[Coral-List] plagiarism in coral reef science in India

Douglas Fenner douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
Fri May 18 03:15:16 EDT 2018


Abstract:  A group in India has published several articles with long lists
of names of coral species in the Andaman Islands.  Those lists contain the
names of several Caribbean corals.  In 2010 the same group published a book
on the corals of the Andaman Islands.  The text describing every species
was copied verbatum from Veron (2000) with no quote marks and no citation
of the source.  The introductory text was also copied verbatum from sources
without quotes or attribution, so nearly the entire book was copied
verbatum.  I provide the references to these works, and detailed quotes
from the book and the sources below my signature.  (this post is long, so I
provide an abstract)

     A few years ago, I spotted an article about corals in the Andaman
Islands, which are part of India.  I looked through it and found it had an
amazingly long list of coral species.  I thought to myself, “the authors
must be really good at coral identification!”  As I looked at the list,
though, a species caught my eye.  *Montastrea annularis*.  Then
another, *Siderastrea
siderea*.  Huh?  Those are Caribbean species.  They are not in the
Indo-Pacific as far as anyone knows, and there have been a lot of people
who would have noticed them.  If the authors knew how startling and
important a find those were, they would have made a big deal out of it,
worth a big paper in a major journal.  But no mention of that.  Sure looks
like they didn’t realize that they were Caribbean corals, or maybe didn't
realize that there are no Caribbean corals in the Indo-Pacific.  Made me
wonder what else was wrong in their list.  I found two species that were
listed twice each in the table, and the two entries indicated that the same
species was found in different places.  Hmmm.

      Then recently, I was looking at a book (Ramakrishna et al, 2010) that
some of the same people had published.  The English was perfect, I could
find no grammatical errors.  The paper with the long list of corals had
quite a few grammatical errors.  This book had a long and well written
introduction with many references, sure looked like whoever wrote it knew a
lot about corals.  Then it had descriptions and photos of a group of coral
species that had not been reported from the Andaman Is. before.  Again,
perfect English.  On a whim, I looked in Veron, 2000 to compare what they
said about one species.  Lo and behold, the wording was exactly the same,
every single word.  I checked several other species, every single one was
an exact match to the description in Veron, 2000.  No quote marks, and no
citation at the end of the paragraph to Veron or any other source.  Also,
the “key characters” in this book for each species are identical to those
in a key to species in the back of Veron, 2000.  No quotes, no citation.  A
search on the first paragraph of the introduction produced the identical
wording from a Reefs at Risk document, no quotes, no citation.  The Reefs
at Risk document is at https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/
documents/1993-038.pdf  Essentially the entire book was plagiarized.  It
has another list of the corals of the Andaman Islands at the end which
includes some Caribbean species.  It is easy for anyone to compare any
description in the book with Veron, 2000 and see for themselves if the
wording is exactly the same, and whether quote marks were used or a
citation given.  I provide quotes for comparison between this book and the
Reefs and Risk and Veron (2000) documents in the additional information
below my signature below.

         There is no information in the journal papers with which one can
check the accuracy of their species identifications, nor for most of the
species in the checklist in the book (Ramakrishna et al, 2010).  However,
there were photographs of living colonies of some of the Caribbean species
they reported included in the Ramakrishna et al (2010) publication.  Inspection
of the photographs indicates that their “*Agaricia fragilis*” colony
appears to be *Leptoseris mycetoseroides* (an Indo-Pacific species),
their “*Leptoseris
cucullata*” appears to be *Pavona varians* (another I-P species) their
“*Mycetophyllia
danaana”* appears to be *Symphyllia* sp. (an I-P coral), their “*Solenastrea
bournoni*” appears to possibly be *Cyphastrea agassizi* (an I-P species)
(but surely not *S. bournoni*), their “*Diploria strigosa*” appears to
be *Platygyra
daedalea* or perhaps *Platygyra sinensis* (both I-P species), their “*Porites
porites*” is instead an octocoral, as can be easily seen by counting the 8
tentacles on each polyp (very large and obvious in the picture).  From the
texture of the colony surface, it appears to be *Heliopora* *coerulea*.  That
is unlikely to be a mistake a person who is knowledgeable about coral
taxonomy would make.  There are a number of other species that appear to be
misidentified as well.

