Talk:Scientific plagiarism in India

KonsiNeyi (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

-

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)

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.

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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 TEXT UNDER "INSTANCES 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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Please indicate where you'd like this text added in the article. Thanks. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 23:34, 22 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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Please indicate where you'd like this text added in the article. Thanks. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 23:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Dr Yogeshwar Shukla with 40 problematic papers from CSIR-IITR

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. Where Dr. Yogeshwar Shukla, a senior scientist from the insittute is having 40 problmatic papers. Invasivebiswa (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 23:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism by two Delhi University Teachers
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 is variation in the result, the captions of figure and table mentioned have been copied from their earlier work.

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehaK5 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Retraction of a scientific paper published in Elsevier in 2014 by Indian authors: The paper titled "Molecular identification and phylogeny of Channa species from Indo-Myanmar biodiversity hotspots using mitochondrial COI gene sequences"  was retracted on the grounds of plagiarism. The authors of the paper have used the same datasets and several parts of text from two previous publications in 2010  and 2013 . This plagiarised paper was also cited in 5 other scientific works, which inflated the spread of plagiarised information further.Arunima026 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Retraction of academic paper after 14 years of Plagiarisation
An article entitled The Nitrile degrading enzymes: current status and future prospects, published in 2002 by Springer's Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology Journal, found plagiarized and retracted from the journal in 2016 (https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/thress-scientists-caught-in-plagiarism-row-top-publisher-retracts-article-after-14-years-2905907/). Three scientists named Prof. A. Banerjee, Prof. Rohit Sharma and Prof. U. C Banerjee who were working in the field of Biotechnology wrote the paper. The reason for the withdrawal on the publishers website was given as "at the request of the Editor-in-Chief, as it contains portions of other authors’ writings on the same topic in other publications, without sufficient attribution to these earlier works being given. The principal authors of the paper acknowledged that text from background sources was mistakenly used in this article without proper reference to the original source". As a response to the press reporters, the first author was charged with assuming responsibility by other two authors. The response of U. C. Banerjee to the issue was "We only enriched the review by collecting informations from various journals, however, during this process few lines were taken from some reviews and due to oversight, mentioning the references of some of the papers are inadvertently missed. This is simply unintentional (https://retractionwatch.com/2016/08/01/biotech-journal-pulls-well-cited-review-that-plagiarized-from-several-sources/). The paper was cited 289 times according to the Retraction watch and some lines of the paper seems to have copied from other reviews which were mentioned in the reference section. According to Indian Express, U.C Banerjee refused the 2011 Department of Biotechnology's Tata Innovation Fellowship in reponse to the allegations against him for plagiarism (http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/niper-prof-denied-prestigious-fellowship-on-plagiarism-charges/800813/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jintu.V (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020
Just another example of Scientific plagiarism in India:

Researchers Anbazhagan Manimaran of Annamalai University and Chellappan Praveen Rajneesh of Bharathiar university have been reported to plagiarise text of others in their 2009 paper titled 'Activities of Antioxidant Enzyme and Lipid Peroxidation in Ovarian Cancer Patients' in Academic Jounal of Cancer Research. The authors have been found to copy word by word from three other papers of various authors.

This and almost 200 such misconducts came in front in November 2019, when Elisabeth Bik, a "science integrity consultant", traced and pointed out in her blog post 'Science Integrity Digest' to a slurry of scientific misconducts done by researchers affilated to Annamalai University. News portals like The Print and The Wire have also highlighted her work. Dey.abhijit (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Please indicate where you'd like this text added in the article. Thanks. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 23:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Another instance of plagiarism in India
K. Manikandan and M. Muralidharan published a research paper titled "Native and non native fish diversity and density of southern western ghats of India" in the journal - world journal of fish and marine sciences in 2015 (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Native-and-Non-Native-Fish-Diversity-and-Density-of-Manikandan-Muralidharan/1001e5b3700bb19b9d2fdda17c27221e5460e888). First few sentences in the introduction part of this paper was copied as such from the first paragraph of a commentary article titled "Fresh water fish safe zones: a prospective conservation stratergy for river ecosystems in India" by Nishikant Gupta et al., in Current science journal (2014) (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265960621_Freshwater_fish_safe_zones_A_prospective_conservation_strategy_for_river_ecosystems_in_India).

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020
In the article ‘Root Colonization and Quorum Sensing are the Driving Forces of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) for Growth Promotion’, published in the journal Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy in 2014 with Appa Rao Podile, vice-chancellor of the University of Hyderabad as the lead and corresponding author there are 6 plagiarised sentences. The WIRE reported this in April, 2016 (https://thewire.in/education/hyderabad-university-vc-admits-to-plagiarism). Femibenny (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 23:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020
Neveen Helmy Abou El-Soud, M.Y. Khalil, J.S. Hussein,F.S.H. Oraby and A.R.Hussein Farrag published a research paper titled "Antidiabetic Effects of Fenugreek Alkaliod Extract in Streptozotocin Induced Hyperglycemic Rats" in the journal - Journal of Applied Sciences Research in 2007 (J .Appl. Sci. Res., 3(10): 1073-1083, 2007). Patil H.N., Patil P.B., Tote M.V., Mutha S.S., Bhosale A.V. published a research paper titled "Antidiabetic Effects of Fenugreek Alkaliod Extract in alloxan Induced Hyperglycemic Rats" in the journal - International Journal of PharmTech Research in 2009.(Patil H.N. et al /Int.J. PharmTech Res.2009,1(3)) These two papers are published in different journals in different countries, but the text is same throughout the papers Sminu TV (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 23:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020
Please add this as another instance of plagiarism in India.

