Tallying the fallout of the A. Islam — GDRI — Monash saga (so far) and questions prompted by it …

The I4R has reproduced hundreds of studies over the past three years, and we’ve never seen anything of this scale, said Brodeur. Brendan Borrell, in his retractionwatch contribution.

Committing fraud is, right now, a viable career strategy that can propel you at the top of the academic world. Andrew Gelman, in his post mortem on the Gino case.

I continue to update the chronology that I started on the Islam — GDRI — Monash saga here.

It’s been eerily quiet again across social media since the Institute for Replication (I4R) posted the latest update (31 March 2025) of its spreadsheet. Everyone seems to be waiting for I4R to announce the next retraction. Alas, there is more to ponder …

More than a couple of months in since Abu Siddique announced on X that he was withdrawing his name from four well-placed publications (at Econ Journal, REStat, AEJ-Applied, AEA Papers & Proceedings) — most likely because he had seen the I4R reports on these papers, and realized that his career was on the line — , it is time to tally where we stand with retractions, (attempted) withdrawals of names from publications, withdrawals of manuscripts at journal in response to requests for replication packages, and either non-response to, or refusal of, requests for them.

It is also time to look at the bigger picture: Like, what happens to the positions, promotions, and funds that were earned under what now looks like questionable, and potentially fraudulent, conditions. What does it mean for example that the guy at the center of this tangled web of questionable and interrelated papers for which the data were procured from an entity that he founded, and one which was allegedly run by Islam family members, “has not received any personal or material benefit from GDRI since its inception in 2010,” as his employer for the last two decades, and frequent funder of his field excursions, now claims.

The saga recently attracted some attention by retraction watch (on April 10) and by The Australian (on 16 April), the latter piece unfortunately behind a paywall. I would not be surprised if more investigative write-ups are around the corner. Given the attention the causa Gino attracted, the present saga remains hugely under-reported.

The piece in The Australian provided some intriguing tidbits about the affair and Monash’s role in it. To wit,

The Australian understands Monash University has been investigating these ethical research concerns for some time. …

The Australian understands Professor Islam founded GDRI more than a decade ago to facilitate field research in Bangladesh, however Monash University said he “holds no official position with GDRI and has not received any personal or material benefit from GDRI since its inception in 2010”. …

A Monash University spokesperson said it had “entered into a number of contracts for various research projects with GDRI”.

“None of the contracts have been executed by Professor Islam and no breaches of procurement policy have been noted in the contracting of GDRI.”

While these “concerns” were first publicly reported by RetractionWatch last week, The Australian understands Monash University had begun investigating Professor Islam well before then. …

A Monash University spokesperson said in a statement: “We are aware of concerns relating to some of professor Asad Islam’s research conducted in Bangladesh. Monash University Office of Research Ethics and Integrity has been actively investigating them and this process is ongoing.”

These are intriguing statements because it has long been suggested on social media, and by concerned researchers that seem to be insiders of sorts, that Monash has known for years (“for some time”?) about these irregularities and what seems obvious conflicts of interest, if not research misconduct. (For the record, one Monash apparatchik, in a private message, took issue with my repeating the claim of an anonymous Concerned Researcher that had contacted me — three months before the first couple of I4R reports dropped — that Monash had not been responsive to their concerns for more than a year.) If Monash has contracted with GDRI, by their own acknowledgement, since 2010, how could they not have known about the CoI that some people now try to hide by taking off-line current and past GDRI websites?

Be that as it may, surely the claim that Islam “has not received any personal or material benefit from GDRI since its inception in 2010” makes one wonder what definition of personal or material benefit Monash uses. Does an academic career at Monash— a career that according to The Australian has made Islam into “a renowned development economist”, commanding millions of grant money — not count?

To recap and to get back to the purpose of this write-up.

On 1 April 2025, The Institute 4 Replication (I4R) dropped, without much ado, the 31 March 2025 update of their spreadsheet, three weeks after their preceding update of the papers they are investigating, or are trying to investigate.

It makes for fascinating reading, and prompts many questions.

Here is my attempt of a tally as of today. If I get something factually wrong, do not hesitate to let me know.

Papers that have been retracted.