      A recent news article relates that the Indian government has just
banned plagiarism in all universities there and specified a range of
punishments:

  India creates unique tiered system to punish plagiarism.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/india-creates-
unique-tiered-system-punish-plagiarism

      I have been in contact with the authors and the agency in which they
work or worked, the Zoological Survey of India.  The authors have not
publicly admitted anything as far as I know, though I have urged them to do
so.

       I felt duty bound to report this to the scientific community, since
the information contained in these works may be unreliable and/or
plagiarized.

Cheers,  Doug

References

Mondal, T., Raghunathan, C., Venkataraman, K.  2013.  Status of
Scleractinian diversity at Nancowry Group of Islands Andaman and Nicobar
Islands.  Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 14(5): 587-597.

Mondal, T., Raghunathan, C.  2011.  An observation on the coral bleaching
in Andaman Islands.  International Journal of Environmental Science 1:
37-51.

Ramakrishna, Mondal, T., Raghunathan, C., Raghuraman, R, and Sivaperuman.
2010.  New Records of Scleractinian Corals in Andaman and Nicobar
Islands.  Records
of the Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper No. 321, 1-144.

Veron, JEN.  2000.  Corals of the World, Vol. 1-3.  Australian Institute of
Marine Science.



More details:

       It came to my attention some time ago that a couple of articles
published about corals in the Andaman Islands have a curious mistake in
them.  The articles presented lists of coral species that the authors found
in the Andaman and/or Nicobar Islands that were extensive, and indicated
that the authors had a significant knowledge of the coral species there and
knowledge and ability to identify them.  One, Mondal et al (2013) listed
274 species of corals.  On inspection of the table of coral species in that
paper, I found a surprising mistake.  Namely, that two species of Caribbean
corals were listed as being in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, *Montastrea
annularis* and *Siderastrea radians*.  In another paper (Mondal &
Raghunathan, 2011), they listed 293 species of coral, and I found 9 species
listed that are Caribbean corals, *Montastrea annularis*, *Montastraea
cavernosa*, *Siderastrea radians*, *Siderastrea siderea*, *Dichocoenia
stokesi*, *Scolymia cubensis*, *Diploria strigosa*, *Colpophyllia
natans*, *Porites
porites*,  and one species that doesn’t exist, *Porites ankeli* (there
is a *Pocillopora
ankeli*).  In a third reference (Ramakrishna et al, 2010), the authors
presented a checklist of 419 species of corals, and detailed information
including descriptions and photographs of 83 coral species from the
Andamans and Nicobars, including 6 Caribbean coral species: *Agaricia
fragilis*, *Leptoseris cucullata*, *Mycetophyllia danaana*, *Solenastrea
bournoni*, *Diploria strigosa*, and *Porites porites*.  They also
reported *Tubastrea
mesenterina*, *Tubastrea peltata*, and *Tubastrea reniformis*.  There are
no such three species, though there are species named *Turbinaria
mesenterina*, *Turbinaria peltata*, and *Turbinaria reniformis*.  It is
surprising that they would report Caribbean species, because those species
are known only from the Caribbean, they have never been found outside of
the Caribbean or Atlantic Ocean.  A person who knows coral species well
enough to identify all those species would know that those species are not
in the Indian Ocean and would not want to report them from the Indian Ocean
without significant documentation proving their presence, such as photos of
living corals and skeletons, and detailed descriptions of the skeletons
that match published descriptions of the same species.  It is a mistake
which even a person that read the Veron (2000) books which these
identifications were based on would have noticed if they had noticed the
ranges shown for these species in that book.  This suggests that maybe
their knowledge of corals may not be as extensive as one would have
thought, and raises the question of the accuracy of the identifications of
the many species they report.  There is no information in the journal
papers with which one can check the accuracy of their species
identifications, nor for most of the species in the checklist in
Ramakrishna et al (2010).  However, there were photographs of living
colonies of some of the Caribbean species they reported included in the
Ramakrishna et al (2010) publication.  Inspection of the photographs
indicates that their “*Agaricia fragilis*” colony appears to be *Leptoseris
mycetoseroides*, their “*Leptoseris cucullata*” appears to be *Pavona
varians*, their “*Mycetophyllia danaana”* appears to be *Symphyllia* sp.,
their “*Solenastrea bournoni*” appears to possibly be *Cyphastrea agassizi*
(but surely not *S. bournoni*), their “*Diploria strigosa*” appears to
be *Platygyra
daedalea* or perhaps *Platygyra sinensis*, their “*Porites porites*” is
instead an octocoral, likely a soft coral, an Alcyonacean, as can be easily
seen by counting the 8 tentacles on each polyp.  Strangely, most of the
Caribbean species covered in detail with descriptions and pictures do not
appear in their checklist of species from the Andamans and Nicobars.  Some
of the Indo-Pacific species appear to be correctly identified, many cannot
be identified from the pictures, and a few are clearly incorrectly
identified, such as *Montipora grisea* (which has papillae, the photo shows
tuberculae instead), *Montipora delicatula* (which has thin delicate plates
while the photo shows thick fusing structures), *Montipora porites* (which
has obvious ridges on the surface while the photo shows a smooth
surface), *Acropora
gomezi* which has long, thick tubular radial corallites while the photo
shows short thin radial corallites, *Seriatopora aculeata* (which has
short, sharply tapering branches, while the photo shows long gradually
tapering branches), *Fungia fralinae* (which has extended tentacles with
purple tips, while the photo shows no tentacles), *Fungia taiwanensis*
(which has many small mouths concentrated in the center while the photo
shows two large mouths), *Favia lacuna* (which has large corallites while
the photo shows small corallites and looks more like *Coeloseris
mayeri*), *Leptoria
irregularis* (which has much thinner ridges, the photo is of *Merulina
ampliata*), and *Goniopora norfolkensis* (the photo shows white oral discs
and appears to be an encrusting gorgonian).