Prof.V Ramakrishnan published a research paper titled "Photoinduced interaction studies on N-(2-methylthiophenyl)-2-hydroxy-1-naphthadiamine with TiO2 nanoparticles: A combined experimental and theoretical (DFT and spectroscopic) approach" Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy Volume 133, 10 December 2014, Pages 80-86, has 68% similarity in content with other papers. The author has not cited the original source. Last two sentences of introduction are copied from www.mdpi.org. The wire reported this in the year 2017 Sminu thazhevettil (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Sminu thazhevettil (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Sminu thazhevettil (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. If you're suggesting the creation of a new section, please indicate that. Thanks. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 23:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Manipulated and/or duplicated images: a major concern of scientific research
Recently, some of the papers of Indian authors have been found for having duplication and/or manipulation of images. Dr. Chitra Mandal, a scientist from an eminent institute of India, CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Research (CSIR-IICB), who has been in the news for her published papers that possess duplicated and/or manipulated images. She is recognized as a SERB Distinguished fellow and also the honorary recipient of J.C. Bose National Fellow for her exceptional work in the scientific research. At present, she is a faculty of Cancer Biology & Inflammatory Disorder at CSIR-IICB, and her research area includes the field of understanding biomolecules in various diseases, particularly blood cancer or leukaemia. Until now, there are 28 of her papers that have been listed/identified as problematic due to images duplication and/or manipulation. Based on this, some have been already retracted from the journals. Nevertheless, she had also agreed that it was an “unintentional mistakes”. Nipu Kumar Das (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Where we are going, we will fall inadvertently!
Plagiarism has been in practise in scientific research since ages, but this time it was ‘theft’ from an unpublished draft. In a recent issue (Issue 35, April 2020) of the Journal Chemical Communications, the editors have retracted a 2017 paper by a pair of Indian researchers on account of ‘copying’ content from an unpublished version of a paper [1]. Published by the UK’s Royal Society of Chemistry, the Journal Chemical Communications is committed to publish new findings from different avenues of Chemical Sciences [2]. It was found that a paper titled, “Tri-s-triazine (s-heptazine), a novel electron-deficient core for soft self-assembled supramolecular structures”, authored by Irla Shiva Kumar and Sandeep Kumar in the said Journal (published on September 25, 2017) possessed content from an unpublished version of a paper issued in Liquid Crystals by Sayed et al. [1,3]. Richard Kelly, Executive Editor, Chemical Communications reported that Irla Shiva Kumar et al. (2017) could not convince the investigation committee of Chemical Communications with any credible evidence of the raw data pertaining to their work before the unpublished paper of Sayed et al. was received for peer review [1]. Sandeep Kumar, a retired professor of Raman Research Institute Bengaluru, was a notable personality in the genre of researches that dealt with liquid crystals to the extent that the Royal Society of Chemistry conferred him with the honour of “most cited” researchers in Chemical Communications and another of its journals in 2006 and 2007. He chaired as a member of editorial board in the journal Liquid Crystals which permitted his access to the unpublished paper of Sayed et al., thus, creating an easy opportunity to ‘plagiarise’ the contents to his own paper [4]. Kumar, however, repudiated the decision of the investigation committee of Chemical Communications and opposed the retraction decision [1].

Anir1996 (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Instance of self-plagiarism in scientific publications in India
While self-plagiarism is an oft-debated topic, it is unmistakably unethical to reprint portions of your previous work in submissions to scientific journals. A noteworthy case is that of D.K. Das, affiliated with the T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, who self-plagiarised from five of his previously-published scientific papers in his publication titled "Expression of a bacterial chitinase (ChiB) gene enhances resistance against E. polygoni induced powdery mildew disease in the transgenic Black gram (Vigna mungo L.)" published in the journal Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants (Online First) [1]. The author utilized all of the figures and tables, as well as portions of previously-published paragraphs, from five of his previous publications all in the same field of study [2,3,4,5,6]. The editors deemed this action to be unethical and the manuscript was retracted from Online First after the author was notified of his misconduct. Self-plagiarism is a tricky subject and this example serves as a reminder that while many researchers publish multiple manuscripts on a single subject or study organism, using the same tables, figures, or text from previous publications is not acceptable when publishing in science. The statement about the retraction of this article can be found below [7].

