MISCONDUCT: INDIAN PERSPECTIVE.

1. MISCONDUCT: INDIAN PERSPECTIVE. Rohini Godbole Centre for Theoretical Studies I I Sc, Bangalore 560 012, India Associate Editor PRAMANA-Journal of Physics Published by

2. Issues Covered Based on: • Experiences from an Indian Multidisciplinary Journal Current Science. • Summary of opinions of various persons involved in Scientific Publication in India. • Some observations which arose out of experiences from the developing world but not restricted to it.

3. Referee Misconduct: A paper on Arsenic Content of Ground Water submitted to Current Science by an author A . • Was rejected based on Referee Report. • A paper was submitted and accepted for publication on the same subject by author B after this. • Author A complained to the Editor that there must have been a case of referee misconduct and author B must have been the referee as he (Author B) had disucssed the issue with author A. • The Editor on checking did find that indeed Author B was the referee of the paper by Author A. Author B was a senior scientist. Was contacted by the Editor and author B was indignant and denied any misconduct. • Editor convinced himself by contacting experts as well as the Institute and then published author A's paper with the original date as the date of acceptance. • Editor did not however contact the Institute of the Referee.

4. Plagiarism? Two papers published in Current Science One by a space physicist, one by Geologist. Essentially the same data and part of one paper was almost lifted from the other paper. • When charges of Plagiarism were made, the head of the Institution was contacted as the authors of the paper for which the charge was made were senior members. • Institute formed a committee and claimed that there was no cause for charge of plagiarism. • Editor decided otherwise and insisted on a retraction from the authors who plagiarised the paper which finally came. • General feeling:is that it is enough to get retraction and inform the Institution. The journal has no further responsibility.

5. Guest Authors • The junior scientist involved was from India working in England at the time and the senior scientist was his boss here. The paper was published in current science and the proofs were sent to the senior author too. Then there were allegations from another lab in Scotland where the young author was working before that the sample used was made in that lab. On inquiry that was indeed found to be true. • The senior author from England then claimed that he had missed this! • Point to make is that the story of guest senior authors is not restricted to the developing world.

6. Ethics Committee at Institutes: • My Institute has a Ethics Committee and a report of Sceintific Misconduct reported to them was investigated by the Committee. The person invloved had his increments stopped. • So having an Ethics Committee in each Institute might be a good idea.

7. Editorial Misconduct • Not specific to the third world authors. But certainly the third world authors seemed to have felt a mild sense of discrimination certainly • In the older days quality of printing and typing in the manuscript sometimes did have a negative effect. Electronic age has changed that part now. • Bad English : I have been involved as adjudicator for a paper where I saw reports of a few of the referees which indicated to me that no real effort had been made by them to understand the paper due to its rather poor English where the physics was really allright and interesting.

8. Editorial Misconduct (continued) • My own interaction with reviewers who were not being very enthusiastic about reviewing because of bad english in a paper from Korea. One had to convince the referee to look at the physics and not at the language. • Authors complained about delay in getting a referee report after about six months!!. The response of the editor included a rather unnecessary comment that the standard of the journal can not be compromised for speed! Concerned authors were irritated by this somewhat patronising remark!

9. Editorial Misconduct (continued) • A paper was accepted by a referee after appropriate changes were made but still rejected by the Editor. Some of us have done it from time to time for different reasons. But how to 1) ensure that this is not due to a Bias? 2)more important how to convince that this is not due to Bias?

10. Political Aspect: International View Somewhat Tangential: • Worry was expressed about perception by the student community, for example, of the Defence Department Support in the discussion of conflict of interests. This is an ethical question. • In a similar vein how should we look at possible problems that Scientists in countries like India suffer due to their support from (say) Department of Atomic Energy and/or Defence Department in India.

16. Case Study 5 (Continued)