Clearly, the editors of the Zoological Survey of India did not choose
internationally recognized experts in coral taxonomy to review this
publication.

      A second surprise came to me when I began to read the introduction to
the  Ramakrishna et al (2010) monograph.  First, the introductory material
was very well presented and the authors appear to be very well informed
about corals.  The standard of English was very good indeed, while in the
Mondal et al (2013) article, it was quite poor with many grammatical errors..
That made me wonder.  I tried a search on a couple of the first sentences
of the introduction, and a website popped up, Reefs at Risk (
https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/1993-038.pdf
).  I found text that looked familiar.  Here is a direct quote from that
Reefs at Risk website:

 “Coral reefs and biodiversity

Coral forms range from compact brain corals found in areas of high wave
energy, through heavy branching and plate corals in deeper water, off the
reef edge, to smaller finely branched corals found behind the reef crest
and in the lagoon.  Coral reefs are generally divided into four main types:
atolls, barrier reefs, platform reefs, and fringing reefs. Atolls, where
reefs form a ring around a lagoon, are mainly found in the Indian and
Pacific Oceans. In the Pacific they are grouped into long island chains
such as those of Micronesia and Central Polynesia. Barrier reefs are
separated from the mainland by a deep channel or lagoon, in which are found
platform reefs. Fringing reefs are directly attached to land or separated
only by a shallow lagoon.  On an individual reef, the total count of fish
species and smaller marine organisms may exceed several thousand, but the
number of individual coral species is much lower.”

For comparison, here is the opening text in the Ramakrishna monograph:

“Coral forms range from compact brain corals found in areas of high wave

energy, through heavy branching and plate corals in deeper water, off the

reef edge, to smaller finely branched corals found behind the reef crest and

in the lagoon. Coral reefs are generally divided into four main types:
atolls,

barrier reefs, platform reefs, and fringing reefs. Atolls, where reefs form
a ring

around a lagoon, are mainly found in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. In the

Pacific they are grouped into long island chains such as those of Micronesia

and Central Polynesia. Barrier reefs are separated from the mainland by a

deep channel or lagoon, in which are found platform reefs. Fringing reefs

are directly attached to land or separated only by a shallow lagoon. On an

individual reef, the total count of fish species and smaller marine
organisms

may exceed several thousand, but the number of individual coral species is

much lower.”

