Talk:Scientific plagiarism in India

This article was nominated for deletion on October 28, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

---

The Raju-Atiyah controversy has been moved to List_of_plagiarism_controversies as it is not a case of plagiarism in India but one whose victim is an Indian scientist. This misclassification was emblematic of a certain ethnocentrism! Bernard Bel (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

This is one book referring to the controversies and suggesting the answer is a formal code of conduct for Indian scientific institutions. -- 202.124.72.235 (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Gopal Kundu

I have received a reasonably plausible claim that this section was biased and misleading. I have removed it for now. I will try within the next couple of days to check both the sources in the article and others that have been brought to my attention carefully before deciding whether the section should be restored. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the debacle of WP:IEP, this really is the last straw for WP's credibility. So if you're an Indian student, and you shout loud enough, edit-warring and vandalising pages against previous policy, you now get to win and push your own highly-biased POV? Why does Wikipedia and the WMF (IEP posts passim, just read the links from the recent Signpost) hold European contributions to one fairly high standard, yet Indian contributions (and Pune in particular) get a free ride through sourcing, BLP and NPOV? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think I had said that the "Indian student" had "got to win and push their own highly-biased POV". I said that their was a reasonably plausible claim, and that I had temporarily removed the disputed content pending further investigation. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If I'd behaved as badly as this student has behaved so far, I'd expect to have been blocked for it -- not to have their POV implemented. At least the JBC didn't publish Kundu's paper, even after he was white-washed by a panel of Indian scientists who still couldn't bring themselves to say that the paper was actually genuine. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have now checked the relevant sources, and come to a conclusion. (It turns out that "within the next couple of days" was unduly pessimistic.) I had been approached on my talk page, but I am copying the post from that talk page here, and answering here, as it has considerable importance to this article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi James!! I understood what you mean sorry for delayed response, please refer following URLs, which clearly says, Dr.Gopal Kundu came out clean from this plagiarism issue and he is not guilty. The URLs are, http://www.pharmainfo.net/vedikag/blog/plagiarism-revealed-case-study http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070306/asp/frontpage/story_7476120.asp http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/2007/09/kundu-controversy-research-ethics-and.html http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/04/stories/2007090455330900.htm http://www.indianexpress.com/news/maligned-scientist-gets-clean-chit-from-panel/33608/ http://94.228.39.23/en/science-communication/opinions/we-must-restore-scientific-integrity-in-indian-res.html http://www.riazhaq.com/2009/09/hoodbhoys-letter-to-nature-on-pakistans.html http://www.scidev.www-staging.pixl8-hosting.co.uk/en/science-and-innovation-policy/intellectual-property/opinions/we-must-restore-scientific-integrity-in-indian-res.html

This comprises of newspaper URLs from Telegraph India, Indian express, The Hindu, hope this is enough to clarify that Dr Gopal Kundu was accused but, he came out clean. Since, it was a malicious email sent by his student and he is not guilty. So, by invalid I mean he is not guilty, and he was never barred from doing anything later and this article is using references from sources which says he was accused but the verdict by committee is in favour of Dr Gopal Kundu. So, I again request you to delete this page " Gopal Kundu cntroversy" from article "Scientific plagiarism in India". And the URL www.nccs.res.in/gck.html which I earlier referred to is from the same organization NCCS which is mentioned here in all the references. It's a goverement body and they still allow him to work there.

Thanks Shrikant101 116.75.2.98 (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have had a quick look at the sources you have cited, and it does look as though you may be right. I have removed the section form the article for now, and when I get time (probably in two days) I will check the sources more thoroughly. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As it turns out I have managed to check more thoroughly sooner than I expected. I have discovered the following:

1. Some of the sources you cite are certainly not reliable, such as a blogspot post.
2. You have been highly selective in what you cite. For example, you have cited an article published on March 06, 2007 in the Calcutta Telegraph, but have failed to mention that another article in the same newspaper described a very different side to the case.
3. You say that "he was never barred from doing anything later", but sources (such as the Telegraph article I have just mentioned) say otherwise.
4. You say "the verdict by committee is in favour of Dr Gopal Kundu". However, that is only one view. It was mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but to give a balanced, neutral, coverage, it is necessary also to mention the opposing views, which the article did. Your attempt to represent one committee's assessment as though it were a final and definitive judgement in the case is disingenuous.

It is clear that reliable sources exist covering both sides, and your attempt to represent the issue as being one sided is misleading. I shall, therefore, restore the section to the article. Please drop your campaign to try to suppress the information. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi James! Yes, you are right but you can check by comparing the sources like newspaper articles from Telegraph, The Hindu, Indian express, the article date which talk about him being guilty is older than the date which talks about him being clean. It clears shows that. Dr Gopal Kundu is came out clean. If you still don't agree you can make a call to any of the contact numbers mentioned anywhere on the articles or NCCS number they say he is clean. It was a malicious mail that raised this controversy. Thus, I kkindly request you to please take off the page Gopal Kundu Controversy from the article.

