AHA, ESMO Probe 12 Mahato Abstracts Over Authorship Bartering Claims
Updated
Updated · Retraction Watch · Jul 21
AHA, ESMO Probe 12 Mahato Abstracts Over Authorship Bartering Claims
1 articles · Updated · Retraction Watch · Jul 21
Summary
AHA and ESMO said they are reviewing 12 accepted abstracts coauthored by Nepal medical student Raghabendra Kumar Mahato after questions about how his research network assigns authorship.
Nearly 1,000 members in Mahato’s WhatsApp-based Global Clinical Research Consortium were used to churn out abstracts and papers, with messages offering authorship to people willing to present work in person or cover travel and publication costs.
Mahato, a second-year student with nearly 120 publications and more than 70 accepted conference abstracts, denied trading authorship solely for presentations and said collaborators were expected to make meaningful scholarly contributions.
Screenshots and a former member’s account also linked the network to Shreya Singh Beniwal, a known paper-mill figure, while describing AI-like outlines, template-driven writing and rapid CDC database manuscripts completed in days.
The case highlights growing pressure on conference and journal review systems from fast-churn medical publishing networks that help students and junior doctors pad CVs rather than pursue rigorous research questions.
Is trading authorship for conference trips the new dark economy of academic medicine?
A student's global paper mill is exposed. Who pays the price for academic fraud?
As AI fuels 'fast science,' how can academia escape the 'publish or perish' trap?
Fast-Churn Science and Authorship Bartering: The Raghabendra Kumar Mahato Case and the Global Paper Mill Crisis in Medical Research
Overview
The report highlights a major crisis in scientific publishing, focusing on Raghabendra Kumar Mahato and the Global Clinical Research Consortium he leads. Allegations surfaced that this network, with nearly 1,000 members, rapidly produces large volumes of research and treats authorship as a tradable commodity. These revelations, brought to light by Retraction Watch, prompted immediate responses from major medical societies and exposed vulnerabilities in peer review. The situation underscores how fast-churn science and questionable authorship practices can threaten research integrity, emphasizing the urgent need for stronger safeguards and ethical standards in the scientific community.