 This text which I have put quote marks around to indicate that I have
copied it verbatim from the Ramakrishna monograph, has no quote marks
around it in the Ramakrishna monograph and no attribution of what the
source was.  In addition, the monograph has no acknowledgement section at
all that I can find.

    This stimulated my curiosity further.  I looked at the species
descriptions.  For the first family of corals presented, Acroporidae, the
monograph has:



 “Description : Colonial, zooxanthellate and mostly extant. Colonies have

most of the growth forms known for zooxanthalate corals. Corallites (except

*Astreopora) *are small with septa in two cycles or less and columellae are

seldom developed.”

I wondered how that compared with the Veron (2000) book.  The Veron book
has:

“Colonial, zooxanthellate and mostly extant.  Colonies have most of the
growth forms known for zooxanthellate corals.  Corallites (except
*Astreopora*) are small with septa in two cycles or less and columellae are
seldom developed.”

Huh.  For the first genus, *Montipora*, the monograph has:

“Colonies are submassive, laminar, encrusting or branching.

Many species are conspicuous. Corallites are small. Septa are in two cycles

with inwarding projecting teeth. Columellae are absent. Corallite walls and

coenosteum are porous and may be highly elaborated. Tentacles are usually

extended only at night.”

Veron (2000) has:

“Colonies are submassive, laminar, encrusting or branching.  Many species
are inconspicuous.  Corallites are small.  Septa are in two cycles with
inward projecting teeth.  Columellae are absent.  Corallite walls and the
coenosteum are porous and may be highly elaborated.  Tentacles are usually
extended only at night.”

That’s quite a coincidence, so I checked the first species the monograph
presents, *Montipora cebuensis*, and here is what the monograph says:

“Colonies composed of contorted and dissected laminae.

Coenosteum ridges are prominent. They are irregular on larger fronds, but

are usually perpendicular to the margins of small fronds. Corallites occur

irregularly, between the ridges.”

Here is what Veron (2000) writes for the same species:

“Colonies are contorted dissected laminae.  Coenosteum ridges are prominent.
They are irregular on larger fronds, but are usually perpendicular to the
margins of small fronds.  Corallites occur irregularly, between the ridges.”

Then I picked a random species, *Mycedium robokakai*.  Here is what
Ramakrishna et al (2010) wrote:

“Colonies

are composed of small,

thin, unifacial laminae,

usually with non-wavy margins. Corallites are small, strongly inclined on
the laminae and are

sometimes arranged concentrically. Septo-costae are compact and have

ornamented spines.”

And Veron (2000) has this for the same species:

“Colonies are composed of small, thin (5-8 mm thick), unifacial laminae,
usually with non-wavy margins.  Corallites are small (4-6 mm diameter),
strongly inclined on the laminae and are sometimes arranged concentrically.
Septo-costae are compact, in 2 or 3 orders and have ornamented spines.”

By that point, I was beginning to pick up a pattern.  Sadly, much of the
contents of the Ramakrishna et al (2010) book is identical with that in
other previously published sources, such as the Reefs at Risk website and
particularly the Veron (2000) books.  If these passages were in quotes and
the references given indicating where they were taken from, that would be
no problem.  But that is not the case.  This is plagiarism.  It is passing
off the text as though it was original and written by the authors.  It was
not, it was copied verbatim.


-- 
Douglas Fenner
Contractor for NOAA NMFS Protected Species, and consultant
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799  USA

New online open-access field guide to 300 coral species in Chagos, Indian
Ocean
http://chagosinformationportal.org/corals

Even without El Nino, 2017 temperatures soared.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/even-without-el-
ni-o-2017-temperatures-still-soared?utm_campaign=news_
weekly_2018-01-19&et_rid=17045989&et_cid=1800664

Coral reefs are bleaching too frequently to recover
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/the-
global-scourge-on-coral-reefs/549713/?utm_source=atlfb

How to save the "tropical rainforests" of the ocean
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/
01/09/coral-reefs/?tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.80ce291c546b


More information about the Coral-List mailing list