Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 November 2021 | 13(13): 20140–20142
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7673.
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7673.13.13.20140-20142
#7673 | Received 22 September 2021
If habitat heterogeneity is
effective for conservation of butterflies in urban landscapes of Delhi, India?’
Unethical publication based on data manipulation
Sanjay Keshari
Das 1 & Rita
Singh 2
1,2 University School of Environment
Management, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, Sector-16C, Dwarka, New Delhi 110078, India.
1 skdasipu@gmail.com (corresponding
author), 2 ritasingh@ipu.ac.in
Date of publication: 26 November 2021 (online & print)
Citation: Das, S.K. & R. Singh (2021). If habitat
heterogeneity is effective for conservation of butterflies in urban landscapes
of Delhi, India?’ Unethical publication based on data manipulation. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(13): 20140–20142. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7673.13.13.20140-20142
Copyright: © Das & Singh 2021. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License. JoTT
allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any
medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of
publication.
Paul & Sultana (2021)
published a paper on effectiveness of habitat heterogeneity for conservation of
butterflies in urban landscapes of Delhi based on field sampling carried out in
2015–2017. Though the work presented in the paper is part of the Ph.D. Thesis
work of the first author supervised by Das, S.K. and Singh, R. (Paul 2019), we
found serious data manipulation of the data embodied in the Thesis (after award
of the degree) to bring out the publication. Since our University name is
tagged with the publication and the original work is from our lab only, we highlight them in the following paragraphs
pointwise.
Paul & Sultana (2021) have
distorted perception of the subject to build and test false theory with data
forgery. Because, they have mentioned they have carried out sampling/assessment
of nine different habitats in different urban landscapes and determined diversity
indices across these habitats (Table 4) to test the hypothesis, is habitat heterogeneity effective for
conservation of butterflies in urban landscapes of Delhi? In the original work these habitats were not
sampled, rather transects laid across six different urban landscapes comprising
sets of microhabitats were sampled (Section 3.2.4., Paul 2019) and the authors
have referred those microhabitats as habitats in the paper (Section 4.2.2.1.,
Paul 2019). The original work is already published with another title (Paul
& Sultana 2020). Hence, how they
calculated diversity indices across different microhabitats (referred as
habitats in the paper) for which sample size and sampling time for each
microhabitat compared in the paper was not fixed?.
Paul & Sultana (2021) have
very wisely changed the actual data collection methodology. In the original work data collection was made
both from ‘Pollard Walk’ method between 1000 h and 1600 h (during which
butterfly species, their microhabitat, and activities were recorded in selected
transects) and opportunistic search (at few instances to include microhabitat
information of Common Evening Brown Melanitis
leda which were mostly sighted during dusk)
(Section 3.2.4., Paul 2019), but in the paper authors have mentioned data was
collected in selected transects between 1000 h and 1600 h using ‘Pollard walk’
method only. Moreover, in the original work 1 km transect was covered in one
hour during ‘Pollard walk’ (Section 3.2.4., Paul 2019), but in the paper
authors have mentioned 0.5–1 km transect was covered in one hour for the said
sampling. Again, how they calculated diversity indices across different
microhabitats (referred as habitats) based on data collected from both ‘Pollard
Walk’ and ‘opportunistic search’ methods in which the later method was also not
standardised across different landscapes sampled in terms of sample size and
sampling time? Further, if they have sampled the nine microhabitats (referred
as habitats) by Pollard walk method as mentioned in the paper, which area of
Delhi they selected transect of 0.5–1 km of bird droppings? and which area of
Delhi they selected transect of 0.5–1 km of artificial light in the day time
between 1000 h and 1600 h? They have also misused different statistics
(Shapiro-Wilk test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, ANOVA) to test these data and
hypothesis (Table 5).
Keeping in mind ‘artificial
light’ is not a microhabitat, in the thesis it was replaced by actual site of
sighting (only a single such sighting was recorded) and hence, ‘house wall’ was
inserted to replace artificial light. Unfortunately, even after the final
editing of the thesis, by mistake ‘artificial light’ still continues along with
‘house wall’ for description of nine microhabitats (referred as habitats in the
paper) of butterflies sampled during the study (Section 4.2.2.1., Paul 2019).
However, in the Venn diagram for microhabitats in the thesis ‘house wall’
rather than ‘artificial light’ was mentioned (Figure 12, Paul 2019) as given
below. This figure is also tampered by the authors in the paper (Figure 2).
Paul & Sultanas’ (2021) data
in Figure 2 is duplicated in Table 2 with wrong headings as second heading of
Table 2 should be ‘Number of butterfly species exclusively found or shared’
instead of ‘Number of butterfly species’ because the actual number of butterfly
species recorded in ‘flowerbeds’ and ‘grass’ were 31 and 19 (Table 1) instead
of 6 and 4, respectively (Table 2). Further, from the data presented in Table
2, the authors have inferred that the generalists can exploit a greater number
of microhabitats (referred as habitats) compared to specialists found only at
selected sites without clear mentioning about which species were generalists or
specialists. If they have considered that exclusively found species in
particular microhabitats (referred as habitats in the paper) like ‘flowerbeds’
and ‘grass’ as specialists, then it is their misinterpretation of data from
ecological point of view as ‘grass’ was present in all and ‘flowerbeds’ in 50%
of urban landscapes (Table 3) in which they have laid transects for sampling.
