Did a prof in India steal his student’s work – or is he being framed?

On Feb. 10, 2022, Avinash Kumar, a PhD student at one of India’s top technical schools, sent a trove of research data to his adviser. But when the same data appeared in a paper in a scientific journal earlier this year, Kumar’s name wasn’t on it.

“I have done the experimental and analysis part of this work,” Kumar, who has since graduated, wrote in an email to Retraction Watch. “I am in deep shock after seeing this article online.” 

It seemed like a solid case of plagiarism. 

In support of his claim, Kumar, whose award-winning work on sustainable food packaging made national news in 2021, shared a PDF of the email he sent to his former adviser, Kirtiraj Kundlik Gaikwad, an assistant professor at the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee. He included a side-by-side comparison of the graphs and images in the email and the offending paper. The two data sets were clearly identical. 

Kumar also questioned how Prachi Jain, who according to her LinkedIn profile began her PhD studies at IIT Roorkee in January of this year, the same month the paper was submitted to the journal Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, could have become its first author. 

Date stamps on electron microscopy images in the article show that when the research was done, Jain was still a master’s student at a university more than 1,500 miles away. Yet the paper, “Functionalization of sugarcane bagasse-based paper with amla pomace/titanium dioxide nanoparticles providing antimicrobial protection for food safety,” listed her contributions as “Formal Analysis, investigation, visualization, data curation, writing.”

Gaikwad, however, called Kumar’s allegations “completely false.” Whereas the article in Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery was about a material created from sugarcane fibers, Kumar’s PhD dissertation, and his published work, focused on pine-needle waste. The research Kumar alleged was plagiarized was “not his work,” Gaikwad said. 

In the professor’s version of events, all Kumar did was ferry the data from the person who did the technical analysis to Gaikwad – while making it look as if Kumar had performed the work. He explained that:

In the paper tech department, all paper-related testing is done in a [National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories]-accredited laboratory where equipment is handled by well-trained technical staff … and students are not allowed to handle these equipments [sic] as per the guidelines of NABL.

Gaikwad had asked Kumar “to collect the data from the technical person who did the experimental thing” and email it to him, he said. “That is the only thing he did.”

The professor sent us a copy of Kumar’s dissertation, which indeed was about a material derived from pine needles. He also passed along other documentation suggesting that the sugarcane research had originated with another researcher, Suman Singh of VCSG Uttarakhand University of Horticulture and Forestry. Singh and Gaikwad were co-corresponding authors on the paper in Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery.

“I believe this is a clear case of defaming me,” Gaikwad told Retraction Watch. “Such fake allegations against supervisors are increasing day by day, which is also a matter of concern and demotivates us. I have published a number of papers in my research career, and I understand the ethics of research in academia.”

Gaikwad also said Kumar had complained to the school’s ethics committee, which, according to Gaikwad, “found that it was a false claim.” 

IIT Roorkee and its ethics committee did not respond to repeated requests for comment. We also contacted Kumar to inquire about the information Gaikwad had provided, but follow-up emails, text messages and phone calls all went unanswered.

A spokesperson for Springer Nature, which publishes Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, said:

We take concerns of alleged plagiarism in papers we publish very seriously. When we become aware of such concerns, we investigate them carefully following an established process and in line with best-practice COPE guidelines. In this specific case, the journal editors are looking into the matter, but I’m afraid we cannot share further information at this time.

We could not find contact information for Jain, and neither the school nor Gaikwad would provide it. In a LinkedIn post announcing the paper’s publication, Jain thanked both Singh and Gaikwad, as well as two other coauthors, but did not mention Kumar. 

Gaikwad said Jain had been working with Singh on the sugarcane research for a “long time” before becoming his graduate student. In a phone interview, Singh told us she is currently Jain’s co-adviser and confirmed that Jain had worked with her on the sugarcane research “last year.” Asked when the collaboration started, however, Singh hung up. She did not respond to a follow-up email.

Update, 11/23/23, 1530 UTC: After our story ran, Singh contacted us to provide details on the timing of Jain’s work on the study:

Ms Prachi Jain Graduated in June 2022 from that point onwards she was working with me till December 2022 and majority of work in the paper she has done but not all hence there are co authors as well. As she performed well I recommend her to enroll with my co PI for PhD study.

In another email, Singh complained about our story, which we stand by. She also offered more details about the case:

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express our deep concern and disappointment regarding the news article published today morning, which alleges that Professor Gaikwad engaged in data theft. We believe that the headline misrepresents the situation and unfairly portrays Professor Gaikwad.

Professor Gaikwad has been a dedicated mentor to Mr. Avinash, a student who faced academic challenges. When Professor Gaikwad took on the responsibility of guiding Mr. Avinash, it was a commitment to help an underprivileged student overcome hurdles and achieve a doctorate. The journey involved significant efforts from Professor Gaikwad, who even wrote Mr. Avinash’s papers due to language and technical barriers.

Despite Professor Gaikwad’s unwavering support, Mr. Avinash, after being denied a project assistant position, has started defaming both Professor Gaikwad and me. We are young researchers seeking justice, and the publication of this news has exacerbated our frustration.

We kindly request you to consider retracing the published news. The article does present both parties’ views, but the title creates an unjust perception. We are willing to provide additional information, and we suggest conducting an interview with Mr. Avinash to verify his claims, as we believe they are baseless.

Your understanding and cooperation in rectifying this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].