While reviewing a manuscript for the Journal of Organic Chemistry, Caroline Kervarc-Genre and her colleague, Thibault Cantat, researchers at the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission, noticed something unusual.
The nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectra buried in the supplementary information had striking irregularities: The baseline was interrupted in some parts, and the noise was the same from one spectrum to the next. “Noise being inherently random, repeating noise is only possible if the spectra are altered [or] fake,” Kervarc-Genre told Retraction Watch.
Starting to suspect something was wrong, she and Cantat, examined other papers by the lead author. They discovered data appeared to have been edited in several of the author’s latest publications. “The fraud was not subtle,” Kervarc-Genre said.
She had never come across such blatant fraud, she said, and was unsure about what to do, so turned to PubPeer to report the findings. Others soon joined, uncovering more troubling patterns in the work.
In total, 43 papers have been flagged on PubPeer, all sharing a common author: Suman L. Jain, a scientist at the CSIR-Indian Institute of Petroleum in Dehradun. Published between 2011 and 2024, many of the articles show anomalous spectra, as well as identical noise patterns and missing product characterizations – meaning there is no way of knowing if experiments were done at all, Kervarc-Genre said. In December and January, 10 of the flagged papers, all in journals from the Royal Society of Chemistry, were retracted; seven more from the publisher have received expressions of concern, pending further investigation.
Kervarc-Genre said the issues in the papers were often “blatant”. In two, “Novel Organic‐Inorganic Hybrid Mesoporous Silica Supported Oxo‐Vanadium Schiff Base for Selective Oxidation of Alcohols,” published in Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis and “Thiourea dioxide promoted efficient organocatalytic one-pot synthesis of a library of novel heterocyclic compounds,” which appeared in Organic and Biomolecular Chemistry, the sleuths recognized spectra copied from the Spectral Database for Organic Compounds, a well-known repository in the field.
Responding to the PubPeer comments pointing out the copy-and-paste, Jain wrote she was “extremely sorry”, and said her institute didn’t have the right equipment to perform the experiments at the time. According to Jain, her students obtained the data from other institutes, and she was shown hard copies when the manuscript was being prepared. “These students are now settled in other countries and I have minimum contact information about them,” Jain wrote on PubPeer, adding she was attempting to contact them.
The paper in Organic and Biomolecular Chemistry was retracted in January, alongside nine others published in Royal Society of Chemistry journals. In the series of papers, the retraction notices cite duplications and anomalies in the spectra – such as peaks appearing manually added or removed – as well as significant gaps in the data. Some of the retraction notices specify author contributions, with some attributing responsibility for the experimental work to the first authors, often the students in the lab.
Another article, “Nickel oxide nanoparticles grafted on reduced graphene oxide (rGO/NiO) as efficient photocatalyst for reduction of nitroaromatics under visible light irradiation”, published in the Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, was corrected after a commenter on PubPeer noticed identical noise on the spectra published in the paper. “The authors feel extremely sorry as they have inadvertently made a mistake in data handling…”, the correction states, attributing the noise duplication to a possible “labeling mistake”.
In “Synergistic CdS@CeO2 nanocomposites: Harnessing Z-scheme electron transfer for enhanced photocatalytic CO2 conversion and aqueous Cr(VI) reduction,” which appears in the Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, a PubPeer commenter pointed out peaks appeared to have been manually added onto the spectra, and unexpected blank spots in one of the graphs.
Jain acknowledged the irregularities, stating on PubPeer she agreed with the concerns and was trying to contact the student responsible for the experiments, who had left her group a year earlier. Then in August 2024, she wrote that she had submitted a correction to the editor, although none appears on the article page. In an email to Retraction Watch, a spokesperson for Elsevier, which publishes the journal, said they had not received any request for correction to the article by the authors. However, the publisher is investigating this paper, along with 13 others flagged on PubPeer, that Jain published in Elsevier journals.
A handful of Jain’s papers flagged on PubPeer were also co-authored by French chemists, Rabah Boukherroub and Sabine Szunerits, recently called out on For Better Science for alleged papermilling. Earlier in her career, Jain’s 2009 paper “An Efficient Synthesis of Poly(ethylene glycol)-Supported Iron(II) Porphyrin using a Click Reaction and its Application for the Catalytic Olefination of Aldehydes” was also retracted, after a reader discovered a reported reaction hadn’t happened, invalidating the paper’s hypothesis and conclusions.
In an email to Retraction Watch, Jain wrote “this is a most unfortunate situation for me,” and that she was “highly shocked” after receiving notifications on PubPeer and an email regarding an investigation by the Royal Society. of Chemistry. She called it “the most unfortunate part of my life” that the students who performed the experiments had left her group and could no longer be reached. During the manuscript submissions, she described having uploaded the supporting files that her students prepared, without realizing they had manipulated the data.
“I sincerely apologise and accept my mistake that I should check and re-verify the data before submission,” she wrote, adding that until reading the comments on PubPeer, she was “utterly unaware of this unethical act by the students.”
Jain said she felt “afraid to respond on PubPeer” but planned to resubmit each retracted article as a new publication with the raw data to preserve her integrity. She claimed to have already provided corrected results to some journals, adding that for the rest she would “re-perform the reactions… with the help of new students.” She continued:
… please believe me. I was completely unaware of these manipulations during the manuscript submission. I could never imagine that students whom I helped a lot during their PhD did this to me, and now, they are not even responding. I feel cheated by the dirty and manipulative students who, just for their selfish purpose, created this trouble for me. I am highly depressed and do not know how to come out of all that.
This situation is an eye-opener for me for the future. I will be extremely careful in data handling from now onwards.
We attempted to contact a handful of the students who once worked in Jain’s lab, and were listed as co-authors on the articles issued with retractions or expressions of concern. None have yet responded to our queries.
Along with another colleague, Cantat, one of the researchers who first spotted the abnormalities in Jain’s work, contacted editors at 11 journals to report the findings he and Kervarc-Genre had made. Only two replied: the European Journal of Organic Chemistry, which said it would “thoroughly investigate”, but has yet to take action, and the Royal Society of Chemistry, the publisher which issued the ten retractions in its journals earlier this year.
“We were extremely disappointed in the reaction of the editors and publishers, which was to ignore us, and the data manipulation,” Kervarc-Genre said. “We found it very infuriating that the reviewers and editors had accepted papers that contained some blatant fraud and had clearly not been looked at with enough care.”
The manuscript that first sparked their suspicion never made it into the Journal of Organic Chemistry after Cantat reported his concerns to the handling editor. Instead, a year later, it resurfaced in Molecular Catalysis, although Cantat said he had not had the time to review the published version.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, 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 our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
She plans “to resubmit each retracted article as a new publication with the raw data to preserve her integrity….” At a minimum the raw data should strive to surpass the “fraud was not subtle” standard used in the past.
What raw data? I thought she said her lab can’t run experiments! Funny how aaaaalllll these students are untrustworthy, yet she’s the only common denominator in her dozens of fraudulent papers.
What amazes me is this was not caught by referees or editors – several of these journals are highly reputable and had (not sure they do anymore) high standards for compound characterization. As was noted, these are not subtle and even a cursory glance at the spectra should raise suspicion. Of course the PI is at fault either for not checking her students’ work more closely both during the course of projects and at several steps during the assembly of publications or this PI maliciously submitted falsified work. I always preach to my students that their data are the most important part of the project – our interpretations and explanations might be wrong but the data should stand the test of time.
I am still astounded that the PI was able to submit and have published so many papers over a 10+ year period and not get caught.
Supplemental information is generally not peer reviewed
Jimmy – in synthetic organic chemistry it is reviewed, it is provided along with the manuscript, the crystal data where relevant. I always look at it – how do I know that the authors have made what they have claimed and whether it is pure. Now whether other referees look at the SI carefully, I don’t know – but they should. I cannot speak for all journals, but those published by the American Chemical Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry and many others request comprehensive compound characterization data, copies of the spectra and while voluntary right now also request raw data to be uploaded so that others can process it themselves.
I have, on several occasions, recommended rejection of manuscripts because of the quality of the characterization data or there are errors in reporting it which I could only see from examining the original data. The fact that poor data gets through is on the PI for submitting it (either not checking it or being complicit) and then on the reviewers/editors for not checking data carefully.
Submitting a database spectrum is not hard to spot even from a cursory examination.
That’s the issue though: author guidelines for journals published by the ACS or the RSC indeed request compound characterization data to be included in the manuscript or the SI. However, articles still get published in those journals without any compound characterization. Several of Suman Jain’s papers have tables full of “isolated yields” for compounds that were supposedly synthesized, but not a single NMR spectrum, and no characterization at all. The “experimental” section in those papers doesn’t mention any compound characterization method, which should be a red flag for referees even if they choose to skip the SI. Some don’t even have a SI section anyway.
And these are papers in journals such as ChemComm or RSC Advances, not low tier predatory journals. When “big” publishers are not enforcing their own guidelines, how is the system supposed to work?
It happens all the time, unfortunately. No one’s doing their due diligence at these journals, and much like hospitals refusing to fire “death doctors” for fear
Another researcher from India who avoids the basic scientific method and complains when caught.
Fire her and torch all the work.
Not torching the work tells people it’s ok to do this.
NIH should list these articles in the PubMed Database JUST TO LIST THEY ARE FRAUDULENT ARTICLES
One student i might believe, but over 10 yrs, how many of her students is she claiming provided false data?
