A recent report issued by the Commission on Academic Ethics (CAE) at the Ministry of Education and Science has sparked a controversy regarding the academic integrity of the former rector of Trakia University, Prof. Dobri Yarkov. The report, finalized in late April following a complaint by Assoc. Prof. Lazarin Lazarov, presents a complex conclusion: while it acknowledges the findings of plagiarism, it ultimately states that the arguments provided cannot confirm these findings as established fact.
The Disputed Findings
The investigation centers on two textbooks and a manual submitted by Prof. Yarkov in 2022 as part of a procedure to attain the rank of professor in veterinary medicine. Three independent arbiters were appointed to review the materials and all three reported significant instances of plagiarism. Their findings varied in scope, with one arbiter noting that copied text ranged from 30% to 70% per page, another using iThenticate software to identify over 70% similarity, and a third estimating that more than 90% of the material was plagiarized.
Prof. Yarkov has rejected the accusations, though he does not deny the existence of matching texts. He argues that at the time of publication, the Law on the Academic Staff lacked a formal definition of plagiarism. He contends that textbooks do not constitute scientific research and that he had secured permission from two individuals to use their systematized data within his works.
Institutional Rationale and Controversy
In its report, the CAE justified its decision by distinguishing between “scientific publications” and “educational materials.” The Commission noted that while scientific works are subject to peer review, textbooks are often submitted for reference and do not always undergo the same scrutiny. The report further stated that identifying plagiarism in such cases requires a specific focus on the lack of proper citation for “scientific results,” noting that common academic knowledge may appear identical across different authors without constituting actual plagiarism.
Assoc. Prof. Lazarov, who has submitted the complaint multiple times, has expressed deep concern over the precedent this sets. He argues that the Commission’s refusal to accept the findings of the three appointed arbiters sends a message that could encourage academic dishonesty. He has also raised questions regarding the timing of the report’s release and the lack of clarity regarding the Commission’s decision-making process when it disagrees with its own appointed experts.
Potential Implications
The release of this report may lead to increased scrutiny of the procedures used by the Commission on Academic Ethics. Observers suggest that the case could trigger a broader debate regarding the necessity of a “super-reviewer” or a more robust, standardized protocol for handling disagreements between appointed arbiters and the Commission. The concerns raised by the complainant regarding the timing and handling of the file may prompt calls for a more transparent review of how such academic disputes are mediated within the Ministry of Education and Science.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the basis for the plagiarism allegations against Prof. Yarkov?
The allegations concern two textbooks and a manual submitted in 2022 for a professorship, with three arbiters finding significant overlap with other materials, ranging from 30% to over 90% similarity.
How did the Commission on Academic Ethics justify its position?
The Commission argued that the arbiters’ conclusions were insufficient because they did not clearly differentiate between “scientific results” and “common knowledge,” and failed to clarify the extent to which the contested materials were essential to the professorship application.
What is the current status of the case?
Following the Commission’s report issued in late April, the complainant, Assoc. Prof. Lazarov, has questioned the validity of the decision-making process and the lack of a mechanism to resolve the contradiction between the arbiters’ findings and the Commission’s final report.
How should academic institutions balance the need for clear plagiarism standards with the practical realities of compiling educational textbooks?
