DUTA Letter to MHRD, 8.10.2014

The Hon’ble Union Minister,
MHRD,
Govt of India

Dear Madam,

1. Thomson Reuters is a prestigious company and accounts on ResearcherID.com allow researchers to create and maintain their personalized data on the site. The account is created and maintained by the researcher himself/herself and can only be changed by the researcher. For registration with ResearcherID, the authentic email ID is checked by the website by sending an invitation mail which needs to be confirmed by a return mail. One of its specific objectives is to solve author identity issues.

   The ResearcherID site explains its objectives as follows:

   ResearcherID provides a solution to the author ambiguity problem within the scholarly research community. Each member is assigned a unique identifier to enable researchers to manage their publication lists, track their times cited counts and h-index, identify potential collaborators and avoid author misidentification. (Annexure 3) (http://www.researcherid.com)

2. Professor Dinesh Singh’s account was created on 21 May 2012, under the unique ResearcherID number D-8260-2012. The email used to create the account was [email protected]. This is the official email ID provided by Delhi University (see Faculty Members page of Department of Mathematics on Delhi University website, Annexure 4). The Computer Centre of the University, is responsible for maintaining such official email IDs provided to faculty members.
3. On an RTI enquiry, the University maintained that it had filed a complaint against the creation of a “fake id”. It further claimed that “Thomson Reuters created a Research ID profile page affiliated with Prof Dinesh Singh and mistakenly attributed certain publications to him” (emphasis added). However, this claim of the University that the mysterious appearance of five publications authored by someone else on Prof Dinesh Singh’s page was a  “mistake” committed by Thomson Reuters is not borne out by any documentary evidence supplied by the University. In fact, in response to an RTI query, the University has clearly stated that “No letter was received in the Proctor’s office from the Thomson Reuters in this regard.” (See reply to RTI Annexure 5). Moreover, the University has not responded to a consequent RTI seeking copies of the complaint and the reply from Thomson Reuters. 
4. On the other hand, according to a report in a leading daily (Times of India, 10.12.2012, Annexure 6), the ResearcherID website provides 

   “a unique identifier which allows researchers to manage their publication lists. The website is also designed to avoid author misidentification. All the listings and management of the accounts are done by the individual and the organization or the website is not responsible for uploading and listing of publications. Prashant Tomar, manager, Thomson Reuters, said, “It is the responsibility of the account holders to manage their accounts and there is no automated mechanism of the website itself searching for research papers of the registered scholars and uploading them.” Asked about the controversial account, Jennifer Breen, who deals with public relations for the sciences division of Thomson Reuters, said: “We provide a platform and support the scholarly community’s workflow needs on scientific research and discovery. Our role is not to police the community, but we will of course take action to remove the titles from the member’s list if it comes to our attention that members have been proven to have fraudulently claimed authorship of papers they have no rights to in the first place.” 

5. Subsequent to these shocking revelations in the public domain, the entire profile page of Prof Dinesh Singh was removed from the ResearcherID website.

With regards,