As many as 12 research papers co-authored by a scientist was retracted between 2009 and 2020 for alleged unethical behaviour.
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
Twelve papers co-authored by Ashok Pandey, a scientist at CSIR’s Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (CSIR-IITR) in Lucknow, have been retracted from Elsevier’s journal Bioresource Technology. The last set of retractions were in 2020 and the first was in 2009. PubPeer, a website that allows researchers to discuss and review scientific research after publication, has listed all the 12 retracted papers and many other papers that have some conflicts of interest.
In 2019, The Hindu reported that 130 papers published by CSIR-IITR researchers contained manipulated and/or duplicated images. Following the expose, the then CSIR Director-General Dr. Shekhar C Mande constituted a committee to investigate all the papers from CSIR labs flagged by The Hindu and the researchers were asked to either retract the paper or publish a clarification in the journal.
In the case of Bioresource Technology, while Dr. Pandey was the executive editor of the journal when two of the papers were retracted in 2009 and 2010, the rest of the retracted papers have been when Dr. Pandey was serving as the editor-in-chief of the journal. The current editor-in-chief is Samir Khanal from the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawaii.
‘Ashok Pandey added his name as co-author in many papers he reviewed’
The common reason cited in the retraction notice of most papers is that Dr. Pandey handled the review of the initial submission of the manuscript and wanted the authors to make some revisions. When the revised manuscript was submitted, Dr. Pandey’s name was added as a co-author without providing any justification for adding his name. In some papers, names of other researchers were added in addition to Dr. Pandey’s. In one paper, the executive editor of the journal was added as a co-author and the “executive editor continued to handle the review process, eventually accepting the paper for publication”.
While Dr. Pandey continued to handle the review process even after his name and other names were added as co-authors in many of the retracted papers, in a few other papers the revised manuscript (after Dr. Pandey’s name was added as a co-author) were handled by a different editor. The retraction notices in papers where Dr. Pandey’s name was added as a co-author state that the “involvement of the editor-in-chief in the initial review compromised the editorial process and breached the journal’s policies”. In case of papers where other names were added but not his, the retraction notice says that it “compromised the editorial process and breached the journal’s policies”.
All the retraction notices also say that the “investigation was carried out by Elsevier’s Research Integrity & Publishing Ethics team, independent of the journal editorial board. The findings and recommendations have been confirmed by an independent ethics advisor”.
While the unethical behaviour of Dr. Pandey is clear, what is not clear is how the publisher and the journal continued to involve Dr. Pandey as the editor-in-chief despite he compromising the editorial process and breaching the journal’s policies since at least 2016; this was the first instance when as the editor-in-chief of the journal his name was added as a co-author after revision leading to its retracted. Also, his elevation as the editor-in-chief after compromising the editorial process and breaching the journal’s policies as the executive editor in the 2009 and 2010 retracted papers remains unclear.
Commenting on PubPeer, Anil Kumar Patel from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu and a co-.author of a 2017 paper says: “The addition of authors is allowed before acceptance of the manuscript… The editorial process was managed by the journal’s manager. When a new author, who was also an editor, was added, the journal should not have assigned the revised version to that editor. The journal had the option to have the paper re-reviewed by assigning it to another editor and blinding the editor whose name was on it. There is no basis to blame the authors for this situation. Additionally, when a new author was added, it was the journal manager’s responsibility to seek clarification from the authors. If this was not done, the authors should not be held accountable. It is surprising that journal managers (publishers) who are paid for their work are not held responsible for not performing their duty. There is no action against them or the journal; only the author has to bear the loss.”