So far only one paper — Islam’s solo-authored 2019 article “Parent-teacher meetings and student outcomes: Evidence from a developing country” that originally appeared in the European Economic Review, January 2019, has been formally retracted. The retraction came at the request of the Editorial Board (which before retraction, replicated the I4R report! Kudos!) The I4R report that led to the retraction of Islam’s solo-authored EER publication has been online since 3 April 2025. Accepted as is.

The EER Editorial Board/Elsevier did not mince words about the reasons for the retraction:

There are two reasons for this retraction. First, the article claimed to have done a randomised control trial. According to the replication file and confirmed by the author, this was not the case. Second, the procedures used to collect the data failed to adhere to the ethical standards of the journal.

In an ironic twist, the I4R replicators started their now published report with a quote from Islam’s contribution to the forthcoming Handbook of Experimental Development Economics.

“Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are experiments in which participants are randomly assigned to either intervention or control groups”. — Islam (2024, p. 1)”

That forthcoming contribution has now mysteriously disappeared from the Handbook homepage. As have past GDRI websites. Someone, and your bet is as good as mine (but there are some obvious candidates), even managed to remove the link to the GDRI website on the WayBackMachine. Someone clearly has good connections and/or deep pockets. Whoever did it, clearly has something to hide.

Also disappeared has a paper featuring some prominent names which was withdrawn from submission according to the I4R March 31 GDRI file, row 2. Reports I4R: “Authors withdrew submission. We do not reproduce working papers, but we did ask for a replication package from the authors on Feb 21 as this study is connected to other studies we are reproducing. We have not yet received a package.”

Do these disappearances count as a retraction? We are in uncharted territory here because retractions require something to have been formally published. An acceptance, for example, is not enough. On to that next.

Papers that were R&R, and even acceptance, now withdrawn.

Two papers that had been accepted have since been “withdrawn”. The first such withdrawal took place at Economic Development and Cultural Change. That journal’s editor-in-chief withdrew the paper after I4R asked for the replication package and two of the authors asked for the removal of their names. The second such withdrawal took place at Journal of the European Economic Association after the lead author (Islam) contacted the journal on February 17th to formally withdraw the paper.

Four papers that were R&R have also been “withdrawn” (lines 5 through 8 or the I4R spreadsheet dated 31 March 2025). These withdrawals pertain to manuscripts under review at Journal of Health Economics, Journal of Public Economics, Journal of Political Economy — Micro, and Journal of Banking and Finance. In the case of the JPEM the I4R spreadsheet notes: “Emailed one of the co-editor at JPEM for a replication package on March 7. They noted that the paper is being rejected.”

There are two other papers currently under R&R (one at Quarterly Journal of Economics, the other at Journal of Development Economics); these papers originally had Islam as co-author but he has been dropped from the list of co-authors. According to the spreadsheet dated 31 March 2025, I4R will replicate the QJE submission if it gets accepted for publication (and QJE presumably will not publish the manuscript if I4R finds it does not pass muster).

Yet another R&R (this one a Reject & Resubmit) has Islam’s name still on it and is currently being processed by The Journal of Human Resources. I4R has asked for the replication package but will investigate it only when the paper gets accepted (and if they get the replication package).

Since retraction count as such only when a paper has been officially published, we are now in the odd situation of half a dozen papers having been “withdrawn” but not retracted.

Papers authors have tried to withdraw their names on including one that’s now orphaned

On March 4, I4R reported that it had sent a report to the original authors for the PLOS One article ““Food insecurity and mental health of women during COVID-19: Evidence from a developing country”. All authors have now emailed PLOS One to withdraw their names. https://osf.io/7tzek/ Someone on social media called it the “orphaned” paper. A brilliant moniker.

In the retractionwatch write-up mentioned earlier, we learn:

Asked about the status of the paper, David Knutson, head of communications for PLOS, said that he was unable to comment on it because it was an “ongoing case,” but he noted that “withdrawal of authorship is not considered by PLOS or by COPE to be a suitable means of responding to concerns about the integrity, validity, or reproducibility of published results.”

So, what are suitable means? Retraction after all? Wouldn’t it be time for PLoS One to issue one? How long are cases allowed to be ongoing?