Also, the authors in third paragraph, Results section of the paper have
mentioned that flowerbeds alone carry 15% of the total microhabitat (referred
as habitats) share (Table 2), followed by grasses with 10%, while 2.5% was
observed overlapping among various microhabitats. What is the actual %
overlapping among various microhabitats (referred as habitats)? In the
following lines, the authors have further mentioned Melanitis
leda (rice crop pest) is the single candidate for
the artificial light source, having 2.5% of the independent share, which
accidentally got noticed during another type of field study at dusk. How they
calculated % independent share of this species and what was another type of field
study?
The authors have not included the
microhabitat (referred as habitats) preference of butterflies discussed in the
original study (Section 4.2.2.1., 5.2.2.1., Paul 2019) in the paper (Paul &
Sultana 2021). In the thesis it is clearly mentioned that 31% sightings was for
flowerbeds followed by hedges/crops/bushes (29%) and grasses (13%) that
reflects microhabitat preference in terms of number of sightings rather than
number of species. Further, the authors in second paragraph, Discussion section
of the paper have mentioned that Northern ridge being a city forest also share
the similar kind of environment as of Aravalli Biodiversity Park but due to
human encroachment and trespassing, flowerbeds were missing (Paul & Sultana
2021). Such statements are confusing as a particular microhabitat (referred as
habitat) may be missed out in a randomly selected transect in a particular
urban landscape, but it does not mean it is absent in that entire landscape. In
the same paragraph they have also mentioned two important statements related to
COVID-19. First, with the outbreak of COVID-19, as the sky and air are getting
unadulterated by the automobile pollutants, there are chances for the more
specialist species to cope with the changing environment. Second, with further
division of COVID-19 hotspot zones into red, orange, and green zones the
chances of reviving city butterfly increases manifold. If the statements are a
mere speculation by the authors or there is any scientific base on which
authors have stated this?.
The above mentioned comments on
the paper (Paul & Sultana 2021) clearly indicates academic misconduct by
the authors in the form of data manipulation and fabrication. Also, unethical
publication destroying academic integrity. The first author of the paper has
carried out Ph.D. work under our supervision using our lab facilities and
funding by our University, for which we had spent valuable time of our life for
the entire period of her Ph.D. research work starting from conceptualization of
work, research design, arranging necessary outside facilities including
official permission from IARI to help in the research work, data analysis,
interpretation of result, evaluating every six monthly progress report,
assistance in drafting, writing, proof-reading, editing, and finalization of
the thesis. Though the student has acknowledged the contribution of the guides
in the Acknowledgement section of the thesis (Paul 2019), but after award of
the degree she has published papers (Paul & Sultana 2020, 2021) from her
Ph.D. work not only without the names of her supervisors, but also without
acknowledging them in those papers for their contribution. Further, though the
hard copy of the thesis submitted by the student bears the copy right of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, the student has given
second authorship to a project scientist of another reputed University in the
said publications without permission from the University. As per our knowledge
no help was taken from the second author for the Ph.D. work, except for
official permission from the scientist-in-charge, Aravalli Biodiversity Park to
carry out sampling in that Park, where the second author works. We want to
know, in what capacity the second author was associated with the Ph.D. research
work of the first author? And how has the second author really conceptualized
the work, assisted in data analysis, and interpretation of result in the
publication as mentioned in author contribution of Paul & Sultana
(2021)?
According to guidance document
prescribed by UGC for good academic research practices (Patwardhan et al.
2020), while it is vital to maintain high research quality, it is also
important that research is conducted in a culture that supports honesty and
integrity to ensure the highest standards of ethical practice and behaviour.
Since, in the publication by Paul & Sultana (2021) our University name is
tagged, we are herewith just expecting honest reply from the authors on the
above mentioned comments.
References
Patwardhan, B., A. Desai, A.
Chourasia, S. Nag & R. Bhatnagar (2020). Guidance Document: Good Academic
Research Practices. University Grants Commission, New Delhi.
Paul, M. (2019). Studies on Biotic Interactions
of Lepidoptera in Urban Landscapes of National Capital Territory, Delhi. Ph.D.
Thesis. Submitted to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University. http://hdl.handle.net/10603/303687. Accessed on 15 September 2021.
Paul, M. & A. Sultana (2020). Studies on butterfly (Insecta: Butterfly) diversity in urban landscapes of Delhi,
India. Current Science 118(5):
819–827.
Paul, M. & A. Sultana (2021). Is habitat heterogeneity
effective for conservation of butterflies in urban landscapes of Delhi?. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 13(9):
19302–19309. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6412.13.9.19302-19309