Thanks Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We have evidence of a 3-year ban by the Indian Academy of Sciences, which I personally see as the strongest outcome of this story thus far. I have not seen any evidence that the announcement of this ban is incorrect or has been withdrawn. Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, initially he was supposed to be barred for 3yrs but, later charges were withdrawn please check this URL Indian Express newspaper which says this, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/maligned-scientist-gets-clean-chit-from-panel/33608/ Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find it in your link. Further, the link is 3 years older than the academy decision, which was taken in July 2010. Materialscientist (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, of the two links to the Calcutta Telegraph I gave above, the one which indicated doubt about him was over three and a half years later than the one suggesting innocence (November 14 , 2010, as compared with March 06, 2007), and yet Shrikantbhalerao101 followed that post with "the article date which talk about him being guilty is older than the date which talks about him being clean". Considering the considerable efforts that Shrikantbhalerao101 has clearly gone to in order to find sources supporting his/her case, it is difficult to see how he/she can keep on over and over again accidentally making errors like that. I'm afraid it has become difficult to maintain an assumption of good faith. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

IP editor's addition about the 2 cases of plagiarism

I just checked through the source provided, its actually on pg 24/25of the book. Technically we just need to make it a proper publication-style reference instead of using the PDF link. The problem is that its still a very big claim to make; do we take it at face value and just qualify the edit by stating it as a claim made by the publication, or do we hold off and seek further verification? Zhanzhao (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scientific plagiarism in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014024552/http://frontlineonnet.com/fl1922/stories/20021108003508400.htm to http://frontlineonnet.com/fl1922/stories/20021108003508400.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2019

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.03309 Retraction: Molecular Cloning and Docking of speB Gene Encoding Cysteine Protease With Antibiotic Interaction in Streptococcus pyogenes NBMKU12 From the Clinical Isolates Frontiers Editorial Office* A Retraction of the Original Research Article Molecular Cloning and Docking of speB Gene Encoding Cysteine Protease With Antibiotic Interaction in Streptococcus pyogenes NBMKU12 From the Clinical Isolates

by Balasubramanian, N., Varatharaju, G., Shanmugaiah, V., Balakrishnan, K., and Thirunarayan, M. A. (2018). Front. Microbiol. 9:1658. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01658 Kumar197878 (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 18:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Please add the following as another instance of plagiarism in India:

The Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) was set up in 1916 to further research on animal life in India, which was at that time under the British Empire (https://zsi.gov.in/App/index.aspx). Its parent organization is the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India. While ZSI’s forte is animal taxonomy, they have authority on specimen collection and storage at many of their centres across India. ZSI scientists have been called out for instances of plagiarism (https://thewire.in/the-sciences/former-zoological-survey-directors-plagiarised-book-published-false-data), especially with their marine biology research. A facebook post on 30th April 2013 by a marine biologist D.G. Gil from a University in Patagonia, Argentina mentioned that his paper (co-author: H.E. Zaixso) titled “Feeding ecology of the subantarctic sea star Anasterias minuta within tide pools in Patagonia, Argentina” published in 2008 in the journal ‘International Journal of Tropical Biology’ was allegedly replicated by two ZSI scientists Koushik Sadhukhan and Raghunathan C (https://www.facebook.com/IndianBirdConservationNetworkIbcn/posts/serious-plagiarism-involving-zsi-scientists-in-the-andamanssee-the-papers-and-yo/358170190949964/ ; https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/449/44920273018.pdf). The plagiarised paper was titled “Feeding ecology of Asterina sarasini in reef communities of Andaman and Nicobar islands” and was published in the ‘International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental sciences’ in 2013 (https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20133417210). The author from Patagonia claimed that the plagiarised paper had the same abstract, introduction, figures, tables and body size correlation values verbatim. The full paper is now unavailable on the website of the journal. Iravatee M (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Iravatee M (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Please add the following instance of plagiarism to the page:

The Hindu reported in 2016 (https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/plagiarism-hits-aiims/article8282545.ece) that a paper on obesity written by a doctor at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, allegedly contained pages from an existing paper. The journal, ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’, published the paper in 2011. But after the author, Dr. S.K. Sharma, was unable to clarify certain details mentioned in his paper, they discovered the instances of plagiarism. The doctor reportedly formally apologised to the journal (https://medicaldialogues.in/aiims-doctor-apologises-for-plagiarism).

