Rogue Editors at a Psychiatry Journal?

By Neuroskeptic | March 29, 2016 9:12 am


A group of Indian psychiatrists have raised concern over suspicious similarities between three papers published in the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (IJPM). Their allegations have just been published, also in the same journal.

The authors, Girish Banwari and colleagues, focus on a 2015 paper about the use of the drug modafinil in treating schizophrenia. Banwari et al. say that this article

Contains no data at all and that only one reference was cited in the bibliography. A little further investigation revealed that the paper bears striking similarities to two earlier publications[one from 2008, one from 2014] in the same journal.

In fact, the present paper[1] appears to have been extracted almost verbatim from the original publication[2] with all references to the metabolic effects of atypical antipsychotics, and the effect of modafinil on weight removed for the creation of the present paper.[1]

There is also extensive verbatim content overlap among the three papers.[1, 2, 3] Finally, all three papers describe the same study with only minor changes in outcome measures.

In other words, the publication of these three papers constitutes duplicate publication, self-plagiarism, and salami publication, all of which violate publication ethics.

Something is definitely wrong here: the overlap in content between these papers is extreme. For instance, Turnitin find that 88% of the text of the 2015 paper is identical to the 2008 paper. Meanwhile the 2014 paper has 59% overlap with the predecessor.


The methods, results and conclusions are the same in each case so this is not mere self plagiarism, it appears to be duplicate (or rather triplicate) publication. Banwari et al. call this a case of ‘salami publication‘, i.e. cutting up your study into small pieces and publishing them separately. But given the textual overlap, I’d say this is really a case of selling the very same salami three times.

How did this happen? The 2008 paper has four authors. Of these, one of them, T.P. Sudhakar, is a member of the Editorial Board of the IJPM. Another, G. Prasada Rao, is listed as a ‘distinguished past editor’ of the journal. The 2014 version has the same four authors but in a different order, and the newest 2015 paper is signed by Prasuna and Sudhakar.

Could this be a case of ‘rogue editors’ abusing their position and publishing dubious quality material in their own journal? On the other hand, the IJPM do at least deserve credit for publishing Banwari et al.’s letter.

ResearchBlogging.orgBanwari G, Karia S, Avudaiappan S, Tharayil HM, & Andrade C (2016). Modafinil Augmentation of Atypical Antipsychotic Agents: Duplicate Publication, Self-plagiarism, Salami Publication, and Other Matters. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 38 (1), 86-7 PMID: 27011415

CATEGORIZED UNDER: papers, PIE, science, select, Top Posts
  • Денис Бурчаков

    Well, it is really hard to tell one Bollywood movie from another. Though Indian cinema industry does improve, as well as science, so there is hope…

    BTW, recently one anonymous user (probably from Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences) made a funny video. She took a piece from a Bollywood movie and made a dub. The dub was not a real translation, but a rather ironic ode to Hirsch index, full of lines like: “We shall know the joy of mutual citation”, “She is the one, I am ready to cite all the day and all the night long” and my favorite “We shall gather and cite our sultan together”. I’ll drop a link here in case some readers know russian.

    • A Inamdar

      Well you should understand a Bollywood movie to be able to tell if it is different from another, shouldn’t you?

      • Денис Бурчаков

        Until recently I could simply use Bristol Scale.

  • Leonid Schneider

    This of course is not only the problem of developing countries. Here is from a case I used to investigate for Laborjournal:
    The last author is head of ophtalmology at Berlin Charite, one of biggest hospitals in Germany. She is also the EiC of this journal.

  • Pingback: Morning Break: Publicity Bonanza for Anti-Vax Film; Trumped Abortion; Medical Drones - thenewscrack()

  • Jose G A

    Absolutely unimportant. On of the movements in the 9th of L van Beethoven is in full a copy and paste of a Johan Sebastian Bach work, who was ‘inspired’ in folk peasant’s music.
    Several compostions by Joaquin Rodrigo made the same with fragments or full works by Gaspar Sanz and other Spanish Renaissance Guitar and Vihuela composers.
    A woman attributed the ‘Asturias Princedom’ price, had one element of her work, the concept of ‘Global City’, endorsed by jury as a term everyone of them used. No need to say that Marshall McLuhan ‘Global Village’ existed decades before.
    When a music composer is described as ‘having inspired in folk music’, the actual event was a transcription of music in public domain to the newcomer’s copyrights basket
    The issue may not be if a work contains or not previous works, or to what extent the ‘new’ work contains it, but why some ‘imitators’ are denounced and expelled from Academia, while other see their portfolio of honors and money always growing.
    You may like the 1988 film D.O.A. by A Jankel and R Morton.

  • Pingback: - Modafinil()

  • Pingback: Regulation of prefrontal cortex myelination by the microbiota – Absolute Notes()

  • Pingback: Homepage()



No brain. No gain.

About Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic is a British neuroscientist who takes a skeptical look at his own field, and beyond. His blog offers a look at the latest developments in neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology through a critical lens.


See More

@Neuro_Skeptic on Twitter


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar