Reinventing the Wheel

  

In one of my earlier posts, I mentioned having edited over 15 theses on a pro bono basis. I have lost count of the research manuscripts I have drafted, revised, and reviewed, freely offering my private time and limited expertise to support and encourage both friends and strangers alike into academic engagement. 

Unfortunately, despite these efforts, it is disheartening to witness that some individuals are not encouraged by the commitment I have shown in encouraging them to think creatively. Instead, they turn to replicating what has already been done. This troubling pattern reveals a silent crisis in academic integrity, where convenience is chosen over creativity and shortcuts over originality. Such tendency to replicate rather than innovate is often described as reinventing the wheel. 

 

Personal Experience

I encountered this phenomenon of reinventing the wheel firsthand when an author, somehow known to me through academic engagements, sent me his manuscript for review before submitting it for publication. To my disbelief, not only had he plagiarised the core idea, but he had also boldly claimed that his work was the first of its kind in our (Bhutanese) context. What struck me even more was the irony that he had asked me, the original author, to review his copied manuscript 🙁. 

Although, I do not claim to have done groundbreaking research, but it was disheartening to witness such disregard for academic honesty. What troubles me is not just the act of copying, but the growing tendency to ignore or dismiss previous work. As research scholars, we have that room in the form of literature review and discussion section to acknowledge those who have done similar works before us. Still, many avoid acknowledging others, because we want to be seen as the first, even when our work is nothing new.

What we fail to realise is that genuine academic contribution does not come from repeating what has already been done, but from building thoughtfully upon existing work. For example, rather than using the same research instrument (e.g., a same questionnaire with a different name) to investigate a concept that has already been extensively explored, one could adopt a new research paradigm (e.g., positivism or interpretivism) or theoretical frameworks (e.g., social constructivism) to approach the topic from a fresh perspective. In doing so, the findings may offer novel insights and contribute meaningfully to the existing body of literature, rather than simply repackaging old ideas under new names. 

In my PhD thesis, I have explored how students' social bonds influence their metacognition in learning science. Metacognition has been the subject of extensive study for over three decades, leaving little apparent room for novel innovation. However, as I engaged with the literature, I observed that much of it was framed from an individualistic standpoint. That is, metacognition was viewed as internal process or self-contained mental activities occurring within individuals, largely detached from their social or cultural contexts.

But in my thesis, I have argued that metacognition is a social phenomenon (stimulated by social interaction), drawing upon a sociological theory to contribute to a holistic understanding of metacognition, while also complementing the existing psychological and cognitive viewpoints. I have also used multi-methods (e.g., synchronous observation technique, social bond dairy, one-on-one interviews, and researcher fieldnotes), with a research strategy grounded in a qualitative approach (e.g., single case study) within an interpretive paradigm. This was purposefully done to avoid reinventing the wheel, considering the previous literature that has predominantly relied on quantitative measures (e.g., questionnaires, tests) informed by a positivist framework.

 

Academic Dishonesty: A Growing Concern 

Plagiarism, whether deliberate or accidental, undermines the very essence of academic scholarship. When I encountered the plagiarised manuscript, I chose a subtle approach by gently prompting the author to consider whether his work was truly the first of its kind especially in our context. Recognising it as a direct imitation of my own work, I also sent him a link to my published paper along with other related materials asking him whether his version offered anything genuinely new.

I did not do this in the hope of being cited, but rather with a believe that it might lead him to reflect on the originality of his work (if he was innocent) and, at the very least, acknowledge prior research in his literature review with honesty (if he was ignorant). To my dismay, he insisted that his study was entirely different. The more I tried to engage him in a conversation about academic integrity and honesty, the more defensive and aggressive he became, insisting that his work was innovative and original in every respect.

Eventually, I chose to quietly move away from further interaction and quietly disengage from any communication lines with those so-called researchers who mistake imitation for intellectual contribution. 

 

The Rise of Predatory Journals

Compounding the issue is the proliferation of predatory journals, publications that operate with little to no academic rigour and lacking reputable editorial boards. 

Despite these obvious shortcomings, many researchers are drawn to them for the promise of quick and effortless publication, typically in exchange for a modest fee (often promoted as a discounted charge). Predatory journals are not concerned with the originality or scholarly merit of the work. Their primary motive is profit which is largely obtained by preying on those eager to see their names in print. 

I am neither in a position to question nor entitled to pass judgement on the choices others make. However, when an individual reproduces someone else’s work and publishes it in seemingly questionable journals, it raises serious concerns. Not only in terms of academic integrity but also about the erosion of genuine scholarship. Such practices undermine the value of original research and contribute to a culture where superficial output is mistaken for meaningful contribution.

What is even more disheartening is the way some academics seek affirmation by posting certificates from these dubious journals on social platforms, mistaking the mere presence of the word International in the title for a mark of genuine academic honour and rigour.

 

Promotions and Misplaced Priorities? 

If I have heard it correctly, one of the driving forces behind this trend of quick publication is the flawed nature of our promotion system. Promotions have now increasingly been determined by the quantity of publications, with no or little regard for the quality or originality of the research. The committees evaluating these applications often consisting of technical personnel rarely scrutinise these finer details because as long as the required documents are in order and the prescribed set of criteria are formally met, they tend to assume that promotions is guaranteed. 

The consequences of these shortcuts extend beyond individual careers. By publishing in predatory journals, scholars kill their own creativity, critical thinking, and innovation. This not only devalues their hard work and sacrifices but also jeopardises the academic integrity of the entire community. When the pursuit of quick wins replaces genuine intellectual inquiry, the quality of research and by extension, the reputation of academic institutions, suffers immensely.

 

A Call for Academic Integrity

It is imperative to address these growing concerns by fostering a culture of genuine scholarship. Academic institutions must implement stricter policies to combat plagiarism, discourage publication in predatory journals, and reward originality and innovation. Equally important is the need for promotion committees to move beyond mere checklists and adopt a more nuanced and rigorous approach to evaluating research contributions. Without consequences for poor work ethics and without incentives for genuine effort, there will be little motivation for scholars to pursue meaningful academic work.

By embracing shortcuts and prioritising quantity over quality, the endless cycles of reinventing the wheel will only continue unbated.