Another report from the Hindustan Times (https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/aiims-to-probe-plagiarism-charges-against-senior-doctor/story-ABk1sRNY3Y6u4hEgnIcNdN.html) claims that the article ‘Genetic Diversity in Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)' published by AIIMS additional professor Muhammad Irshad in 2009 was retracted from the journal ‘Reviews in Medical Virology’ after reports of plagiarism (https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/lifted-aiims-prof-removes-article-from-medical-journal/story-uwclzATEtoZVmTZ94k5UiM.html). The author reportedly copied figures from a 2004 article titled 'Genetic Diversity and Evolution of Hepatitis C virus — 15 years on' (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15483230) authored by University of Edinburgh professor Peter Simmonds. The author later said that the plagiarism was unintentional. Shruti mn (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

At last count, 73 papers published between 2004 and 2017 by scientists at the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (CSIR-IITR), Lucknow have serious problems with the images. The final numbers might be way higher if one were to critically look at all papers published by scientists at IITR during the last 20-25 years. Invasivebiswa (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

The reason to put up this edit request is to add another context of plagiarised work into the highlight of the readers for research purpose. The text should be added to the Other section and will include the paper published by Professor Gurmeet Singh and M. Ramananda Singh titled Hibiscus cannabinus extract as a potential green inhibitor for corrosion of mild steel in 0.5 M H2SO4 solution published in Journal of Materials and Environmental Science in 2012. This is case of self plagiarism from the work titled Musa Paradisiaca Extract as a Green Inhibitor for Corrosion of Mild Steel in 0.5 M Sulphuric Acid Solution published in Portugaliae Electrochimica Acta in 2011. Terminology, methods and values have been copied word to word. Although there in variation in the result, the captions of figure and table mentioned have been copied. In support of the above the Times of India have published an article on September 11, 2014.(https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Plagiarism-lens-on-2-DU-teachers/articleshow/42200261.cms) Deeke Doma Tamang (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism in paper published by Elsevier.

Retraction Watch reported that 'Biomedical microelectromechanical systems (BioMEMS): Revolution in drug delivery and analytical techniques' published by R Jivani et al published in Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal in 2016 had directly copied sections of 'Microfabrication technologies for oral drug delivery' by Sant et al published in 2013 (https://retractionwatch.com/2018/03/02/a-gross-case-of-plagiarism-how-did-one-elsevier-journal-plagiarize-another/#more-62294). Both papers were published by Elsevier. A professor had contacted the authors after one of their graduate students had discovered the plagiarism. On not getting a response. On contacting the authors and not getting a response Nicholas Peppas tweeted about the situation. The plagiarised paper has now been retracted. --Rashmik94 (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Award-winning researcher in India retracts two papers, corrects three

Kithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji, a professor at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, has retracted two papers and corrected three for duplication of images.

Balaji, who won the 2011 Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize from India’s Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) “for outstanding contributions to science and technology,” is last author of the five papers, which were published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) from 2008 to 2015.

The authors take responsibility for what they call “inadvertent mistakes.” The retraction notice for “Pathogen-specific TLR2 protein activation programs macrophages to induce Wnt-β-catenin signaling,” for example, concludes as follows:

The authors state that the duplications occurred during primary assembly of the figures. The authors contacted the Journal, brought these errors to their attention, and provided the correct images. However, the authors state that the responsible course of action would be to withdraw the article to maintain the high standards and rigor of scientific literature. The authors apologize to the scientific community for what they state are inadvertent mistakes and will seek to republish the article with necessary corrections in due course.

The original paper has been cited 39 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.

The other retracted paper — “Cooperative regulation of NOTCH1 protein-phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) signaling by NOD1, NOD2, and TLR2 receptors renders enhanced refractoriness to transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β)- or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4)-mediated impairment of human dendritic cell maturation” — has been cited 18 times. The paper was flagged on PubPeer seven months ago.

The corrected papers are:

NOTCH1 up-regulation and signaling involved in Mycobacterium bovis BCG-induced SOCS3 expression in macrophages (cited 65 times) The multifunctional PE_PGRS11 protein from Mycobacterium tuberculosis plays a role in regulating resistance to oxidative stress (cited 38 times) Ac2PIM-responsive miR-150 and miR-143 target receptor-interacting protein kinase 2 and transforming growth factor beta-activated kinase 1 to suppress NOD2-induced immunomodulators (cited 5 times) Another JBC paper by Balaji, who has not responded to our requests for comment, has also been flagged on PubPeer, as has one in the Journal of Immunology.

Source: https://retractionwatch.com/2019/12/16/award-winning-researcher-in-india-retracts-two-papers-corrects-three/#more-118585