Withdrawing one’s name with excuses seems to have become one of the favorite strategies of some actors caught up in this whole sorry saga. As mentioned, Abu Siddique initiated this strategy when on 18 February he announced on X that he was withdrawing his name from four well-placed publications (at Econ Journal, REStat, AEJ-Applied, AEA Papers & Proceedings). Several of his co-authors on these papers have since followed suit: for example, Vlassopoulos and Rahman at REStat and at AEJ-Applied.

Apparently, withdrawal of authorship is now considered a suitable means of responding to concerns about the integrity, validity, or reproducibility of published results. Go figure.

(Published) papers for which I4R has submitted reports either to authors or journals are waiting for action (responses, and/or retraction, or more “withdrawals”)

I4R has provided reports on more than half a dozen papers that were published by (lines 11, 15 through 19, and 23 in their 31 March spreadsheet):

• Economics of Education Review
• The Economic Journal (to which the authors responded, to which 4IR responded, and then the authors once more; see here)
• American Economic Journal: Applied Economics​ (recall that this is one of the publications for which Siddique and others tried to withdraw their names)
• The Economic Journal (once more)
• Journal of Political Economy - Microeconomics (In the case of the JPEM the 31 March 2025 spreadsheet notes: “Emailed one of the co-editor at JPEM for a replication package on March 7. They noted that the paper is being rejected.”)
• Review of Economics and Statistics (recall that this is one of the publications for which Siddique and others tried to withdraw their names; 3 authors provided subsequently a response. The I4R report, the authors’ response and statements are here: https://osf.io/c3k6f/files/osfstorage. In a mic-drop moment, the I4R replicators wrote: “We decided not to reply to the response.”)
• Oxford Economic Papers

Let’s just say I wish all editorial boards were as efficient, and bent on cleaning up the public record, as that of the European Economic Review.

Papers for which authors have failed (so far) to provide replication packages

In their March 25 update, the I4R folks reported:

We have requested several replication packages over the past months. Unfortunately, we have not yet managed to get a single new replication package as of today (excluding updated packages for one article at the request of editors)

This then seems yet another strategy — to not provide replication packages.

Among the affected papers are a couple of papers where the respondents are sex workers (here and here). Having read those papers, I wonder if, and how exactly, these research projects got Monash IRB approval.

Working papers, in the wait.

There are several other working papers that have not been submitted (yet) and are hence in limbo since I4R does not reproduce working papers, as per their basic policy.

Important questions at this point:

• Is Gelman’s claim true? The Australian’s lawyer clearly vetted the piece.

The Australian is not suggesting Professor Islam has acted inappropriately, only that his research is being investigated by Monash University. The Australian reached out to Professor Islam for comment but did not receive a response.

Academic fraud is a concept currently in flux. That said, Monash’s own definition of it and the definition of research misconduct in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research suggest that some principles of responsible research have been violated, especially P1, P3, P5, and P7.

Surely a variant of Gelman’s provocative claim — Using questionable research practices is, right now, a viable career strategy that can propel you at the top of the academic world — seems legit. Because surely presenting something as a rct when you darn well knew it wasn’t, is a questionable research practice, no?

Other questions I have:

• What are the responses of the journals that were sent the I4R reports (and possibly the responses). When will concerns trigger action?
• What happens to manuscripts that disappeared without a trace?
• What happens to manuscripts that were withdrawn, often in response to requests for replication packages and for that matter I4R reports?
• What happens to manuscripts where authors tried to withdraw their names? How much more evidence does it take to indicate that something is fishy with those papers?
• What happens to publications where replication packages are not provided?
• What happens to the PhDs of people like Aslad Islam (2009, Monash) and Abu Siddique (2019, Southampton)?
• Is Aslad Islam still entitled to accept PhD students, as the official Monash page seems to suggest?
• What exactly constitutes personal and professional benefits? Are academic careers not included?
• What happens to the moneys that international and national funders threw at Monash under what now seems dubious circumstances? How much money did Monash spent on this questionable research?
• What will Monash, and those funders, do to investigate the alleged CoI of Islam having founded GDRI and family members of his having been involved in running it?

This may be a good time to recall a Facey/LinkedIn post from a month ago: