A management journal has removed from its masthead an editor who was the subject of a Retraction Watch post last month.
Shalini Srivastava, a professor at the Jaipuria Institute of Management in India, was an associate editor at Employee Relations, an Emerald Publishing title. We reported last month that two articles she coauthored — one in Employee Relations and another in the Journal of Organizational Change Management, also an Emerald journal — were retracted because “a large portion of this article’s models, samples, and results are taken, without full and proper attribution, from” earlier work, both retraction notices read.
Following our report, Srivastava’s name disappeared from the editorial team page of Employee Relations. Asked to comment on the change, a spokesperson from Emerald’s research integrity department replied:
Following investigations into several articles authored by Prof. Srivastava, the editor and publisher for Employee Relations made the decision to remove Prof. Srivastava as an Associate Editor for the journal. Prof. Srivastava agreed with this decision.
Srivastava, who did not respond to our request for comment to our first story, responded when asked this week about the new retractions and the removal from the editorial team:
Our team has provided all the relevant information and documents to justify our cases, but the Journals were not convinced in accepting our point of view. The final decision is with the Journals which we as authors having no other option but to accept.
Meanwhile, three additional papers on which Srivastava is a coauthor have been retracted. “Perceived stress and psychological well-being of working mothers during COVID-19: a mediated moderated roles of teleworking and resilience,” published in April 2021 in Employee Relations, was retracted on January 27. The notice used the same phrasing as the previous two, citing substantial overlap with yet another paper, “Workplace bullying and job burnout: A moderated mediation model of emotional intelligence and hardiness,” published in September 2019, in the International Journal of Organizational Analysis, also an Emerald title. That paper was retracted on January 29.
The third paper, “Assessing the Relationship between Personality Variable and Managerial Effectiveness: An Empirical Study on Private Sector Managers,” published in 2011 by Management and Labour Studies, a Sage journal, was retracted February 4. The retraction notice cites “substantial unattributed overlap” to three published articles, as well as “some concerns about the reported data.”
An anonymous poster flagged two of the newly retracted articles on PubPeer in November. Sleuth Elisabeth Bik posted about the third after receiving an email tip from an anonymous account.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, 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].
In a way nothing is original, all culled from one or many sources?
Sons/daughters are sourced by parents!
Ideas by persons of brilliance!
Only death is original ending all issues?
The problem isn’t using, and building on, other people’s work, it’s claiming credit for other people’s work. Both ideas and the actual work of setting up and running studies, and analyzing the results.
The retraction notices include “without full and proper attribution.”
Someone who believed what you say here wouldn’t be claiming to have done the work herself. They’d say something like “based on the research by X, Y, and Z (references) I did thus-and-such study. My results supports Z’s idea that….”
The scope of this discussion is limited to the actions of the researcher in question.
Review her dissertation.
The fact that she is calling herself a “professor” with retractions is a disgrace.
She is just a fraud.
Ok. That’s one side of the long story. It is now said that ChtGpt generated materials , regurgitated through DeepSeek , and then refashioned by Google Gemini , could easily & quickly turn out multiple high end journal publications . 3months /PhD shldnt be too much of a problem either. Secondly, what about distinguished professors publishing in fake predatory journals ? And getting rewarded for that ? By the same token, not All editors always know what they’re taking on. Truly original research typically could pose a massive problem – for the author & the adjudicator. The problem here – Regurgitation of old hack news , is of course nothing new. Now take an old hack published piece, feed it thro AI , East and west , repeat the process two more times , and we end up asking – who’s the real author here? Can it be re published? Many online publications are paying authors directly around $1/word, more of less. At the end of the day it’s about integrity , trustworthiness, credibility. The problem is fraud and dishonesty have become all pervasive today. In many quarters those meant to fight it just turn a blind eye. And not long, they miraculously begin to slide UP the ladder. I The post doc entry level academic must take note.
“It is said” by people who don’t know a thing about machine learning.