A recent review article whose authors included two assistant professors at universities in the United States was written by a physician in India who is running a paper mill, Retraction Watch has learned.
“Current Status and Emerging Trends in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnostics” appeared last year in a special issue of Biosensors, an MDPI title. The article came to our attention because it matched an ad posted by the Indian paper mill iTrilon, as we reported earlier this year; some of the author names appeared on other iTrilon publications as well.
The two assistant professors – Yuguang Liu of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Ajeet Kaushik of Florida Polytechnic University in Lakeland – have not previously been tied to paper-mill publications and denied any knowledge of the ad.
According to MDPI, the link between the review and iTrilon was too weak to warrant investigation – a stance the publisher has since revised. New evidence we obtained and shared with MDPI shows the paper’s first author, Shreya Singh Beniwal, is no stranger to the seedy haunts of scholarly publishing. (Beniwal lists her affiliation as Lady Hardinge Medical College, in Delhi, on her papers, although her LinkedIn page states she left the school in 2021.)
As evidenced by a video shared with us by an anonymous tipster, Beniwal manages a sprawling network of groups and communities on the messaging platform WhatsApp. There, she and a colleague peddle author slots on research papers for between $50 and $500 each.
On Dec. 18, 2023, for instance, Beniwal posted an ad for “Paper 301” to one of her WhatsApp communities – “Research Projects: Review Articles, systematic Review And Meta-analysis Community 1” – promising acceptance in a Scopus-indexed journal within a month.
Authorship of the article, which was titled “Assessment of effects on cardiovascular system in systemic hepatocellular carcinoma therapy: A meta analysis,” came with a price tag of 38,000 Indian rupees (about $460) for the first position, dropping to 29,000 Indian rupees ($350) for the tenth.
The paper mill operation seems tied to a murky, fee-based membership organization called The Global Achievers Research Academy (GARA), which is also managed, at least in part, by Beniwal.
According to a document shown in the video, members get access to support and training related to research, networking and scientific writing. Some apparently are eligible for an upgrade with extra perks. In an announcement posted to her WhatsApp community “Research Ambassadors,” Beniwal congratulated “Our Ambassadors Who Have Reached Team Milestones!” and invited them to join the community where the ad for “Paper 301” appeared.
Beniwal, who goes by the username “Dr.” on the messaging app, also welcomed the “research ambassadors” to a network called “ExquisiteGARA: The Gateway to Advanced Research and Analysis.” Participation came with such benefits as “designations like ‘Senior Ambassador’ or ‘Coordinator’” and “free participation and potential authorship for recruiting new members.”
She proceeded to list “Our Recent Publications,” which counted the Biosensors review and an earlier paper of hers that precisely matched an iTrilon ad and has since been quietly withdrawn, as we reported in January.
In a notice posted later to the community where the ad for “Paper 301” appeared, Beniwal explained that “Participants at ExquisiteGARA” would need to pay two separate fees: a non-refundable “participation fee” as well as publication charges to be “equally shared among all members involved in the project.”
“As we embark on various exciting research projects at ExquisiteGARA, it is crucial for all participating members to clearly understand the financial aspects associated with these projects,” the notice stated.
Beniwal deactivated the community featuring the “Paper 301” ad in January, shortly before the publication of a six-month Retraction Watch investigation in Science that focused on how iTrilon and other paper mills had infiltrated journals across the globe. But she and a colleague with the WhatsApp handle “Education” continue the authorship trade elsewhere on the platform.
In WhatsApp and email exchanges with Retraction Watch, Beniwal denied selling authorship. “And there was not any selling regarding my [Biosensors review] paper. All authors worked ethically and we have worked on it for months. There must be some misunderstanding regarding it,” she told us.
She said of her and her coauthors:
We connected with each other with the help of LinkedIn and WhatsApp groups with friends and colleague’s [sic] help and connections…… also I have got connections with corresponding author in the same way. Most of the paper was written by me including few figures and initial 5 sections and remaining task was handled by corresponding author by adding other members….. as they also contributed in writing some parts and final revisions were done after that depending upon revision related comments by journal.
ExquisiteGARA, Beniwal added, is not a “platform to sell the papers. That is for workshops.” In the video we received “the good things are hidden and are being misinterpreted.”
Asked about her affiliation with Lady Hardinge Medical College, Beniwal dodged the question and responded angrily, “Why I am even talking to you here. I am not answerable to your silly questions.”
A representative of MDPI told us on behalf of Biosensors’ editorial office:
Thank you for providing us with further details. We have also conducted a comprehensive investigation internally via our Research Integrity department. As a result, we have identified and confirmed Dr. Shreya Singh Beniwal involvement in certain unethical activities and situations related to paper mills and authorship selling activities. The published article is presently under investigation as well, and in terms of future actions, we will keep adhering to COPE guidelines and recommendations. Each submission will be meticulously evaluated on a case-by-case basis, employing standard checks and screening procedures. We will maintain high level of vigilance, particularly when dealing with suspicious activities associated with paper mills that have been previously identified through online records. We will engage in thorough discussions with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board to address this matter effectively.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. 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].
So the co-authors of the paper “worked on it for months”? If it only were that simple! That happens when you have an existing collaboration with others in your field that you already know, either personally as lab colleagues or from interactions at scientific meetings. This also occurs in the context of spending a LOT more time than that on actually COLLECTING the data.
I would love to know how much of the salaries of people such as this are being augmented by this pyramid paper-writing scheme?
Journals and publishers too don’t care much. If they did, authors wouldn’t dare to put any extra names on the author list, because the journals would question them or even black-list them.
The journal publishing this easy and brief review ( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcsm.13212 ) should have asked “How did this short and easy review paper need 20 authors from different countries and even from irrelevant departments?”
The journal publishing this other paper ( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iid3.497 ) should have asked “Why this easy review article has 13 authors?”
If scientific journals and publishers cared more, many problems would disappear automatically.
Kaushik has no grants as far as I can tell.
He is at a non research heavy institution.
yet consistently publishing 50 journal papers a year.
So every week in average. Has impact factor of 70. Many of the publications are fluff reviews with some very vague figures and little data.
I can’t see how this is possible.
NIH ORI should investigate as some of these are funded by NIH.
Kaushik Is not the PI himself but he has been on publications Funded by nih by other pi’s.
How can Shreya Singh Beniwal collaborate with Ajeet Kaushik? Both are from different backgrounds and even other authors!
Something is very fishy with this article.
Did you talk to her directly? Or only though chat and e-mail?
Perhaps someone is using her name? The connections to other authors don’t make any sense?
I noticed that Ajeet Kaushik is listed as a Specialty Chief Editor in a journal of Frontiersin Nanotechnology biomedical-nanotechnology. He has been implicated in paper mills, with two articles featured in Retraction Watch. Additionally, he was involved in a now-cancelled journal connected to a paper mills, has one retraction for data fabrication, and numerous issues with his papers, as seen on his PubPeer page. I informed frontiers but they don’t seem to care.