagiarism.
— To introduce rules on personal and collective
responsibilities and penalties for those helping to conceal plagiarism
at the British Universities.
— To introduce rules to protect individuals
from victimisation when exposing to the public academic improprieties.
Documents already submitted to the Committee:[357]
1. Letter from Mr. Peter Williams; Chief
Executive of QAA to IUSS Select Committee regarding my allegations
about plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University.
2. Correspondences exchanged with Professor
David Eastwood, Chief Executive of HEFCE about plagiarism at Liverpool
John Moores University.
3. Liverpool John Moores University's widely
distributed and publicised literature regarding academic misconduct
and definition of plagiarism and cheating.
4. Very small sample (eight) of plagirised
students' course work reports (2002 and 2003). This was the advice
of [committee staff].
New documents enclosed:[358]
1. Statements by colleagues
2. Assignment general and specific comments.
3. Two pages report entitled "Disciplinary
Case".
PS. Additional substantial and compelling evidence
to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that plagiarism at the University
had occurred, widespread and chronic will be provided on request.
Likewise, additional substantial and compelling evidence to prove
that the University has not taken the issue of plagiarism seriously
and endeavoured to cover it up will be provided on request. The
involvement of the external examiner in this issue is relevant
and, I believe, warrants special consideration and investigation.
February 2009
346 Not published. Back
347
Not published. Back
348
Not published. Back
349
Not published. Back
350
Not published. Back
351
Not published. Back
352
Not published. Back
353
Not published. Back
354
Not published. Back
355
Not published. Back
356
Not published. Back
357
Not published. Back
358
Not published. Back
| 