I recently found a browser extension for LinkedIn that filters out posts originating in India. We need the same for academic journals.
Hmm. Is she lying or the students? I’m taking the third option that maybe some of the students committed research fraud and she was complicit.
One cannot blame the students. The PI is drafting the manuscript and is responsible for ensuring reproducibility of the experimental data. These PIs are ruining Indian Science. Indian government should take stern actions. This are all deliberate frauds. Period.
They don’t care….what a joke…
All her students were dishonest yet she tells us that she was the only honest one in the group? And all the dishonest ones have disappeared into thin air? She is a disgrace to her employer.
If students got there PhD’s from these work then the degree should be taken back. Such thing cannot happen for 10yrs without the knowledge of PI. If PI got any benefit(promotions etc) from these research work the same to be withdrawn.
Absolutely. Very correctly said. No doubt on this one.
If the students did all the work, why is her name in the paper?
Shameful !!!!….a lesson for Indian academia !
Plagiarism and substandard works are emanating from the sea of nepotism and favouritism prevalent at many levels here..
This case highlights the importance of rigorous data validation and ethical research practices in preserving scientific integrity. Upcoming researchers must exercise caution and ensure the accuracy and authenticity of their spectral data
Since students are so good at disappearing, perhaps she should go back to being a student and never be heard from again.
Clearly leveraged on the usual disregard for checking the supp info. Went well for long time, until inevitably busted.
When you agree to mentor students, you agree to take on the responsibility to educate and train them. Teaching our students about the responsible and ethical conduct of research and in the experimental sciences, laboratory safety are two important responsibilities. No matter how you cut this, Ms. Jain is culpable. What I find extremely sad is the effort to blame her students for her failures as a research advisor. Please keep the community updated on this case.
Well, they seem to have given the industry what they wanted. If the industry stood for what it claims to stand for then this wouldnt happen, let alone as often or for as long as this transpired.
I just checked her citations, and she has over 30,000. I am certain that some of them have fraud data too. If someone has this many retractions, they should be dismissed from their position. Blaming others is absolutely wrong. I also believe that the current advisors of those students should monitor them carefully. Academic integrity is key.
If the fraud done by Ph. D. students then their degrees must be withdrawn and banned for life for doin Ph.D. at any university. If supervisor has not done any thing during this work then why should be his/her name be in the paper as researcher. Such PIs do these things to get undue promotions and foreign visits at the cost of taxpayers, They should be debarred from any promotion and demoted immediatly.
Every publication from both the individual and that faculty should now be examined. Students who have obtained doctoral status via any of these publications or other papers that are questionable should have their degree revoked – it took many of us, many years, sleepless nights, countless failures and innovative solutions to be able to publish quality data and this just undermines the whole process.
This is extremely heartbreaking and sad. Such a senior researcher in a well respected organisation and to claim that they did not know data was falsified for >10 years is an absolutely. Usually I do want to give the benefit of doubt, but in this case, this goes against fundamentals of research principles and integrity. Very bitter case this and I sincerely hope that appropriate corrective and preventive measures will be strongly employed.
For the publishers part, I am glad that eventually action has been taken to retract these papers and I would hope that any attempt at republishing these papers would be rebuffed. Jain seems to take no responsibility at all for these failings. She should either resign or be forced to do so.
I know that many folks who’ve never worked in publishing are somewhat mystified by how these things happen, but a lot of it is a scale issue. There are thousands upon thousands of papers to review and not enough editors to process them in the level of detail you might expect. At best an editor will have 15 to 20 minutes to read the paper at initial assessment and while a lot of things are caught (trust me you should see the things that don’t make it through to peer review…) other things are not, particularly on journals where assessment is run by external editors whose adherence (and knowledge of) to journal standards is not always as good as professional editors. They simply don’t have the time, it’s not their main job after all.
There also are not enough researchers to act as reviewers. You use the people who are willing and you hope are suitably qualified, but the range in quality of report you receive is massive. In an ideal world every paper would stay in peer review until it had full and robust review, but authors want speed and so do publishers.
I find it baffling that you use outsourcing as an excuse for poor editorial work. You say that external editors are not up to the task, basically, and they don’t know the guidelines. How is that acceptable? Those people are paid and should be held to rigorous standards! When we buy a very expensive subscription to a scientific journal, the very least they we can expect is for editors, internal or external, to do their job. Researchers and peer-reviewers provide journals with content for free, that journals then sell for a profit, but we should be content with botched editorial work because publishers use unreliable third parties? I don’t think that’s how it’s supposed to work. If the community can’t trust that the quality of the published work was properly assessed, what’s the added value of publishers at a time when anyone can easily share their research on free online repositories?