--Ecopriya (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism through images: a notable issue in the scientific world
Amrita Centre for Nanosciences and Molecular, Kochi has been found for image manipulation and/or duplication in 51 of their published scientific research papers, some are already corrected (11 papers) and retracted (2 papers). The majority of the images in them have been replicated as such in more than one paper. Most of the papers are authored (Corresponding) by Dr. Jayakumar, Dr. Shantikumar V Nair, and Dr. Manzoor Koyakutti from this said research institution. Surprisingly, the publications of Dr. Jayakumari has been cited more than 14400 times with h-index 61. He had honored with the India Research Excellence-Citation Awards-2017 (Health and Medical Area) for his excellent research works from Clarivate Analytics, Web of Science. In addition, he is a reviewer and editorial board member for many respective national and international journals.

Nabasmita Malakar (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020
Kardam1993 (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

University tries to protect a famous professor

Professor Neeraj Hatekar, who teaches economics at Mumbai university has been found guilty of plagiarism. He had copied substantial parts from wife Rajani Mathur’s MPhil dissertation. A Report was submitted by Dr. RK Chauhan, Vice chancellor of Lingaya’s University. Yet, the university did not take appropriate action towards the professor. The probe found 36 instances of plagiarism in Hatekar’s thesis titles ‘Studies in the theory of business cycles with special emphasis on real business cycles and their application to india’. There were also instances of self-plagiarizing in Hatekar’s thesis, which means he used parts from his other works in the thesis under question. For example, the third paragraph on page no 25 in Mathur’s dissertation has been copied word-to-word on page no 74 of Hatekar’s thesis. While this paragraph in Mathur’s dissertation reads as- ‘ The answers that were thrown up in the very extensive debate among no mean participants (Weber, Durkheim, Popper, Wittgenstein, Marx being only a few of the greats associated with the debate) can, we believe, shed important light in the issue of economic modelling of business cycles.’

The same paragraph in Prof Hatekar’s thesis on page no 74 reads- ‘The answers that were thrown up in the very extensive debate among no mean participants (Weber, Durkheim, Popper, Wittgenstein, Marx being only a few of the greats associated with the debate) can, I believe, shed important light in the issue of economic modelling of business cycles.’ The only difference between the two is that of usage of ‘I’ in place of ‘we’.

Institutes and universities might not be to keen to take action against their famous and valued professors, but plagiarism in work needs to be taken seriously

(https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/other/so-why-is-he-still-teaching/articleshow/68696697.cms).
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 23:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

KonsiNeyi (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Pondicherry University Vice Chancellor sacked following allegations of plagiarism

The Vice Chancellor of Pondicherry University Chandra Krishnamurthy faced allegations of plagiarism after she joined office on February 1, 2013. An enquiry committee was set up by University Grants Commission (UGC) to probe into the matter. This enquiry was led by former V-C of Punjab University Jai Rup Singh, former bureaucrat Nita Chowdhury and ex-director of Indian Law Institute K N Chandrasekharan Pillai. They found that Krishnamurthy had authored only one book while she claimed to have three in her CV and that she had lied about guiding nine PhD students and along with receiving four research projects. The enquiry also could not find any evidence to support her claims of having held the rank of professor before becoming the Vice Chancellor of Pondicherry University. They also found that the now former Vice Chancellor held a fake D.Litt degree and that only one article of the 25 mentioned in her CV could be traced and even this was plagiarised. Following this, she was served a show-cause notice by the President of India on August 21, 2015. She replied to the President’s notice in the month of April, 2016, but the government found her response unsatisfactory. On May 11, 2016 she submitted her resignation from the post in anticipation of her sacking, but her resignation letter was addressed to the HRD Ministry instead of the President, who is the Visitor of all central universities. This led to the dismissal of her resignation as it was not marked to the right authority. She was sacked in June, 2016.

An instance of falsification of data in a research paper:
A plant biologist’s paper was retracted and three more of his papers were questioned on PubPeer. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants has retracted a paper by Sauren Das from the Indian Statistical Institute in Calcutta, West Bengal about using Darjeeling tea clones against abiotic stress for problems with one of the figures. The 2013 paper, “Antioxidants and ROS scavenging ability in ten Darjeeling tea clones may serve as markers for selection of potentially adapted clones against abiotic stress,” has not yet been cited, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science. Note on the retraction can be found in https://retractionwatch.com/2016/05/02/biologists-paper-pulled-for-falsification-three-more-questioned-on-pubpeer/#more-39160

Three other papers of the author have also been questioned on PubPeer. First two papers published in Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants: “Differential expression of physiological and biochemical characters of some Indian mangroves towards salt tolerance,” which has been cited once since it was published in 2009; and “RAPD and ISSR marker mediated genetic polymorphism of two mangroves Bruguiera gymnorrhiza and Heritiera fomes from Indian Sundarbans in relation to their sustainability,” a 2015 paper that has not yet been cited. The third paper, “Salinity-imposed changes of some isozymes and total leaf protein expression in five mangroves from two different habitats,” was published in the Journal of Plant Interactions in 2010 and has not been cited yet. --Shaguftaanjali (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Prof. K. L. Chopra is no longer with us
The page reports that the Society for Scientific Values is headed by Prof. K.L. Chopra, but this needs to be updated as he passed away on the 19th of May 2021. Willcmc (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)